(1) SPEAKING OF FREE SCROLLS. R. Graeme Cameron will start a “SciFi Fiction Magazine” for Canadian writers if his GoFundMe appeal generates $1,500. Issues will be a free read.
When I was a teenager I decided I wanted to be a Science Fiction Writer. Fifty years later I’m a curmudgeonly pensioner who never sold a darn thing, not one novel, not one story. Del Rey books rejected one of my novels with the comment “We don’t like your main character and we don’t think anyone else will either.”
As a life-long beginning writer I know your pain. Always dreaming of that first sale. That’s why I’m starting up POLAR BOREAL, a Canadian SF&F fiction magazine actively encouraging beginning Canadian writers to submit short stories (3,000 words or less) and/or poems. The magazine will be free to anyone who wants to download it, yet all contributors will be paid on acceptance (if I can get the money) at one cent a word for short stories and $10 per poem.
(2) THE CLASSICS. Alexander Dane makes it sound like every day is Black Friday…
(3) NOT EGGSACTLY SURE. TV Guide promises “The 15 Coolest Easter Eggs from Star Wars: The Force Awakens”. SPOILER WARNING, naturally, but my question is – how many of these are really Easter Eggs as opposed to simple casting reveals? Do I not understand what an Easter Egg is? Straighten me out here….
(4) WILD GUESS. Umm, maybe look at the MidAmeriCon II committee list and use the contact information?
Does anyone know how I can get in touch with a 2016 #Hugoawards ceremony administrator?
— Wesley Chu (@wes_chu) January 15, 2016
(5) HOW AUTHORS DON’T GET PAID. Philip Pullman has resigned as Patron of the Oxford Literary Festival the organization has announced. The reason is very simple.
Our President, Philip Pullman, has resigned as a Patron of Oxford Literary Festival because they do not pay authors.
He explained his decision:
My position as President of the Society of Authors, which has been campaigning for fair payment for speakers at literary festivals, sat rather awkwardly with my position as Patron of the Oxford Literary Festival, because (despite urging from me and others over the years) it does not pay speakers. So I thought it was time I resigned as a Patron of the OLF.
The principle is very simple: a festival pays the people who supply the marquees, it pays the printers who print the brochure, it pays the rent for the lecture-halls and other places, it pays the people who run the administration and the publicity, it pays for the electricity it uses, it pays for the drinks and dinners it lays on: why is it that the authors, the very people at the centre of the whole thing, the only reason customers come along and buy their tickets in the first place, are the only ones who are expected to work for nothing?
(6) I SEE BY YOUR OUTFIT. Y-3 creates spacesuits for Virgin Galactic pilots on world’s first commercial space flights
(7) BUGS, MISTER RICO! The newly-christened “Las Vegas of ants” is visible on Google Earth.
Not far from the Grand Canyon, near a landmark called Vulcan’s Throne, the ground is dotted with strange, barren circles, visible from orbit.
Evidence of an alien encounter? Nope. The likely culprit is actually ants — a lot of them. So many that the scientists who discovered them are referring to the area as “the Las Vegas of ants.”
Physicist Amelia Carolina Sparavigna, a specialist in image processing and satellite imagery analysis at the Polytechnic University of Turin in Italy, noticed the bizarre polka- dot features while studying the dimensions of the Grand Canyon rim in Google Earth.
(8) VOX DAY COLLECTIBLES. Vox Day devoted a post to Camestros Felapton’s “Hugo”/Lego “Sad Larry” trading card.
While they, apparently, are occupied with making Lego figures of us. It seems that is what they do when they are not obsessing over what they think we are thinking. Even in light of how poorly they anticipated me last time, it’s mildly amusing to see that they still don’t understand my perspective at all.
The Dread Ilk commenters, however, were more concerned that Vox get a “Hugo” trading card of his own, so Felapton reassured them in “Vox links to the Larry pic” —
Vox appeared in an earlier post and has a new figure in a couple of days – with a flaming sword no less!
So it looks like we won’t get to riff off Lucy’s “Was Beethoven ever on a bubblegum card?” after all.
(9) GRABTHAR’S HAMMER OF LOVING CORRECTION. Steve Davidson’s self-imposed moratorium on writing about Sad Puppies at Amazing Stories has ended in the only way it could. Here are a few salient paragraphs.
In moving forward, I believe it is important that the message sent last year be reinforced this year. We’ve already seen at least one author declaring that begging for votes is no longer a problem. If we do not want that mindset to take hold, we will continue to repudiate slate voting this year.
Fans who discover a loophole in the voting rules don’t seek personal advantage – they bring it to the attention of other fans and make proposals at the business meeting and generally use their new found knowledge for the benefit of the whole. (Or, if unhappy with the process, they go off and do their own thing, which is then rewarded or ignored based on the merit of the accomplishment, not a tally of internet one upsmanship points.) Hugo voting actions this year should send that message. Therefore –
I will be nominating and voting for the Hugo Awards this year in the same way I voted last year: I’ll read and watch and listen to everything I can on the final ballot, will vote my conscience and will make sure that any work that appears on a slate (a voting list with a political agenda behind it) will be below No Award and off the ballot.
(10) RATINGS TIME. Gregory N. Hullender of Rocket Stack Rank says:
We analyzed all the RSR data to come up with a list for Best Editor (short form) Hugo nominations.
We construct several different lists, using different assumptions, and urge fans to use our data to make their own lists, so I don’t think this amounts to a slate.
This should be fun reading for anyone who’s really into short fiction, since I don’t believe anyone has ever done this kind of analysis before.
If anyone feels to the contrary — there are any slate-like tendencies in play here — please share your analysis.
(11) WE ALL DREAM IN GOLD. Since we always try to cover Guillermo del Toro’s doings on File 770 whenever we can, John King Tarpinian was disgustipated (I think that’s the technical term) that I overlooked this golden opportunity in my post about the 2016 Oscar nominations.
Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, Guillermo del Toro, John Krasinski and Ang Lee will announce the 88th Academy Awards® nominations in all 24 Oscar® categories at a special two-part live news conference on Thursday…
(12) SHRUNKEN HEADS. Cass R. Sunstein at Bloomberg News breaks down “How Facebook Makes Us Dumber”.
Why does misinformation spread so quickly on the social media? Why doesn’t it get corrected? When the truth is so easy to find, why do people accept falsehoods?
A new study focusing on Facebook users provides strong evidence that the explanation is confirmation bias: people’s tendency to seek out information that confirms their beliefs, and to ignore contrary information.
I thought so. Or is it just confirmation bias at work if I agree that Facebook lowers my IQ?
(13) FOREVER DIFFERENT. Tobias Carroll checked with “28 Authors on the Books That Changed Their Lives”. The New York Magazine article has contributions from SF authors Elizabeth Hand, Ken Liu, Cathrynne M. Valente, Kelly Link, Jeff VanderMeer, and Jo Walton, among others.
Maria Dahvana Headley, author of Magonia and The Year of Yes “This question is both easy and difficult! I grew up a very rural and very gluttonous reader, in Idaho, about ten miles outside a town of 500 people. Essentially, I spent my reading childhood playing with other people’s imaginary friends, and I’ve grown into the kind of writer who does the same thing. So, in that regard, everything I’ve ever read has been life-changing. The first massive Rock My World book, though, was Toni Morrison’s Beloved, which I read when I was 17. Not only was I clueless about race in America at that point, coming from where I came from, I was also clueless about living female genius writers. I didn’t know there were any. Up to that point, I’d read almost entirely white men. KA-BAM. I got blasted out of the universe of dead white boys, and into something much more magnificent. Morrison’s way of flawlessly entwining her haunting with her history left me dazzled, sobbing, and bewildered. Morrison is obviously a genre-leaping master of style, and reading her not only made me aware of what was possible as a writer, it led me to all of the poets, songwriters, playwrights, and librettists who continue to influence my work today.”
(14) BOWIE AND SF. Jason Heller’s Pitchfork article “Anthems for the Moon: David Bowie’s Sci-Fi Explorations” is one more list of SF parallels and influences on Bowie’s work. Moorcock, Heinlein, Bradbury, Dick, Burgess, and others are mentioned.
In its celebration of androgyny, glam also lined up with Ursula K. Le Guin’s visionary 1969 novel The Left Hand of Darkness, which takes place on an alien planet where transitions between genders are as routine as any other biological process—a concept that certainly resonates with Bowie’s aesthetic. “Androgynous sexuality and extraterrestrial origin seemed to have provided two different points of identification for Bowie fans,” notes Philip Auslander in Performing Glam Rock: Gender and Theatricality in Popular Music. “Whereas some were taken with his womanliness, others were struck by his spaciness.”
(15) MARS MUSIC I. Matthew Johnson adds another number to that award-winning musical, The Martian.
(With apologies to David Bowie)
Hello, I feel I have to remind
You that you kind of left me behind
Is there life on Mars?
Four years alone could be a slog
I guess I ought to keep a log
Is there life on Mars?
On Mars a man dies by his wits
He even has to science his shit
Is there life on Mars?
The greatest scientist on the planet
I can plant it and grow it and can it
Is there life on Mars?
Disco hell is kind of groovy
Matt Damon plays me in the movie
Is there life on Mars?
Four years is a long time to be alone
There might be a new Game of Thrones when I’m done
Is there life on Mars?
(16) MARS MUSIC II. And Seth Gordon likewise swings and sways to a melody in his head…
As I walk through the valley with the sand so red
I take a look at my suit and realize that I’m not dead
’Cause I’ve been science-ing this shit for so long that
Even Houston thinks that my ass is gone…
[Thanks to Bret Grandrath, Rob Thornton, John King Tarpinian, Will R., and Nick Mamatas for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Hampus Eckerman.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@Dawn Incognito
I’m at nearly the same place in Europe in Autumn and having very similar issues. There’s much I like about it, and I’m going to finish it, but the structure is making feel like I’m getting the story through a fog. (Possibly that’s the point, with the throwbacks to Euro-espionage stories, but it’s not really working for me if so)
Tintinaus: Whenever you are challenged on your behaviour you rationalise it away.
This is not true. On numerous occasions, when challenged, I have walked my statements back and apologized — while Mr Hullender, at the very least, still owes Mary Robinette Kowal and myself each apologies for his egregious behavior toward us in previous threads.
Tintinaus: someone who is always courteous when here
You and I have vastly differing definitions of “courteous”.
Tintinaus: And don’t compare Mr Hullender to Brian Z. He has behaved nothing like Brian and the other Puppies.
On the contrary. Brian Z. has never tendered a genuine apology for any of his numerous inappropriate posts. Neither has Mr Hullender.
JJ:
I don’t think it is acceptable to compare Greg to Brian Z (sorry, Greg, for talking about you in third person). Greg has been active in a totally different way than Brian Z. Been part of the discussions, part of the brackets and so on. Also, the aggressiveness of Brian Z is lacking.
There have been a few times when he has left the discussion when he perhaps should have acknowledged that he was wrong. But it has been the same for me. And for you.
I’m very much not fond of starting to discuss and dissect regulars here. Brian Z is a special case and I think we all know why.
Just read the JCW conversion piece. Now I know why he doesn’t like me: He’s jealous because I have a better heart attack story than he does.
For a full accounting of that non-life changing event, you can read my write up here – http://www.efanzines.com/ChangeOfHeart/ChangeOfHeart-01.pdf (it starts on page 5).
I’m really tempted to take on his “confession” line by line (ex. you were in the hospital for a heart attack and had multiple by-passes, but you weren’t on any drugs? Which facility was that, pray tell? I’d like to be able to avoid it if possible.)
But I’ll resist that temptation. Not only would it be too easy, it would be too personal.
I’ll just say that I have a lot more, ummm, trust, in science, as that’s what led to the development of clot-busting drugs and stents to keep arteries open, and much less so in people, because they’re the ones with petty prejudices and the ability to wholeheartedly believe in things that can get other people killed, intentionally or not.
There’s a reason why science fiction is defined as stories about the influence and impact of science and technology ON people. If it were just about the science, it would proceed from point A to point B in a rigorous, undeviating and predictable fashion. It’s only when you introduce people, and their illogicalities, emotions (and often wilfull) stupidities that we get interesting stories.
Hampus, I totally respect your right to have that opinion, just as I am sure you totally respect my right to disagree and have a different opinion.
Passive aggression is one of my hot buttons, and one I am especially disinclined to tolerate when it is directed at me, or at people whom I hold in high esteem, by people who have repeatedly engaged in poor behavior.
Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about! It gives me the information I want, without any of the (implied) value judgements which a ranked list would give.
So, thanks again for that.
@Cat: IMHO, a slate that 5 people follow isn’t magically not-a-slate. It’s simply an unpopular one. 😉 I’m not saying that means the RSR post is a slate (though it feels unintentionally* slate-like to me), but popularity doesn’t make something a slate or not (nor IMHO does rationale; it’s complicated).
* I get the impression they like stats and, as many do, find “best editor” categories thorny – not that they’re trying to tell folks how to vote. But how much better is this than the Chaos Horizon “let’s distill a slate from SP4!” thing? I’m not sure. Again, “it’s complicated.”
Did anyone happen to screen capture the comment from JCW where he stated that an editor at TOR had informed him that there was a cabal?
I know I saw that yesterday, but can no longer find it in the comments (not sure, but it may have been edited into a milder form of the same thing).
I’m not implying anything, merely asking if anyone has a copy of the actual quote.
@Steve
Right here. For posterity, it says
I believe his editor was Hartwell, but someone else now has that enviable task, so it isn’t 100% clear who he is referring to.
“And I think we all know why”
Huh. “We.”
That’s what I prefer – a list of each reviewer’s favorites from the year. With multiple reviewers with different recs, it’s clearly not a slate. And it doesn’t take readers long to learn which reviewers they share taste with, or are most informative for them.
@Hampus Eckerman
Thanks, Hampus (and others).
I usually stop reading comments on the old scroll once the new one comes out. (Someone told me I should go back and have a look at this one.) Trying to read and review every story in 11 magazines plus an anthology per month takes a lot of time, so I don’t have a whole lot to spare. That’s also why I try not to engage with people who seem not to want to have a constructive discussion.
So thanks again for standing up for me. It’s much appreciated.
I don’t always agree with RSR’s reviews (I liked Han Song’s Security Check much more than they did, for example), but each time I’ve encountered Greg online he’s been helpful and thought-provoking. He is visibly, sincerely passionate about short fiction. The RSR reviews I’ve read have been consistently intelligent and interesting.
I don’t see how the blogpost is being a ‘slate’ – RSR isn’t visibly political and has no voting constituency who might feel obliged to follow their advice. I took the short-fiction editor blogpost in the manner in which I believe Greg intended it: as interesting statistics-based commentary that readers can choose to take or leave.
I’m sorry for having a go, but – when I’ve had positive interactions with people online – I tend to want to stand up for them.
@steve davidson: Your story is great. And by great I mean: horrible. Horribly great.
@Steve Davidson
Loved your heart attack story (not the reason why) and much sympathy. It brought flashbacks to my time in hospital and rehab after being hit by a truck. One of the things this country needs to work on regarding health care is listening to patients. May you live to a ripe old age you curmudgeon you.
(10) RATINGS TIME.
The post goes into so many stats, I’m not sure reordering the final list would matter, but yeah, that is an unfortunate part of the post. It has interesting info and links, though, and I like that “Other Accomplishments” section.
@Vivienne Raper: Slates don’t have to be political (visibly or secretly) or aimed at a core constituency. These are optional, not core requirements, IMHO anyway. But it’s complicated. I’m not sure “is this a slate” is really a yes/no question, at least for me.
(10) RATINGS TIME. It’s very interesting to read the discussion here about it – sorry to be late to the party, as always. Hopefully I can catch up on File770 over the weekend! 😉
I have some issues with the post, mostly mentioned by others here. It’s definitely presenting subjective information in a stat-like form as if it were an objective path to Best Editor: Short Form, which I don’t believe it is.
My biggest issue with the post is what’s behind it, demonstrated by Greg’s latest comment there. He doesn’t believe most people are really qualified to vote in this category without relying on someone else’s opinion. Yuck, telling folks to rely on someone else’s opinions is IMHO a core attribute of a slate! I don’t believe he set out to make a slate, but IMHO he came up with something slate-like.
Anyway, IMHO that thinking misses the point of a popular award and a nomination phase. As discussed recently, folks don’t have to read a ton, or a huge variety. We distill a short list from the electorate’s opinions.
We don’t need a reviewer pre-nomination phase – what this boils down to – any more than we need SP4 as a pre-nomination phase. The point of the Hugos is people voting their own conscience, not someone else’s.
(Also, why doesn’t his logic apply to both editor categories and all work categories? Answer: It doesn’t apply even to this category, at least IMHO.)
But again, I’m not sure “slate?” is really yes/no; it’s complicated. Overall, I don’t feel it’s a full-blown slate, but it is unfortunately slate-like. And it seems a very tiny step to “…and here’s what short fiction you should vote for” (surely an obvious next step, if we can’t rely on our own opinions of short fiction and here’s all this nice data about what The Exerpts think). Hopefully they won’t take that step and present “stats” for a top short fiction list.
P.S. Sorry, I should’ve quoted the relevant part of Greg’s comment at RSR that bothered me:
If I’m overinterpreting this, @Greg-who-probably-won’t-see-this, my apologies. It seems pretty clear to me, though.
JJ on January 16, 2016 at 1:53 am said:
“Tintinaus: And don’t compare Mr Hullender to Brian Z. He has behaved nothing like Brian and the other Puppies.
On the contrary. Brian Z. has never tendered a genuine apology for any of his numerous inappropriate posts. Neither has Mr Hullender.”
Oh. FGNS. Brian Z has just been argumentative about books. I don’t see what’s inappropriate about that. Or why, exactly, he has to apologise. He’s only been disagreeing with you.
Vivienne, as I remember, Brian Z’s earlier comments here were mostly fairly vociferous arguments about EPH, not books. He’s been around quite a while–longer than you have been posting at File 770, I believe. Among other things, he offered some wonderful filks–but his arguments with various filers tended to get acrimonious, and were not necessarily about books.
(Not trying to get into this argument. Just pointing out that you might not have all the background to this particular reference.)
Oh, there’s more to it than that.
(10) Best editor short form. Whatever. It doesn’t bother me a smidge. In fact, in this the last year before EPH, it might be helpful.
(9) Steve seems to make a distinction on slates when he says: “I’ll read and watch and listen to everything I can on the final ballot, will vote my conscience and will make sure that any work that appears on a slate (a voting list with a political agenda behind it) will be below No Award and off the ballot.”
That is a key. This marketing ploy used by puppy writers is to sell books to wingnuts. If one made a slate by modeling Goodreads Choice Award votes and Amazon rankings, I am not sure why anyone would care.
But I think his strategy is correct on intent by wrong in specifics. He should just approach the ballot as it makes sense. If the pups put something on their slate that one reasonably expects would have been nominated anyway, I would treat it as if it had not been slated at all. If it is the traditional puppy pup, then rank it below no award. It is not that hard to see the difference.
The pups are going to try to blur the lines this year. Last year we had the Deirdre Saoirse Moen’s “Puppy-Free Hugo Award Voter’s Guide”. This year is should be the “Puppy-poof Free Hugo Award Voter’s Guide”.
BTW – I don’t understand why one would want to read puppy-poop just to be able to say they did. Especially as this is a transition year before EPH goes into effect.
This. Exactly right.
On this in general. Disagreements and arguments are to be expected in the comments. Especially about books.
What I find tedious are discussions between commenters where points are misrepresented or unacknowledged.
Often after a pattern of such encounters readers will simply stop responding because they feel they are wasting their time. Thus the *plonk* of a kill-file to stop further interactions.
Posters that do drive by postings that are incorrect or deliberating trolling without checking to see if people are responding to them or posters who will twist and misrepresent others views without acknowledging correction. Abusive posters are their own category of unpleasantness.
Not unexpectedly this can lead to trolling by the original poster who feels ignored in order to get a response. It can be pretty toxic after a while.
As background, I think the interactions with Brian Z went down this path quite a ways during the Hugo Discussions which is why he would be called out as an example of a poster who had behaved in a negative manner by someone who was active in the comments at the time.
I prefer not to dwell on the past and I do appreciate the positive contributions Brian Z has made with postings about Chinese science fiction recently. New year, new beginnings and all that.
xenu said
I personally would not want to see any kind of guide in reaction to the nomination results this year. People should vote as they see fit based on their personal reaction to the works and their judgement of what is Hugo worthy.
@ Shambles…
So there are two things…
1. The nomination process.
2. The final voting process.
Did you have a problem with last year’s puppy free guide? If so, this may be one of those agree to disagree areas. And I am good with that.
@zenu (sorry for misspelling earlier)
1. Nomination process I view as very individualistic which I think you probably agree.
2. Voting process, I disagree with the need for a guide that traces the provenance of the nominations unless obvious slating occurs.
I fully expect that somethings on puppy ‘lists’ will be things I would vote for anyway – for example Guardians of the Galaxy last year.
Don’t be sorry for the misspelling. I am the one that screwed up the spelling.
Last year I found the “puppy-free guide” helpful. It let me easily see in one place which nominations were made by which party leadership and let me quickly do my initial voting as I’m very against slating. Always have been and so far nothing I’ve seen has convinced me to change my opinion.
@Kendall
Thanks for quoting. The above is part of what really bugged me and made RSR ranked list feel slate like to me.
Example… Announcing the Goodreads Choice Award Slate for the Hugo Nomination of Best Novel. Rank is based on total votes received in the SF or Fantasy Category. Note – place 1 in the Fantasy category is not a novel and is not included:
Rank- Title – Author- Votes Received – GR Category – Place
1 – Golden Son – Pierce Brown – 32K – Sci-Fi – 1st
2 – Darker Shade Magic – V.E. Schwab – 31K – Fantasy – 2nd
3 – Shadows of Self – Brandon Sanderson – 18K – Fantasy – 3rd
4 – Magic Shifts – Ilona Andrews – 17K – Fantasy – 4th
5 – Seveneves – Neil Stephensen – 16K – Sci-Fi – 2nd
Is this a slate? If so, doesn’t bother me. Neither does the RSR “slate”. And I do think it is nice to have commentary on a category that is more obscure particularly when it is the last year were real slating by a group organized for political purposes could have an impact.
Greg Hullender: That’s also why I try not to engage with people who seem not to want to have a constructive discussion.
This is a hugely ironic statement, coming from someone who accused me of dishonesty and then refused to either justify their statement or apologize for it; and who made a thinly-veiled post insulting my intelligence.
Those things certainly fall under my definition of “not seeming to want to have a constructive discussion”.
I think a comment of mine was lost. Different types of lists (I once did this for a pup leader or two):
1. Eligibility list: this stuff was published in X year – it might be done by an individual or these lists can be found in a number of places – sometimes it asks for people to add additional eligible work – I personally find these helpful as its hard to keep track of everything that’s published in a year and retailers & Goodreads are not always correct
2. Recommendation list: I read these things and found them cool you might want to read them also – NOT ranked and usually has a blurb about each item or links to reviews done in past – sometimes it asks for people to add their own recs in the comments – I also find these helpful as I’m wading through thousands of books and shorter material to read – no one can read everything published in a year
3. Award lists: these may include what was nominated as well as what won – again I find them helpful in narrowing done what to focus on
4. Slates: ranked list in ranked order of 1+ works/people even if it’s only in one category whether it calls itself a slate or not if there is an overt or implied vote for this work or these works/people
Tasha Turner: 4. Slates: ranked list in ranked order of 1+ works/people even if it’s only in one category whether it calls itself a slate or not if there is an overt or implied vote for this work or these works/people
I don’t think the lack of “an overt or implied ‘vote for this work or these works/people’ ” prevents something from being a slate.
I think if there is the implied or stated “I/we are an authoritative source” to go with a ranked list, that makes it a slate. And RSR has repeatedly represented itself as an authoritative source, going so far as to say
In other words, “you’re not qualified to judge this, but since we’ve read the works and collated reviews from ourselves and our sources which were carefully-selected according to our preferences, we are qualified to judge this, and you should take our word for it”.
@JJ
I’m not sure what your disagreeing about. Could you give an example of a ranked list which you(‘d) consider a slate which was neither “explicit or implied”?
I agree that RSR has an implied “vote this way” due to their saying most fans aren’t qualified to vote for short best editor & they presented a ranked list.
I didn’t feel the ranked list of nebula nominees was a slate but I was concerned it appeared as one and might be used as one which is why I suggested/agreed a number of ways to sort the list (alpha author, alpha title, random each time someone landed on the page).
I usually stop reading comments on the old scroll once the new one comes out.
Willful ignorance is a (debatably-valid) position, but you lose some points when it comes to later discussion. [For me, “I can’t keep up with the discussion” is more valid than “I stop reading thread X once thread Y is posted”. YMMV.]
The problem that I’ve had since it was introduced, and that I continue to have, is that I think it’s entirely inappropriate to have any kind of “ranking” before Hugo nominations. I actively want people to say “I read X, Y, and Z and think they’re amazing”. I want people to say “I think [insert title of book/story/novella]” is amazing.
I DO NOT WANT any pre-ranking of stories or books or what have you.
“4. Slates: ranked list in ranked order of 1+ works/people even if it’s only in one category whether it calls itself a slate or not if there is an overt or implied vote for this work or these works/people.”
So I ranked the example list based on total votes. That makes it a slate. If I had not ranked it based on total votes it would not be a slate. I don’t think it makes any difference. It isn’t going to upset the apple cart. It will make zero difference because there is no organizing political principal behind it. It’s just data.
That’s why I use the term “freeping”. When one freeps a vote one is trying to score a political victory greater than ones numbers. That’s what pups do.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=freeping
If you read the pups sites it is all about politics and culture war. And it isn’t much about great SFF work.
I find the RSR “slate” useful and not freeping. I don’t find it to be an anti-puppy slate. If it was an anti-puppy slate, I would still be OK with that in what I consider a transition year. I find the RSR link to the long listing of editors not useful.
Next year no one is going to care if one calls it a slate or not.
@Lexica, I think we are talking about the “what have you”. This is the editor award. How much nominating traffic does it get?
@Zenu
I’m sorry but I just don’t see how pulling the Goodreads data is creating a slate. Even using my definition. It’s still an Awards List. I specifically have Award lists as a different category.
But I ranked the list. I said this is the ranked list based on votes of these two combined categories. I agree it is really just data but I was applying your definition. That’s how I look at the RSR list. As modeling and data. Call it a slate if you want. But it isn’t freeping.
Moreover, “Editor Short Form” is an area where one doesn’t read an original work and then have an opinion. This is an area about how a job is being done. I think data and modeling is perfect for that kind of an award. People can tweak the modeling as they see fit.
I looked at the wiki google docs sheet that is just listing things for each category. For best novel I can see the spreadsheet goes to line 159. For editor short form it goes to line 8. There is not a lot of data out there right now so the RFR data and discussion about how to review it is useful to me.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YWXIY1JjcjBRJTDzWB5gh3qAGY3EixF4ZxLkEcjiFR0/edit#gid=0
zenu: It will make zero difference because there is no organizing political principal behind it. It’s just data.
I disagree. Firstly, the RSR list hasn’t been presented as “just data”. It’s been presented as “authoritative” data — and the fact that the source of that data is heavily skewed by using reviewers subjectively chosen by the same people whose own reviews are also input to that data is pretty much hand-waved away.
I also don’t think a “political principle” is required for a ranked list to be a slate. I think that amount of influence is a significant factor, too.
For instance, I don’t have a problem with GRRM throwing out a “I really enjoyed this book this year”. But if GRRM puts out a ranked list of 5 novels, and says “here’s who I’m nominating”, then given the massive following of fans he has, and the tendency of some people to follow their idols like sheep, it’s probably crossed over to a slate, despite it not having a political agenda.
I think that high-profile celebrities, and other people with a huge amount of influence, need to be mindful of the fact that they may exert undue influence on the process. I think that Scalzi is mindful of this, and that’s why he creates posts allowing authors and fans to publicize works without ranking them himself. He also allows numerous authors to promote their own books all year long through “The Big Idea”, as does Chuck Wendig with his “5 Things I Learned While Writing [book]” guest posts — which avoids even remotely the appearance of “I’m going to nominate these books (and you should, too)”.
Given that a significant percentage of the File770 audience is comprised of Worldcon members, and that Mike has been kind enough to link to RSR in 10 of his main posts here in the last 4 months, and that RSR has promoted themselves with more than 60 links back to their website from comments on File770 in the last 15 weeks (that’s based on a cursory search, the actual number may be much higher) — I think that RSR needs to recognize that they are in a position of wielding undue influence on the process, and avoid any resemblance to slates in the things that they post.
zenu: This is the editor award. How much nominating traffic does it get?
Which is exactly why RSR’s ranked list may wield unfair influence.
Which is exactly why it may prevent last years debacle. This is an area that requires information beyond personal experience of a few nominators which really can get skewed by a real slate trying to freep the award.
And the reality is… it isn’t a slate. It is a model with instructions on tweaking.
Zenu: Which is exactly why it may prevent last years debacle.
The correct response to Puppy slating is not to create slates in return.
No – the correct response is to plug the weakness in the nominating process. The fans have pretty well done that but this is a transition year. So changing topics…
I am good with an anti puppy slate this transition year; I just don’t know how one could do it. If you can figure it out, get back to me.
This isn’t that.
Zenu: I am good with an anti puppy slate this transition year
I am not “good” with that. I’ll stay on the high road, thanks.
Vivienne Raper:
If there is something that Brian Z seems uninterested in, it is discussion of books. I would say it has amounted to less than a tenth of 1% of his output. While his thoughts on EPH has been repeated in ad nauseam. Not giving us one chance to avoid it by moving it to post after post after post, forcing it down our throats.
And this is why a lot of the regulars here downloaded stylish just to avoid him by blanketing out his comments.
This discussion is convincing me that we need to exercise greater discernment than to treat every ranked list as a slate.
We do need to take into account whether a political appeal is being made, for which the list has been designed as a tool, because experience shows many more people will respond to a political appeal than a literary appeal. The makers of the Sad and Rabid Puppy slates are very vocal about the political and cultural goals they feel justify imposing a slate on the Hugo Awards.
We should also have in mind some kind of risk assessment. It tries everyone’s patience to read a bunch of comments micromanaging the other people’s recommendation lists.
I think the influence of popular authors is overrated — not nonexistent, but nothing you’d need to change the Hugo rules for.
When Larry Correia started Sad Puppies as a brand to get his novels nominated for the Hugo — he failed the first two years, although he did get some people nominated in other categories. He succeeded in 2014 and 2015 (as part of Sad/Rabid Puppy slates, but he declined the nomination).
And JJ, you overrate George R.R. Martin quite a bit. Yes, he is just about the most famous sf/fantasy writer alive. That hasn’t translated into much clout with Hugo voters. He plugged 12 fanzines and fanwriters in 2012 and none of them made the final ballot. In 2013 he named three fan writers he considered deserving, his only formal endorsements, and they didn’t make it. The 8 blogs he complimented in the same post didn’t make the 2013 shortlist either, although one of them, A Dribble of Ink, won Best Fanzine in 2014, a year he made no recommendations in the fan categories. And for Worldcon site selection he endorsed the first Helsinki bid, which lost to Spokane. In 2015, he made a number of recommendations, some which would have made the ballot either way (John Picacio, Guardians of the Galaxy), but he gave a huge endorsment to nominate the novel Station Eleven and it didn’t get enough nominating votes to appear in the voting stats report. I’m sure his endorsement of Laura Mixon for Best Fan Writer helped, but a lot of other people felt the same way about her report.
And you want to argue Greg Hullender exercises more influence than Correia or Martin just because he gets reported about here? That’s not realistic.
Mike: Well spoken!
Mike Glyer: you overrate George R.R. Martin quite a bit.
I don’t think so. I actually think that the crossover between GRRM fandom and Worldcon members is not huge. GRRM will have millions of avid, dedicated fans who are not interested in Worldcon or the Hugos. A lot of Worldcon members, like me, will think that GRRM is enormously talented but not the be-all and end-all of SFF, and will not necessarily think his preferences are something they agree with. This is still not to say that I think he should not be mindful of his influence.
Mike Glyer: you want to argue Greg Hullender exercises more influence than Correia or Martin just because he gets reported about here? That’s not realistic.
I’m not arguing that. I’m saying that RSR is in a unique position to influence Worldcon voters. A huge percentage of your readership is Worldcon members — possibly more total members than any other site on the internet (and for very good reason; your coverage of things which will be of interest to that demographic is exemplary).
How many other non-Puppy review sites have you linked to 10 times in your main blog posts in the last 4 months (or in the last year)? Amazing Stories, maybe (though I’ve not checked). How many other people post links back to their review sites here on File770 at an average of 5 per week, week after week — or even a significant fraction of that? That would be zero. I think that dismissing RSR as not having the ability to exercise disproportional influence is… questionable, at the very least. I don’t think that I’m being unfair here.
Maybe this is because I’m a newcomer to these sort of things, but I don’t see how RSR is a slate at all. I’m baffled by the opposition to it. I thought months ago lots of people were complaining that this was a hard category to know who to nominate or vote for; Greg seems to have tried to address that complaint but being pretty clear this is just supposed to help people, not tell people who to nominate.* He even mentions that there’s a ton of important things the charts don’t include at all.
It seems a bit like complaining about FanGraphs because WAR is telling people who to vote for for MVP, when all that is being provided is a tool to help you make your decision.
(though even here the comparison isn’t too apt since I doubt Greg believes the data he’s collected is anywhere as good as WAR is at measuring excellence)
*that’s how I took his