(1) PRELIMINARY PUPPIES. Vox Day issued his first “preliminary recommendations” today: “Rabid Puppies 2016: Best New Writer” (Preliminary, since he may change them based on feedback about eligibility, or for other reasons.)
To kick things off, we’ll begin with the Campbell Award: Best New Writer category:
- Pierce Brown
- Cheah Kai Wai
- Sebastien de Castell
- Marc Miller
- Andy Weir
There was a noteworthy exchange in the comments.
[Phil Sandifer] Just for the record, Vox, the only reason Andy Weir wasn’t on the ballot last year was the Puppies. Without you, the Campbell nominees last year would have been Chu, Weir, Alyssa Wong, Carmen Maria Marchado, and Django Wexler.
[VD] Oh, Phil, you’re always so careless. That is not the only reason. It is a reason. Had you SJWs favored Weir over Chu, he would have also been on the ballot.
In any event, since you all are such champions of Weir, I’m glad we will all be able to join forces and get him nominated.
(2) GRRM REQUESTS. After announcing that the Locus Recommended Reading List is online, George R.R. Martin explicitly said –
Just for the record, before the issue is raised, let me state loudly and definitively that I do not want any of my work to be part of anyone’s slate, this year or any year. But I do feel, as I have said before, that a recommended reading list and a slate are two entirely different animals.
— an announcement whose timing may be more relevant today than it would have been yesterday.
(3) LOCUS SURVEY. You can now take the Locus Poll and Survey at Locus Online. Anyone can vote; Locus subscriber votes count double. Voting closes April 15.
Here is the online version of the 46th annual Locus Awards ballot, covering works that appeared in 2015.
In each category, you may vote for up to five works or nominees, ranking them 1 (first place) through 5 (fifth).
As always, we have seeded the ballot with options based on our 2015 Recommended Reading List [this link will open a new window], mainly because this greatly facilitates tallying of results. However, again as always, you are welcome to use the write-in boxes to vote for other titles and nominees in any category. If you do, please try to supply author, title, and place of publication, in a format like the options listed, where appropriate.
Do not vote for more than one item in a category at the same rank (e.g. two selections ranked 1st); if you do, we will disregard your votes in that category.
File 770 is seeded in the Best Magazine or Fanzine category and would cherish your fifth place votes. Or twenty-fifth, for that matter – the competition is formidable.
(4) IT IS THE END MY FRIEND. And perhaps this is the right place to admire John Scalzi’s Whatever post title: “The End of All Things on the 2015 Locus Recommended Reading List”.
(5) STATISTICS. Brandon Kempner at Chaos Horizon began the month of February by “Checking Back in with the SFWA Recommended Reading List”. He prepared a change table and interpreted the rising fortunes of various novels, beginning with the greatest uptick —
What does this tell us? That Lawrence M. Schoen’s Barsk has emerged as a major Nebula contender, despite being lightly read (as of January 30th, this only has 93 ratings on Goodreads, 31 on Amazon, much much lower than other Nebula/Hugo contenders). That’s due in part to Schoen’s late publication date: the novel came out on December 29, 2015. That’s a tough time to come out, as you get lost in the post-Christmas malaise. A Nebula nomination would drive a lot of attention to this book. Schoen now seems like a very good bet for the Nebula, particularly when we factor in that he received Nebula nominations in the Best Novella category in 2013, 2014, and 2015. There’s clearly a subset of Nebula voters that really like Schoen’s work; a Best Novel nomination might be a spark that gets him more read by the rest of us.
(6) CONGRATULATIONS SCOTT EDELMAN. He did it! Scott Edelman celebrates a special sale in “Never give up, never surrender: My 44-year question to sell a short story to Analog”.
I’ve lost track of how many submissions I made to Analog during the intervening years, first to Ben Bova, then Stan Schmidt (for more than three decades!), and now Trevor Quachri. Were there 25 short stories? Fifty? It’s probably been more than that, but I don’t know for sure. And it doesn’t really matter.
What matters is—in the face of rejection, I kept writing.
What matters is—in the face of rejection, I kept submitting.
What matters is—I never took it personally. I knew that I wasn’t the one being rejected—it was only the words on the page that weren’t the right match.
(7) WILL EISNER AUCTION. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is auctioning books from Will Eisner’s personal collection.
Will Eisner wasn’t just the godfather of comics, a creative force who changed the face of modern comics — he was also a staunch advocate for the freedom of expression. In celebration of Eisner’s indomitable talent and advocacy, CBLDF is delighted to offer up for auction books from Eisner’s own personal collection!
All books in this collection come from the late, great Will Eisner’s personal library. The books from this collection are bookplated with Eisner’s own personalized bookplate, featuring his most famous creation, The Spirit. Most of the books in this collection are signed and personalized to the master himself by creators whom Eisner inspired over his illustrious 70-year career
The items are on eBay. The CBLDF’s post has all the links to the various lots.
(8) FAN ART AT RSR. I see that with help from eFanzines’ Bill Burns, Rocket Stack Rank terrifically upgraded its “2016 Fan Artists” content. Gregory N. Hullender explains.
With the help of Bill Burns, we’ve updated the Best Fan Artist page at RSR to include cover art from eFanzines (plus a few that Bill scanned by hand). This doubled the number of artists and tripled the number of images, making it comparable to the Pro Artist page.
(9) INCONCEIVABLE. Japan’s huge convention Comic Market, aka Comiket, which draws half a million fans (in aggregate over three days) expects to be bumped from its facilities in 2020. What could bump an event that big? The Olympics. Anime News Network reports —
Tokyo Big Sight, the convention center where Comiket is usually held, announced earlier that it would not be able to hold the convention between April 2019 and October 2020. Event spaces have been closing throughout the Tokyo area for the past decade. Tokyo Big Sight has also announced that industry booths at this summer’s Comiket would close after two days (instead of the usual three) to accommodate construction work to expand the building for the upcoming Olympics.
(10) TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF THE CANON. We might call this a contrarian view.
Given all the weird shit she's done since HP7, I do not accept that JKR is qualified to determine canon anymore. https://t.co/f8qDZODEe3
— Escaped from Dumpster to Elsewhere (@bruhsam) February 1, 2016
(11) TODAY IN HISTORY
- February 1, 2003 – Space shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry, killing all seven astronauts aboard.
(12) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY BOY
- February 1, 1954 – Bill Mumy, soon to be seen in Space Command.
(13) WOODEN STARSHIP. A Washington Post article about the renovation of the original Starship Enterprise model reveals it was mostly made from big pieces of wood. When ready, the Enterprise will be displayed in a slightly more prestigious spot .
Collum said the model had long hung in the gift shop of the Air and Space Museum on the Mall. Now it is headed for the renovated Milestones of Flight Hall there.
“The historical relevance of the TV show, and this model, has grown,” he said. “So it’s now being brought up into the limelight, and it’s going to be in the same gallery as the ‘Spirit of St. Louis’ [and] the Apollo 11 command module.”
(14) HOW GAMES INSPIRE ENGAGING FICTION. N. K. Jemisin in “Gaming as connection: Thank you, stranger” talks about the aspect of game play that challenges her as a writer. (Beware spoilers about the game Journey.)
I see a lot of discussion about whether games are art. For me, there’s no point in discussing the matter, because this isn’t the first time I’ve had such a powerful emotional experience while gaming. That’s why I’m still a gamer, and will probably keep playing ’til I die. This is what art does: it moves you. Maybe it makes you angry, okay. Maybe it makes you laugh. Not all of it is good, but so what? There’s a lot of incredibly shitty art everywhere in the world. But the good art? That’s the stuff that has power, because you give it power. The stuff that lingers with you, days or years later, and changes you in small unexpected ways. The stuff that keeps you thinking. Right now I’m trying to figure out how to recreate that game experience with my fiction.
(15) SF IN CHINA. Shaoyan Hu discusses“The Changing Horizon: A Brief Summary of Chinese SF in Year 2015” at Amazing Stories. Quite an impressive roundup.
Fandoms
There were more than 70 college SF clubs in China in year 2015. Compared to 120 clubs in 2012, the number was reduced. However, two independent fandoms, Future Affairs Administration in Beijing and SF AppleCore in Shanghai, were still very active.
SF AppleCore is the most important fandom in Eastern China. Last year, in addition to orchestrating the annual Shanghai Science Fiction and Fantasy Festival, SF AppleCore continued to operate on a regular base to bring about the public SF events such as AppleCore Party (speeches and gatherings of fans) and AppleCore Reading Group.
Future Affairs Administration was the backbone behind the 2016 Worldcon bid for Beijing. Although the bid was not successful, they organized the Chinese Nebula Award ceremony in 2014. Last year, this fandom was consolidated into a media platform for SF and technology related information, although the function for fan events still remained.
(16) WORLDS OF LE GUIN. The Kickstarter fundraising appeal for Arwen Curry’s documentary Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin has begun. So far, 514 backers have pledged $39,699 of the $80,000 goal. The SFWA Blog endorsed it today:
Viewers will accompany Le Guin on an intimate journey of self-discovery as she comes into her own as a major feminist author, inspiring generations of women and other marginalized writers along the way. To tell this story, the film reaches into the past as well as the future – to a childhood steeped in the myths and stories of disappeared Native peoples she heard as the daughter of prominent 19th century anthropologist Alfred Kroeber.
Le Guin’s story allows audiences to reflect on science fiction’s unique role in American culture, as a conduit for our utopian dreams, apocalyptic fears, and tempestuous romance with technology. Le Guin, by elevating science fiction from mind candy to serious speculation, has given permission to younger mainstream writers like Michael Chabon, Zadie Smith, and Jonathan Lethem to explore fantastic elements in their work.
(17) CGI OVERDOSE? At Yahoo! News, “These ‘Star Wars’ Blooper Reels Show Exactly Why the Prequels Failed”.
The blooper reels for the Star Wars prequel films have been available for a while, but there’s a noticeable trend with all of them. Nearly every blooper — genuinely funny or otherwise — is filmed within a green screen backdrop.
[Thanks to Janice Gelb, JJ, Petrea Mitchell, and John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Gregory N. Hullender.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Del Rayva, it’s a little more nuanced than that. A recommended reading list should have far more entries (at least double, in my opinion, and preferably more) than the number of positions available for nomination. And it should not be ranked in any way to suggest that certain books should be nominated at the expense of other books. (For example, ranked by popularity, or “this was the best”, or whatever).
And it absolutely should not say “nominate these things” under any circumstances.
Oh goody, I had missed the trickle of people appearing only to insist on x definition of slate in the comments. The nostalgia!
@dann: I used to subscribe to IGMS, but I found the magazine unsatisfying and eventually the back issues started piling up.
Specifically, the works there felt simple and adventure-y. I didn’t feel like I was finding new, exciting ideas or unusual characters and situations; I felt like I was getting fairly standard adventure-y genre stories that weren’t to my taste. (I do remember a good variety of settings, though. I just wasn’t enthused about the stories they were choosing to tell within those settings.)
Of course, I’m just one single data point, and based on fairly few issues at that. This was roughly 2012-2013, and I still have all those issues backed up (but the chance I’ll return to them is minute, by this point). I also recall IGMS being stronger earlier in its run – I remember several stories by Peter Beagle, including “We Never Talk About My Brother,” and in 2008 I got a review copy of Issue #7, which I still recall with fondness.
Venturing beyond my personal experience and onto personal speculation, my impression is that IGMS (and others) suffer in buzz from being neither free nor one of the Big Three magazines. Free fiction absolutely dominates the landscape now; it’s so easy to share and recommend, while convincing folks to shell out a few bucks for one specific non-free story can be awfully hard. I think the “big” magazines are suffering from that as well, losing a lot of the spotlight even when their stories are excellent; the smaller ones are struggling even more.
I recall reading, last year, that IGMS has a PG-13 policy for its content… if that’s still the case, then that’s likely to constrain it somewhat. I don’t insist that all my reading should be chock-a-block with explicit sex and violence*, but SF is an adult genre and its readers (and writers) deserve to be treated as adults.
Now, OK, PG-13 doesn’t necessarily mean tame… I mean, I’m thinking of putting “Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” in my nominations for the Retro Hugos, and there’s nothing tame about that, but it wouldn’t break a PG-13 policy either. However, the temptation, if you’re submitting to a PG-13 market, must surely be to send in something that’s a bit… safe. Some enjoyable adventure story, maybe with a twist or two and something to think about in it. There’s nothing bad about that, goodness knows, but it’s not necessarily going to produce anything exceptional. Award-winning stuff, that people get excited about, enough to love it (or hate it), tends not to be so… safe. (Just my opinion, of course. But I don’t like writing to PG-13 constraints, and I’m not often enthusiastic about reading it, either. There are, of course, exceptions.)
*Well, actually, I do, but that’s only because I’m a bad person.
If it isn’t a fine grained metamorphic rock derived from shale then it just isn’t slate.
@DelRayva
Recommended Reading List: A list of works assembled by someone who looks like me, talks like me, and whom I personally like
Slate: A list of works assembled by someone who looks different than me, talks different than me, or whom I personally dislike.
Actually no. I don’t know what any of the people posting rec lists on here look like or talk like; all I know is that they’ve read X and suggest that I check it out. Same with the Locus reading list. I’ll weigh each list according to whether I think their taste, as expressed in this forum, matches with mine. Or not. Sometimes I look at stuff just because.
A slate is somebody who posts five or ten things, and cleverly suggests that a) it’s not a slate, even though the number of nominations just happens to exactly match the number of Hugo slots (one of those XanaD’OH gambits we’ve all been discussing); or b) cleverly suggests that if you want your favorite author to get nominated, be sure to vote for a person higher on the list.
Either way, a slate is just like porn. You know it when you see it.
Remember the File 770 Pixel Scroll story about the Grand Prix Angoulême comics festival in France: https://file770.com/?p=26937 , heavily criticized last month for publishing a list of thirty international finalists, not one of whom was a woman? At the time the festival’s executive director, Franck Bondoux, shrugged and said there were hardly any women in the Louvre either.
Well, they’re back in the news and as charming as ever: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/feb/02/french-comics-festival-under-fire-fake-award-winners-angouleme
Apparently at the awards ceremony this past weekend, the festival deliberately announced the wrong winners for laughs and giggles, leaving the audience and nominees stunned, in the middle of their acceptance speeches, tweeting what they thought was the good news, or in tears as the announcer said essentially ha ha, just kidding, it’s really these other guys.
Another preliminary victory for VD and his Dread Elk: Human Rights Act to be replaced with Warhammer rulebook
@Del Rayva
You forgot a definition:
Puppy: 1. someone who thinks the definitions of recommended reading list and of slates are based on what people look, talk and act like.
(much of puppy-think strikes me as being along the same lines….)
Anyone here finish City of Blades?
Overall, I liked it. I’m not sure its as good as City of Stairs, but that’s a hard target to hit. Mulaghesh was more sympathetic than I thought she would be. And a much more capable than I’d have given her credit for between age and injuries.
Interestingly, I’d have like to see more interplay between Sigurd and his daughter than we got. And I figured out who the first opposition figure was about 30 pages before the protagonists did (but I did have the edge of not running all over the place like they did). The second was a bit of a surprise, but it fit with the character pretty well.
I’d say 3 and a half stars. I’m curious about what the City of Miracles will be like.
@Del Rayva
Actually, I get beaten up all the time by people who like me but who don’t like the fact that some of Rocket Stack Rank’s lists are partially ordered. I think they’re using too strict a definition for slate (I trust the fans to be fair and to use the information wisely) but I can’t deny their commitment to their principles. In fact, some of the same people who were super critical of the RSR Best Editors (Short Form) page went out of their way to help out with our Best Professional Artist page just a week later.
For my own part, I think a slate is any organized effort urging people to vote blindly for political or commercial purposes. Nothing that genuinely tries to attract attention to the best quality works or best achieving individuals is a slate in my book. Yes, there’s a difference of opinion about this, but, no, it doesn’t have anything to do with the people making the list.
@Hypnosotov
That’s obviously a fake report.
Everyone knows they’re using the Paranoia rpg rules instead.
Someone wondered whether Marc Miller would reject his place on the VD slate if he knew about it… I heard him speak on fundraising for arts non-profits a few years ago. He struck me as an altogether intelligent, compassionate sort of person, occupied as he and his wife are with various philanthropic efforts, such as getting musical instruments for children who can’t afford them, helping fund classical music education for children, getting kids free tickets to see the symphony, and other support of the arts in general and classical music for children specifically. One of the charitable boards he sits on is named after a man from Sierra Leone who was the first person from Sierra Leone to earn a PhD in nuclear physics. Oh, and Miller is one of the founders of the “Not in Our Town” anti-racism campaign in his hometown. If he knows who Beale is, which would surprise me, I can’t imagine he would find him amusing.
Maybe that’s the point. To pick someone off most people’s radar, watch him not get voted for him because voters think there are better choices, or for him to be found ineligible, and then go NEENER NEENER NEENER, you just eliminated a big SJW, you SJWS!
So @redheadedfemme explains that a Slate is something posted by someone “clever,” while a recommended list is … what? Unknown, except it doesn’t look like “porn.” In other words, a recommended reading list is from someone you like, and a slate is from someone you don’t like. And you don’t like anyone who is clever. Got it.
@cassyB explains that a Slate is identified by the number of entries, and the existence of a ranking system. That’s at least a set of measurable criteria. As to why those criteria matter so much that we need to absolutely refuse to talk to anyone who violates them, there’s no explanation.
@wildcat tries to be witty, but just comes off as snarky. He’s in with the good crowd, doncha know. He’s one of the good guys. Anyone who asks “how do you know who is a good guy or not?” is clearly one of the bad guys. Again, no explanation of what a slate is, how it differs from a recommended reading list, or why it’s so evil.
@SteveDavidson tries to insist there is some criterion other than “I just don’t like those guys” to justify his rejection of “slates.” He goes on to say he just doesn’t like me, so I must be an advocate of “slates,” whatever those are. He completely fails to indicate that there is any definition of “slate” other than, “I just don’t like those guys.”
Wasn’t Slate Fred’s boss on the Flintstones? The internet tells me his first name was Rockhead.
I started City of Blades and set it aside temporarily while I circled back for some 2015 reading. Which wouldn’t have happened if it had really grabbed me, of course. Compared to City of Stairs it seems … sluggish? lacking sparkle? But maybe I just didn’t reach the point that will grab me.
Or maybe I’m just being grumpy. I’m nearing the end of Valente’s Radiance at the moment, and finding that a slog for the opposite reason: it seems to be very pretty but empty, like a Faberge egg. It keeps hovering on an edge where if the universe were a hair less Baroque I’d say the 8 deadly words and go read something else.
Breaking news!: Troll does not understand how adverbs or similes work! Also misses obvious reference.
Ummm, who ordered us a matched set of inaccurate summaries? Is this some sort of odd kickstarter reward? And why didn’t I get one?
Many thanks to Greg Hollander for actually engaging on the topic. I’ve been looking for honest discussion, not the incessant name calling that goes with anything that Vox Day gets close to. (The man is the anti-Midas. Anything he touches turns to mud.)
I think your definition of slate is workable. The question is not the list, nor who makes the list, but rather the campaigning about how to vote. By this definition, Rabid Puppies was a slate, but Sad Puppies never has been a slate. Any post that says “I won’t vote for anything on a slate” or “Everyone should vote No Award in any category that Vox Day says anything” (hyperbole, but my point should be clear) is, in fact, engaging in Slate electioneering.
If you share a list of things you’ve read in the hope that other people will also enjoy them, with the understanding that people who really enjoy them might also nominate them for awards, that’s a recommended reading list.
If you share a list of stories in the hope that other people will advance some political or religious or aesthetic agenda by nominating them for awards, that’s a slate.
Saying “please read these stories and nominate them for awards if you like them” can be an indicator of your intent, but that sentence does not magically transform a slate into a recommended reading list.
I got about 20 pages into City of Blades, then threw up my hands in frustration and went back to re-read City of Stairs. I just didn’t remember anything and couldn’t pick up the story. The only thing I remembered was that I loooooved the first one and that a re-read wouldn’t be an ordeal at all.
Blades isn’t eligible for a 2015 Hugo, is it? It arrived in 2016 didn’t it?
@Del Rayva
Well, not by my definition. My definition only applies to attempts to get people to vote for something they never read (or knew nothing about). It said nothing about urging people to avoid categories. (E.g. if I say “don’t bother to read horror–it never gets nominated” then people might disagree, but they wouldn’t accuse me of slating.) It might be bad to do for other reasons, but you can’t call it a slate.
Also, my definition only applies to the nomination phase. Whatever happens in the final vote has nothing to do with slates. Again, it might be bad for other reasons, but it’s not slating per se.
It’s worthwhile to limit the definition of “slate” to things that exploit weaknesses in the Hugo nomination rules. Only a coordinated campaign to vote for a specific narrow list of works has that effect. This much is consistent between my own definition as well as the ultra-strict “any sorted list and any list whatsoever under 25 items is a slate” definition.
@SethGordon says that the difference between a slate and a recommended reading list is the intentions of the person assembling the list. See the critical phrase “in the hope that…” He doubles down on his statement that the intentions of the assembler are critical, because he rejects the idea that saying the right words — “please read these stories and nominate them for awards if you like them,” — is sufficient to make a slate a non-slate.
If I have read Seth’s intentions correctly, then following this rule is dependent upon me reading the mind of the assembler. While noble in terms of expressed sentiment, in practice I fear that this devolves into what I originally pointed to, “It’s a slate if I don’t like the guy who wrote it.” This is because humans are notoriously bad at reading each others’ minds.
The question of the actor’s intent goes to the internal forum, and can’t be adequately evaluated in the external forum.
By this definition, Rabid Puppies was a slate, but Sad Puppies never has been a slate.
Well, except for the many posts made by Sad Puppies suggesting how people should vote, but you probably don’t recall those. Helpfully, Jim C. Hines has created a list of quotes from Sad Puppy proponents, which includes many exhortations to vote for slated works.
@Del Rayva
I suspect part of the motivation for a really strict definition of slate is to avoid the need to determine intent. Intent matters a lot in many areas of life, and human beings do spend a lot of time struggling to read other people’s minds.
However, in this specific case, it’s not very difficult to determine intent. One need only read the actual words of the people posting a particular list as well as their responses to comments. If the list is advertised as making “SJW heads explode” then you don’t have to do much mind reading to know that it’s not based on the quality of the works.
Since I’ve got a weighty ideological axe to grind, I find slates to be convenient to my purpose. Principled anti-slate voters are a serious obstruction. As we saw last year, there are enough of them to neutralize me and my fellow travelers.
But it turns out that with a little dishonesty–and heaven knows I’ve got no problems employing a little dishonesty when it suits me–I can construct a definition of “slate” that suits my purposes, and then demand that people accept my definition. I can then insist very loudly and repeatedly that if they don’t, that they’re great big hypocrites and I win.
And I’m pretty sure this will work, because I can’t imagine any reason why anyone mightn’t accept my destructive new definition.
Very nice e-book from Tor.com. They really did hit the highlights of their year, and it’s nice to have all that in one place attractively formatted. I’ve read all but two of those stories and liked most of them well; “Please Undo This Hurt”, “Tear Tracks”, and “Damage” went beyond good to super (maybe “The Log Goblin” too). I wish they’d chosen “Kia and Gio” as their story from Daniel José Older instead of “Ginga” though, since I think, of the two, the former works better as a standalone not having read the novels they tie in to. Good work on the cover design too, using a detail from Victo Ngai’s illo for “The Pauper Prince”.
Other magazines could really benefit from doing the same. But I could understand not having the resources for it.
@Greg Hullender — Thanks for the clarifications. I fear by trying to narrow your definition, you are getting perilously close to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. You are defining a slate to be only the one instance of a thing you don’t like. There’s no obvious reason why “slate” should be limited only to the nomination process, and not the actual voting.
Frankly, I find any attempt to recommend or influence voting on any criterion (presence on a slate or not, sex of the author, name of the publisher) other than the quality of the work to be contrary to the spirit of the Hugos. I think those who voted “No Award” simply because an item was on a “slate,” or who are advocating that anyone do the same, are in the exact same category as those who insist that a particular work should be nominated simply because John Scalzi personally dislikes the author.
There’s no obvious reason why “slate” should be limited only to the nomination process, and not the actual voting.
Other than the fact that a slate only works in the nominating process you mean?
Frankly, I find any attempt to recommend or influence voting on any criterion (presence on a slate or not, sex of the author, name of the publisher) other than the quality of the work to be contrary to the spirit of the Hugos.
Fortunately, thus far the Pup nominees have been so uniformly weak that there’s not much difference between voting them below No Award for quality and voting them below No Award for slating.
@Greg Hullender
Fair enough. In general, we should trust that people’s intentions match their stated intentions. I think that quoting Vox Day to criticize the Sad Puppies is an error. To quote “Sad Puppies Supporters” as evidence for the intentions of Sad Puppies is also an error.
I’d have to believe there was a material difference between the Sad and Rabid Puppies, though. The way they come to each other’s defense online makes that hard to believe, as did the similarity in the slates and even the logos last year.
On the other hand, the comments on the SP4 site, together with the statements by the organizers, do make it seem like they really are trying to be different this year. I’m open to being convinced, depending on how the rest of the year goes.
I think that quoting Vox Day to criticize the Sad Puppies is an error. To quote “Sad Puppies Supporters” as evidence for the intentions of Sad Puppies is also an error.
Is quoting Larry Correia or Brad Torgersen as evidence for the intentions of Sad Puppies an error? Because the “heads explode” line is from Correia.
It’s more like I’m thoroughly sick of people sealioning into threads to say, “EXCUSE ME WAT IS SLATE” after it happened dozens of times last year. Here, why don’t you look at some commenters’ previous attempts to appease the sea lions.
All found with a basic Google search for file770 slate definition.
Oh, and it’s “she” rather than “he.”
@Del Rayva on February 2, 2016 at 2:35 pm said:
Actually, there is. The nomination system (prior to EPH, anyway) is extremely vulnerable to gaming by a focused slate. It make excellent sense to have a specific term for attempts to exploit that vulnerability,
I agree entirely. But if you mount such a campaign and find 100 people who agree with you, you’ll have little or no effect on the final vote. The trouble with slates is that a slate with 165 people managed to sweep the nominations in several categories last year. There’s such a huge difference in terms of impact that it makes no sense to call them the same thing.
If you push someone and he falls on the ground, that’s bad, but if he falls off a cliff, it’s a whole different issue.
Del Rayva –
You should really complain to Brad Torgersen then, considering he’s the one who referred to as a slate when announcing the Sad Puppies 3 slate.
Hm. I have a post in moderation because I linked to about ten different comment threads from last year where various people tried to define the word “slate” for sea lions like this one. Suffice it to say, they’re quite easy to find with a Google search.
Del Rayva,
@cassyB explains that a Slate is identified by the number of entries, and the existence of a ranking system. That’s at least a set of measurable criteria. As to why those criteria matter so much that we need to absolutely refuse to talk to anyone who violates them, there’s no explanation.
Um, what? Please link to ANYWHERE I’ve EVER said that we need to “absolutely refuse to talk to anyone who violates them”. Seriously. I read every single piece of fiction in the Hugo packet last year, and voted according to their artistic merit. I didn’t upvote or downvote anything based on their position (or lack of position) on a slate.
The fact that I voted the majority (but not all) of the slated works below No Award had nothing to do with their being on a slate, and everything to do with them being at best adequate and at worst unreadable. Adequate doesn’t deserve a Hugo.
You’re impugning motives to me that I simply don’t have.
You gave a poor definition of “slate”. I attempted to improve it for you. That’s it. That’s all. I’m not the strawwoman that lives in your head, honest…
@Aaron
That’s a bit broad and self-serving. However, I confess that I was a bit challenged by the list last year. I’m kind of a John C. Wright fan, but I found a number of the nominated works to be far below his normal par, and almost unreadable.
I was very disappointed to see good people who clearly stated their good intentions, and whose actions matched those stated good intentions, to have evil intentions imputed to them by the media. That’s what happened last year. Objecting to a “slate”, without defining what a slate is, or why it is objectionable, seems to be a situation rife for a repeat of that error.
It’s funny. The barking of sealions sounds exactly the same this year, but somehow it doesn’t annoy. I imagine it’s because I’ve seen this movie, I know how it ends, and it ends with crushing defeat for the sealions.
I’m sure the gaters have convinced themselves, with one trick or another, that this year’s slate will totally work. Bless. See you at the awards ceremony. Your tears taste like champagne.
@Cassie B
You’re right. I imputed to you the stated motivations of those who have made similar statements as yours. That was an error on my part. I apologize.
A similar apology is owed by the entire community for the way the Sad Puppies have been treated.
@emgrasso: I recently read both Radiance and City of Blades, and enjoyed both – I think, on balance, I’m more enthusiastic about Radiance, though City of Blades is a fine piece of work in itself.
I think both books are well-constructed, in the same sort of way; they might appear a bit loose and rambling in places, but by the time I reached the end, I was convinced both writers knew what they were doing, and had pulled all the loose plot threads together and knotted them into a satisfying conclusion. I’m a little less enthusiastic about City of Blades, because there were places where I thought it was repeating the effects from City of Stairs a bit too much (both books have the big set-piece battle scenes involving Divine monsters, for instance). It’s a minor niggle, because the effects are good and will bear repetition…. I know Radiance rubbed some people up the wrong way; me, I’m a sucker for extravagant and inventive prose, and Radiance certainly delivers on that count.
(City of Blades came out a couple of weeks earlier in the UK than the US, but still in January 2016, so it doesn’t figure in my nominating plans. Radiance, on the other hand, I’m seriously thinking about. But I’m seriously thinking about, well, more than four other books as well. Lordy, lordy, this gets complicated.)
I was very disappointed to see good people who clearly stated their good intentions, and whose actions matched those stated good intentions, to have evil intentions imputed to them by the media.
At no point have the Sad Puppies either stated good intentions or taken actions which show good intentions. Go read the link from Hines.
A similar apology is owed by the entire community for the way the Sad Puppies have been treated.
Wrong. The Pups have been treated exactly as their actions deserved. In fact, the rest of the community of science fiction fans has been exceptionally forbearing towards the Sad Puppies. Save your Sad Puppy apologia for people who haven’t read piles of material promulgated by the Sad Puppy organizers and the Sad Puppy proponents.
@DelRayva
(sigh) You’re really being thickheaded today, aren’t you?
Who I like or doesn’t like doesn’t have anything to do with it. Go look at the Locus rec list. See how long it is? It’s a lot longer than five or ten items, and the promoter isn’t being cutesy about it, now are they?
True, I don’t like Mr Beale. However, that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that he’s posted FIVE, count ’em, FIVE things on his list and wink-wink, nudge-nudge, pretends it isn’t a “slate.”
Del Rayva –
…and they called the act The Aristocrats!
emgrasso said:
Nice metaphor. That’s a fair description of my experience reading Valente’s Palimpsest (and why I’ve never been motivated to read anything of hers since).
@Laertes: I like that philosophy. I’m going to try to absorb it.
The deliberate ignorance on display is staggering in its intensity.
@Del Rayva on February 2, 2016 at 2:48 pm said:
It’s hard to imagine that anyone has good intentions when they persist in name calling. The puppies all engage heavily in name calling–using the same insults–and that’s another thing that makes it hard to believe they’re really two different groups.
Much worse, an apparent white supremacist was an organizer of SP2 and was at least associated with SP3. Most people would be at great pains to disassociate themselves from such a person, but even the SP4 leaders refuse to do so. That casts more doubt on the idea that they had or have good intentions. It is very, very hard to see past this particular point.
That’s difficult to see, for all the reasons I outlined above. Actions have consequences. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
@Aaron
Actually the link from Hines does show them making a number of high-minded statements about making the awards include overlooked works. That just hasn’t been their consistent message. The incessant name calling makes it hard to believe those statements of good intentions, but it doesn’t mean they never made them.
@steve davidson
I don’t think insulting the person is going to accomplish anything. He/she has a very different point of view, but is willing to engage in discussion and to concede points here and there. That’s refreshing and should be encouraged, I think.