(1) KEN LIU ON THE SCROLL. Ken Liu notes that we’re back to scrolling, in “The Grand Evolution of Books” at the Powell’s Books blog.
A similar shift may be happening today as we go from reading on paper codices back to endless (electronic) scrolls in the form of Web pages. Hyperlinks and sophisticated search functions have allowed scrolls to catch up to and even surpass the advantages of codices in random access and ease of reference, and electronic texts offer many more advantages: user-controlled text formatting and flow, instant access to encyclopedias and dictionaries, ease of note-taking and quote-sharing, community-based discussions, and so on.
Yet, we persist in pretending that the scroll is not authoritative.
Shocking.
(2) SCIENCE FICTION LEAGUE IN CHICAGO. Doug Ellis chronicles “Jack Binder and the Early Chicago SF Fan Club” at Black Gate.
Back in the mid-1930’s, one of the most active science fiction fan clubs was the Chicago Science Fiction Club, which had among its members such fans as Jack Darrow (among fandom’s most prolific writers of letters of comment to the SF pulps), Earl and Otto Binder (the Eando Binder writing team), Jack Binder (their brother, an artist), Walter Dennis and Paul McDermott (both of who had started the Science Correspondence Club in 1929 and later published The Comet, edited by Ray Palmer and arguably the first SF fanzine), William Dellenback, Allen Kline (brother of author Otis Adelbert Kline) and Howard Funk. The Chicago Club had formed as the Chicago Chapter of the Science Fiction League, the nationwide fan organization created and promoted by Wonder Stories. The Chicago Chapter’s activities were prominent in the pages of Wonder Stories, and in Sam Moskowitz’ words, it was “the outstanding chapter of the time.”
(3) DINING WITH DOYLE. Episode 4 of Scott Edelman’s Eating the Fantastic with Tom Doyle is now live —
Writer Tom Doyle and I recorded Episode 4 of Eating the Fantastic at Ethiopic Ethiopian restaurant nearby the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and Union Station in Washington D.C.—which unless I’m mistaken has the largest Ethiopian population outside of Ethiopia after so many resettled here during the ‘70s and ‘80s.
Tom’s the author of a contemporary fantasy series from Tor which began in 2014 with American Craftsmen, returned in 2015 with The Left Hand Way, and continues in the third installment War and Craft—the manuscript of which he handed in to his editor mere days before we met.
Edelman’s next guest will be Carolyn Ives Gilman.
(4) HAMILTON PHONES ADAMS. “The Legacy of 1776: A Conversation with William Daniels and Lin-Manuel Miranda” on New York City Center.
CITY CENTER: Before we get too deeply into ticketing, I want to talk a bit about 1776. Today we think of it as being in the pantheon of great musicals, but in the 1960s, the show was so unconventional that Sherman Edwards had a hard time getting it produced. “Some of the biggest [names] in the theater,” he recalled, “looked at me and said, ‘What, a costume musical? A costume, historical musical?’” Mr. Daniels, do you remember your initial reaction to the idea?
WD: I read the script with a bunch of people at somebody’s apartment. Sherman Edwards was a former schoolteacher from New Jersey, and he had written not just the songs, but the script. It was a little stiff; I remember thinking, We’re in the middle of Vietnam, for Christ’s sake, and they’re waving the flag? I really had to be talked into doing it. At any rate, when the script came back to me, Peter Stone had taken ahold of it, and he’d gone back to the actual conversations in the Second Continental Congress. He had written them out on little cards and injected them into the script, and it made all the difference in the world. It added humor and conciseness and truth.
LM: I love that anecdote, because it gets at something that I discovered in writing Hamilton: the truth is invariably more interesting than anything a writer could make up. That Peter Stone went back to the texts written by these guys, who were petty, brilliant, compromised—that’s more interesting than any marble saints or plaster heroes you can create. And the picture you all painted together of John Adams was so powerful; in the opening scene, he calls himself “obnoxious and disliked,” which is a real quote. We don’t have a John Adams in our show, but we can just refer to him, and everyone just pictures you, Mr. Daniels.
(5) SOVIET MOON LANDER. “Giant steps are what you take, walking on the Moon”, from The Space Review.
If there is an infinite number of universes, then certainly in one of them Alexei Leonov climbed down the ladder of the Soviet Lunniy Korabl (“lunar ship”) and put his bootprint on the surface of the Moon. But Leonov did not take such a step in our universe and, as a result, the Soviet effort to beat the Americans to the Moon is largely forgotten. Had the Soviets ever gotten that far, had they ever sent Leonov to the Moon, he would have died rather than eventually become a genial geriatric cosmonaut, ambassador of the Soviet space program, and living legend. That was my thought when looking at the ungainly and rickety LK-3 test article on display at London’s Science Museum a few weeks ago. It is the second time that a lunar landing craft has ever ventured outside of Russia (one was displayed at EuroDisney in Paris in the 1990s), and will probably be the last time for many, many years to come.
Soviet moon lander.
(6) ENTER STAGE LEFT. M. J. Herbert has a long, intensively researched piece about the earliest days of Doctor Who in “Doctor Who and the Communist: The art and politics of Malcolm Hulke” at Fantasies of Possibility.
The origins of Doctor Who Sydney Newman’s success on ITV led him to being poached by the BBC, who offered a job as Head of Drama: he started work in January 1963. Looking back 20 years later, when interviewed for a BBC oral history project, he described what he found at the BBC.
The material didn’t really cater to what I assumed to be the mass British audience. It was still the attitude that BBC drama was still catering to the highly educated, cultured class rather than the mass audience which was not aware of culture as such . But above all I felt that the dramas really weren’t speaking about common everyday things…”
They needed to come up with a new series for was the late afternoon slot at 5:15 between the end of the afternoon sports programme Grandstand and the start of Juke Box Jury. At a number of meetings in the spring of 1963 Newman and his staff evolved the notion of a mysterious Doctor who could travel in time and space. The aim of the series were educational, similar to Pathfinders in Space, with the remit of teaching its young audience in an enjoyable way about space and history. In its first years the serials alternated between a science fiction adventure and an adventure set during a dramatic historical event such as the travels of Marco Polo, the Crusades, and the St Bartholomew’s Eve Massacre of 1572 (an extraordinary subject for a tea-time children’s serial, although no actual killings were shown).
Newman brought in as producer a young woman he had worked with at ABC, Verity Lambert, which caused a stir as the BBC was then a very male world. Verity persuaded the veteran actor William Hartnell to take on the role of the Doctor. Hartnell had been working as an actor since the 1930s, but was frustrated by the limited roles he was being offered, often as an army sergeant. Verity had been impressed by his part in a recent British film This Sporting Life.
(7) TREK IN CONCERT. STAR TREK: The Ultimate Voyage visits the Hollywood Pantages Theatre on April 1-2.
Star Trek: The Ultimate Voyage brings five decades of Star Trek to concert halls for the first time in this galaxy or any other.
This lavish production includes an impressive live symphony orchestra and international solo instruments. People of all ages and backgrounds will experience the franchise’s groundbreaking and wildly popular musical achievements while the most iconic Star Trek film and TV footage is simultaneously beamed in high definition to a 40-foot wide screen.
The concert will feature some of the greatest music written for the franchise including music from Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Starfleet Academy and much more. This never-before-seen concert event is perfect for music lovers, filmgoers, science-fiction fans and anyone looking for an exciting and unique concert experience.
(8) SUPPLEMENTAL CHAOS. Brandon Kempner returns with an alternative set of rankings, “Final Best of 2015 SFF Critics Meta-List” at Chaos Horizon.
To supplement the mainstream’s view of SFF, I also collate 10 different lists by SFF critics. Rules are the same: appear on a list, get 1 point.
For this list, I’ve been looking for SFF critics who are likely to reflect the tastes of the Hugo award voters. That way, my list will be as predictive as possible. I’m currently using some of the biggest SFF review websites, under the theory that they’re so widely read they’ll reflect broad voting tastes. These were Tor.com, the Barnes and Noble SF Blog, and io9.com.
For the other 7 sources on my list, I included semiprozines, fanzines, and podcasts that have recently been nominated for the Hugo award. The theory here is that if these websites/magazines were well enough liked to get Hugo noms, they likely reflect the tastes of the Hugo audience. Ergo, collating them will be predictive. This year, I used the magazines Locus Magazine and Strange Horizons, the fan websites Book Smugglers, Elitist Book Reviews, and Nerds of a Feather (to replace the closing Dribble of Ink; Nerds didn’t get a Hugo nom last year, but was close, and I need another website), and fancasts Coode Street Podcast and SF Signal Podcast.
(9) LOCAL APES MEETUP. The Damn Dirty Geeks’ second annual Planet of the Apes Day gathering to celebrate the classic 1968 film Planet of the Apes and “all its sequels, remakes and re-imaginings”takes place April 2 at the Idle Hour Cafe in North Hollywood, CA (map below) beginning at 5 p.m.
The organizers ask those planning to attend to RSVP on the Facebook event page and note that you plan to be there in person. Space is limited.
(10) IRISH ORIGINS DEBATED. According to the Washington Post, “A man’s discovery of bones under his pub could forever change what we know about the Irish”. (Tolkien is quoted in the article.)
From as far back as the 16th century, historians taught that the Irish are the descendants of the Celts, an Iron Age people who originated in the middle of Europe and invaded Ireland somewhere between 1000 B.C. and 500 B.C.
That story has inspired innumerable references linking the Irish with Celtic culture. The Nobel-winning Irish poet William Butler Yeats titled a book “Celtic Twilight.” Irish songs are deemed “Celtic” music. Some nationalists embraced the Celtic distinction. And in Boston, arguably the most Irish city in the United States, the owners of the NBA franchise dress their players in green and call them the Celtics.
Yet the bones discovered behind McCuaig’s tell a different story of Irish origins, and it does not include the Celts.
“The DNA evidence based on those bones completely upends the traditional view,” said Barry Cunliffe, an emeritus professor of archaeology at Oxford who has written books on the origins of the people of Ireland.
(11) A DIFFERENT PUPPY DISCUSSION. Sarah Hollowell has a dialogue with Chester the Corgi, in “Put Fat Girls in Your SFF YA” at Fantasy Literature.
Yeah, you’re right. Okay. Okay. Let’s go.
You’re a fat teenage girl, and you love YA. You especially love scifi and fantasy. Space? Hell yeah. Magic schools? Hell yeah. Magic schools in space? Sign you up. And everyone says dystopias are out of style, but you still can’t get enough. Got it?
Got it.
So you read all these books, as many as you can, and it becomes difficult not to notice a pattern. You realize all the girls in all the books are just different kinds of skinny. You can’t for the life of you find a girl that looks like you. Books are supposed to help us dream and dream big but you’re starting to feel like you’re just too big to dream. You’ve read a couple books where fat girls get to be loved in the real world, and that’s wonderful, but fat girls don’t get whisked away into alternate worlds and told they’re a long lost princess. Fat girls don’t get to see the magical underside of New York City. Fat girls don’t save planets.
(12) DIED ON THIS DATE IN HISTORY
- March 19, 1950 — Edgar Rice Burroughs
- March 19, 2008 — Arthur C. Clarke
(13) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY BOY
- Born March 19, 1928 – Patrick McGoohan
(14) STARZ PRODUCTION OF GAIMAN NOVEL. In “’American Gods’ Casts Its Laura Moon”, The Hollywood Reporter says A Series of Unfortunate Events alum Emily Browning will take on the role in the adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s fantasy novel.
(15) A METAPHOR FOR AN ANALOGY. “It’s Over Gandalf. We Need to Unite Behind Saruman to Save Middle Earth from Sauron!” at Daily Kos.
Gandalf had the crazy idea that some little hobbits could stand up to and defy the power of the billionaire class Dark Lord Sauron. But I guess that was a pipe dream after all.
Gandalf failed. He got his ass locked up atop Saruman’s tower when he foolishly defied the head of the Democratic Party council of wizards. And now that he’s locked up it’s not like some eagle is going to magically appear and rescue him. It’s over. And now Saruman is our only hope against Sauron.
We need to stop saying nasty things about Saruman or it will be difficult to rally the people of Middle Earth to his side. Here are some things we should no longer mention, or if we do, we should put a positive spin on them so people will still see Saruman is our only hope.
- Saruman’s Environmental Record: While it is true that Saruman has supported clear cutting huge ancient forests, and while an old hippie tree hugger like Treebeard might tell you lots of those trees were his friends, we ARE talking about trees here. And sure, Gandalf has a much better record on the environment but he’s done now. It’s time to focus on how much worse Sauron’s environmental record is. I mean, have you seen Mordor?
(16) A TREE FALLS IN THE WOODS. Alastair Reynolds, in “’Slow Bullets’ and Sad Puppies”, says his request to be removed from the SP4 List has not yet been posted in comments at Mad Genius Club.
I was away for a few days without internet access and discovered when I returned that my novella “Slow Bullets” has been included on the “SP4” Sad Puppies list for Hugo nominators. At this point it’s of no concern to me whether this is a slate or a set of recommendations. Given the taint left by last year’s antics, I don’t care for any work of mine to be associated with any list curated by the Sad Puppies. The list was announced at Kate Paulk’s website Madgeniusclub.com. Late last night I left a comment asking – politely, I hope – for the story to be removed, but after I checked the site in the morning I couldn’t find my comment and the story was still listed. I’ve tried to leave another comment to the same effect.
(17) ANTIQUE PREHENSILE. In the event someone wants to run out and buy a fanzine I published in 1973, with a 1973-appropriate Grant Canfield nude on the cover, Prehensile 10 is for sale on eBay. Since the seller doesn’t say what the contents I wondered if I remembered correctly. Checked my file copy — yes, that’s the issue with Jerry Pournelle’s article about how to reform the Worldcon, written the year he was President of SFWA. Lots of good stuff by Richard Wadholm, Bill Warren, Jerry Pournelle, Marc Schirmeister and others.
(18) INSIDE JOKES. A mash-up of references to Bewitched and Star Wars in this Brevity cartoon.
(19) ALL LIT UP. Darth Maul: Apprentice, a Star Wars fan film, is basically 20 minutes of lightsaber fights.
[Thanks to John King Tarpinian, JJ, Mark-kitteh, Martin Morse Wooster, Will R., and David K.M. Klaus 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.
@BGHilton
I have no clue why the argument has gone the direction it has.
Would you like to join @Mike Glyer and myself in a drink to World Peace?
A) A review is intended to discuss the merits of something (or lack of merits) to give potential audiences some indication of whether they do or do not wish to read that book, see that play, go to that movie, etc. It should spell out why that critic or reviewer does and does not appreciate the work in question and whether, all things considered, the reviewer thinks you should read it, see it, etc.
B) A recommendation list created for a specific award is intended to make potential nominators aware of certain works and give those specific works some sort of imprimatur for the nomination process. A recommendation list is saying that you should look at the works because the entity making the recommendation says so, that these works are laudatory because of their connection to the recommending entity. No pros and cons, no all things considered, just “I think these works are worthy of nomination.” Not reading. Nominating.
C) A slate is intended to provide a cheat sheet for potential nominators. Don’t pass Go, don’t collect $200, don’t read anything, don’t think for yourself, just push the lever you’re told to push and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
A and B are very different things in my estimation. Different purposes. Different audiences. I think almost everyone who has commented on this has pointed out the difference quite clearly.
People who do not believe in awards have every right to ask not to be nominated. People who suspect — even suspect — that they are being nominated as a prank, an insult or some sort of Carrie at the prom maneuver have every right to say no thank you, I do not want your nomination. The people doing the “recommending” can do whatever they want in response, but they also risk being judged for that response or for the nature of the imprimatur they’re offering. Who is and isn’t the asshole in any particular situation is in the eye of the beholder, obviously.
I have been a professional theater reviewer for more than 20 years.
@Tasha – Yeah, that’s probably a good idea.
Yes, that way the recommendation stands. And the desire to be disassociated with the Sad Puppy name is recognized. People can take both pieces of information and form their own opinion.
If the pups get some chuckles out of handing out asterisks, whatever.
Xtifr,
Even if your example is possible, it’s surely an edge case if it requires such convoluted reasoning. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it doesn’t come across as an example that could be broadly applicable.
Re: asterisk.
The glee about it is surely with reference to last year’s Hugo ceremonies, so aside from its purely functional use to denote authors’ disagreement with being on the SP4 list, it seems to me that it is also a way to continue last year’s shenanigans. Some people just can’t let it go.
ETA:
@Tasha Turner,
Still drinking hot Alishan Oolong tea. Cheers!
Snowcrash – yes, rights are absolute things. If at some points they conflict with other rights, or with prudential considerations, they still absolutely are rights that individuals have, even if there are sufficient reasons not to exercise such rights in some cases.
Soon Lee – relative to which, I think the answer is that neither party, necessarily, is an asshole*. Both parties own and may exercise their respective rights. But neither party loses its rights just because some people may approve or disapprove of the causes they espouse.
*Although one may well exercise its rights in an assholish manner.
BGHilton – as your own examples suggest, there is no absolute division here. A recommendation list or slate MAY be free of critical explanation, but it need not be. And a critical review may be employed as a recommendation. I note that in my own case, if I reviewed a work favorably, I listed it as “Recommended”, which included recommendation for awards consideration.
Besides, I don’t claim the two things are identical but members of the same family – that of critical judgements.
Asking to be removed from a Sad Puppy endorsement list is not the same thing as trying to suppress a review of one’s work.
Soon Lee: Re: asterisk… Some people just can’t let it go.
It’s all got a very junior-highish, Beavis-and-Buttheadish aspect to it, doesn’t it?
hurr, hurr, assterisks, hurr
🙄
I’ve read this discussion with interest… but my thoughts on this latest stretch of sludge in the road remain what they were before.
It’s unsurprising that the Puppies are claiming their list is not a slate. After all, they claimed that last year even after having called their slate a slate THEMSELVES.
It’s also unsurprising that the Puppies are refusing to take people off the list who are asking to be removed from it. I recall seeing them saying at some point last year that they would indeed refuse this year. So this was foreseeable.
Sure, Puppies have a right to refuse; and exercising that right confirms negative opinions about them.
Mostly, though, I think the issue of whether or not to remove people from their list is beside the point. The point, IMO, is still that if you are someone who embarrasses, upsets, and/or sabotages people by recommending them for a Hugo Award (something which is normally a POSITIVE and FLATTERING thing), then you should cease making recommendations or posting lists or not-a-slates, sit down, and seriously think over how badly you’re running your life and how to run it much differently.
@Lois
You’ve somehow moved from “principles” to “rights”. Neat trick, that.
@Soon Lee
L’Chaim
@Lois Tildon – And ‘Mein Kampf’ and the Bible are part of the same family of ‘books that have been translated into Hindi’. ‘Frankenstein’ and ‘MASH’ are part of the same family of ‘stories about doctors.’ The Moon Landing and the Kennedy Assassination are in the same family of ‘things Americans did in the ’60s’
If you’re trying to argue that two things are identical and should be treated identically, ‘in the same family’ does not cut it.
In principle, the more information the better. WSFS members are not automatons. So if the Sad Puppies 4 list is amended to indicate items where the author has asked to be removed, individual members can use their own judgement for their own nominations. I would rather that Sad Puppies 4 not exist, and I can side-eye the asterisks, but those are my reactions.
@Lois,
Fair enough. When it comes to rights, I (or any group) has the right to put forth any recommended list for any award I choose, just as any author I place on that list has the right to repudiate being on that list & ask to be removed. I have the right to remove the author, or not, as I choose. And you, as a nominator for the award, have the right to consider as much or as little of all that in your deliberations come nomination time.
@Tasha, BGHilton, OGH:
To world peace!
And to bring the Scroll full-circle, I am off to play some Star Wars Online: the Old Republic. I play a bounty hunter who is Very Naughty Indeed.
Yes, lets talk more about rights! Lois Tilton has the right to say that she is right. The puppies have the right to say that the right are left out. I have the right to say that whats left of the right of the right is wrong. And so on.
I think we are all aware of what rights people have. That is something totally different of discussing what is the decent thing to do.
@Dawn
SW: TOR – How worthwhile is it to play as single player? Also, is the basic subscription OK, or should I expect to shell out some further microtransactions?
Need something to tide me over till Deus Ex comes out.
BGHilton – IFF I had.
Snowcrash – not such a large step. Upholding rights and freedoms is a principle.
@Lois Tilton
In a funny way, this discussion illustrates what makes File770 so great. I don’t know if you pay any attention to the rhetoric on sites like MGC, but it’s all of the logic-free, name-calling variety. On File770, the hyper-emotional name calling is uncommon, and there is a large cohort that’s capable of stopping and entertaining the idea that they might be wrong. That makes it possible to have meaningful discussions here. Not with everyone, but with (I think) a majority of the filers.
That’s a rare and precious thing.
So, yes, various flavors of puppy have done awful things (and said worse things) over the past few years. Their brand is tainted beyond repair. To be recommended by the puppies (any sort) is like being recommended by ISIS. But once you point out that it’s critical to preserve the general principle that authors don’t have a right or even an expectation of being exempted from reviews/recommendations, most people (no matter how much they hate the puppies) are willing to stop and think that over. Nothing comparable ever happens on MGC. Sure, a few people here will keep screeching, but (I claim) it’s only a minority. Even then, even those who can’t examine the issue critically rarely resort to name-calling. On MGC, name-calling is universal.
So for all the strurm und drang, this discussion is actually a pretty good illustration of everything that’s right about File770. A thing worth celebrating whichever side of the argument one falls on.
@Dawn Incognito
Raises glass. Enjoy
@Hampus Eckerman think we are all aware of what rights people have. That is something totally different of discussing what is the decent thing to do.
I knew we’d gotten lost somewhere. Rights and treating others with respect don’t always intersect. The question becomes what kind of person do you want to be? What kind of world do you want to help build? I try to fall on the side of treating others with respect and building a kinder better world. I don’t always succeed.
@BigelowT
Lots and lots of people offer recommendation lists every year. Do you honestly believe that they mean to say “nominate these works without reading them?”
No, they mean “I liked these works; if you respect my opinion, you’ll give them a chance and read them yourself.” A review offers some explanation beyond “if you respect my opinion” but otherwise there’s little difference. (Excluding non-critical reviews which don’t really express an opinion about works.) the difference between recommendations and reviews is a difference of degree, not kind.
A slate really is a list of works meant to be nominated without reading, That’s the one that’s different in kind.
Greg Hullender:
Do you honestly believe that this is not what the puppies did last year? Do you honestly think that no one is allowed to doubt their sincerity this year?
Discuss principles if you want to. I want to discuss the exact situation as it is now regarding the not-a-slate of the puppies. To discuss totally different things is just trying to hide the background of last year.
Hmmm.
I think the reaction to not be on the SP list is very reasonable. I think it is something SP4 should do at the very least as a sign of good faith but…
1. The list sort exists regardless. That is a big difference with previous SP slates. I or Steve Davidson or really anybody can compile the SP4 list just from public data.
2. People removing themselves makes the list a lot more slate-like but in a far more deniable way for the Pups. Take away the people who are unhappy to be on the list and the list becomes more like previous cycles.
@Hampus Eckerman
The puppies are not everyone. If you establish a terrible universal policy based on your desire to punish the puppies, then you are being foolish. It’s the same logic that leads people to vote for Donald Trump.
The puppies (whether they call themselves sad or rabid) have given no one any reason to trust their honesty and integrity. Even this year, when the sad variety appear to have produced a simply list computed by popularity, the rhetoric of their leaders does not inspire confidence.
But that doesn’t meant that all means for attacking the puppies are justified, regardless of the collateral damage. “I hate the puppies, the puppies are bad, this hurts the puppies, so therefore it’s okay. What are you, some puppy lover?” can never be an acceptable argument.
@Camestros Felapton
Very good points. Any puppy who actually wants to use it as a slate (cheat sheet to nominate w/o reading) will have an even easier road with asterisks (or if the works/people were removed).
I can’t see how this was the “real” intent. I’m sure some people lazily nominated some items they never quite got around to actually reading first, but on the other hand, it’s probably not the very first time that’s ever happened either. (Of course, one would rather people didn’t do it.)
That nitpick aside, I stand with Greg Hullender and the cowardly Lois Tilton and against the forces of World Peace. But all Alastair Reynolds did was ask, politely, to have his name removed from a blog post, which makes the Puppies swearing up and down they’ll never buy his books again look foolish.
Still, by slinging words such as taint and antics, and then turning around and asserting that he’d object in exactly the same manner if the ALA or Locus had been “stuffing” the Hugos, he’s kinda having his cake and eating it too. When Lois Tilton stuffed the Hugos with “A Murmuration” (I sought it out specifically because of her recommendation and as a result I’m considering nominating it, and while YMMV I suspect I’m not the only one) he was pleased as punch:
https://twitter.com/aquilarift/status/682875959888973824
I gather Reynolds’ objection is to what he perceives to be the crass politicization of the nomination process, because he thinks that’s petty, and the Hugos should be above politics.
Greg Hullender:
And that is why I have never wanted to establish a universal policy. Because I think that is stupid.
Has anyone here said that all means are ok? If not, why do you feel the need to say this? Does your example have anything to do with what is being discussed?
@Hampus Eckerman
What did you think was being discussed?
@Brian Z
You do realize that everyone is going to think you’re gay now. 🙂
Greg Hullender “I hate the puppies, the puppies are bad, this hurt the puppies, so therefore it’s okay. What are you, some puppy lover?” can never be an acceptable argument.
No one is arguing that. And it’s disingenuous to claim that they are.
What people are saying is that the Sad Puppies are inseparable from the past behaviour of their group — but they insist that they should be considered apart from their history. Therefore, it is acceptable for others to expect them to rise to a higher level of integrity, if they want to be considered apart from their history.
Sure, they have every right not to remove people who ask to be removed because of the Sad Puppies’ past history. But because of their past history, if they refuse to do so, they are being dicks to refuse.
I don’t know where punishing the puppies has come from. Bottom line: puppies were behaving like jerks. They would like us to to think to think that they are no longer behaving like jerks. Is their refusal to allow people to dissociate themselves from puppiedom evidence of continued jerkiness or not?
I don’t think this has anything to to do with rights or principles or God forbid punishment. Worst case scenario for them is that some people who think poorly of them continue continue to do so for the time being.
@Camestros Felapton
Excellent points, as always. Note, though, that anything that reduces the number of works on the slate is a plus. Leaving the works on the slate but adding an asterisk might be the optimal result from an anti-slate perspective.
@snowcrash:
I have been having fun playing the story missions up through level 20. Easy solo so far and the “+2 Heroic” missions have been soloable with the companion you get. It’s got Mass Effect-style dialogue trees, and the voice acting is decent. I’ve been starting to see quest rewards that are only useable if you subscribe, but so far random drops and quest rewards have been gearing me fine for what I’m doing. I used to pay for MMOs, not looking to do it again at the moment.
(Sometimes I really miss my WoW 10-man…)
I agree with this Brian Z sentence.
[It’s 1983, and yes, I’m surprised too.]
Soon Lee on March 20, 2016 at 6:12 pm said:
Well, I certainly wasn’t trying to suggest that we should all start reading bigoted authors in the hopes of finding works that can be held up as paragons of anti-bigotry. 🙂
I freely grant that my scenario was extremely implausible. All I’m asking for is the acknowledgement that it’s remotely possible. If it’s possible, then we shouldn’t make absolute rules which ignore the possibility.
Wow, just wow. It’s like some of you never watched the last 3+ years of SP/RP. This discussion has more than once looked like starting from scratch instead of a reaction to a real situation going on right now.
A quick recap:
SP1 LC tried to get a Hugo and “make heads explode”
SP2 more LC and heads exploding
SP3 BT with affirmative action and nicknames (SJW, CHORF, etc,)
RP1 VD with his own slate & way up the vitriol
SP3/RP1 took over 75% of finalist spots
SP4 – puppies and non-puppies both participated in recomending works and people mostly over the first month or two and puppies over the last month or two – 10 or less items (each category) from open recs are now on the list & some people have asked to be removed
When people ask to be removed from a recommendation list is it:
1. The right thing to do
2. The decent/nice thing to do
3. Both 1 & 2
4. Put a note of their request
5. Good to make fun of them
6. Inappropriate to make fun of them
7. Other
Part of the problem here is that the SP4 honchos won’t honestly reckon with the character of SP1-3. If they could bring themselves to do that, they could argue, “Look, this time we really are a list of recommended works openly arrived at from fan input.” But since they’re committed to the proposition that SP3 was also that – it wasn’t – they lose their best argument for keeping names on the list regardless of the wishes of the authors.
Now, even in that case, I think their argument would still be flawed, because “recommendation list” is doing too much work here. The Locus list comprises “recommendations” of what to read. SP4 is a list of “recommendations” for a major award. Those are not like things. “Take me off your list of things people ought to read” would be an odd request indeed. “Take me off your list of things people should nominate for a prize” is precedented. People have done it for many prizes for many reasons over many years.
@Soon Lee,
To me, both Reynolds, irked that his comment was caught in moderation, promptly getting on his author blog to smear Paulk and the handful of his fans who had recommended him for Paulk’s list with the “taint” of last year’s “antics,” and his fan, angered by this slight, popping up in the comments to vow never to buy his books again, seemed foolish.
Then again, one of them was a major figure in the field of science fiction and the other one was an anonymous poster on the internet.
@Jim Henley “Take me off your list of things people should nominate for a prize” is precedented. People have done it for many prizes for many reasons over many years.
Good point.
Brian Z.: Reynolds, irked that his comment was caught in moderation, promptly getting on his author blog to smear Paulk
Sure, he did that — if by “smear”, you actually mean “speak the truth about”.
Greg Hullender: I did not say that a nominations recommendation list was telling people NOT to read the books. I said that it was intended to recommend nominations, which is precisely what it says it is. If some imaginary potential Hugo nominator thinks that the recommender is exactly the sort of person (or entity) this nominator trusts, HN may very well nominate the thing without reading it. HN may not. HN may read it. HN may have already read it and think, oh, this separates it from the other things I was considering! HN may say, oh, I always love the work of So-and-So and I don’t have time to read this one, but I’m sure it’s ducky! But a recommendation list provided for Hugo nominations is specifically being offered to guide nominations, not reading. Otherwise, it would be called a recommended reading list, not a recommended Hugo nominations list.
I am afraid I just don’t see the point in getting up on any high horse and getting all First Amendment ladeda about a Hugo recommendation. It makes it all about ME and my precious opinion rather than the work I am supposed to be recommending. Turning it into something closer to what I actually do… You better believe if I do an online* “Best of the Year” list and somebody tells me they don’t want to be on it because they don’t value my opinion, they’re off the list. Done. If I think it’s a jerk move to ask to be removed, well, that’s my revenge, isn’t it? I removed them. You can say “removed with prejudice” if you want to. But seriously, do not attempt to speak for me as a journalist or as a reviewer and what I might or might not do based on your opinion of whether I fit your definition of… Self-respecting, was it? Yeah, that is really not cool.
*I say online because if it’s been printed in the newspaper, obviously, I can’t outright remove anything, no matter how much I might want to or you might want me to.
Oh well, it was too good to last. Anyone objectively reading Alastair Reynolds’ blog post will conclude that he was reasoned, stuck to the facts, and chose his words carefully to make his point clear, & did not smear Kate Paulk.
I think the puppies put themselves in a bind. When SPIV was announced, they said clearly and quite plainly in the rules for SPIV that they would NOT remove anyone who requests to be removed.
If they back out on this now, they look like hypocrites. If they cling to their rules, they look like jerks. Ideally, they wouldn’t have made a rule or statement way back when, but that was months ago so it’s too late now, and they need to work with what they have.
Their weird asterisk-related sniggering aside, putting some kind of a notation that the request was made, without removing the item, is actually the most laudable option they left themselves. Which they are promptly undermining with the sniggering, but at least they are taking the best option.
Spending more brainpower on it, fretting that it might lead down a slippery slope to demanding reviews be removed, all that, is a waste of thought.
So I raise my cup of English Breakfast to world peace instead.
@Lenora Rose: I’m confused; you have a picture now. 😉
Anyway, no, it wouldn’t make them look like jerks to change their minds. Sorry, but this sounds lime more absolutist thinking, like we are robots and all ways of handling things must be broadly and identically applied. People can grasp nuance and people can change their minds. They are very much not stuck with a poorly-thought-out “rule” they said up front.
ETA: Agreed that the whole slippery slope review removal thing is a waste of thought, however.
BTW I chuckled at the idea of SPIV asterisking anyone. More seriously, it’s a reasonable way to handle it, no matter what foolish “rule” they made up.
@Lenora Rose
Love your new Gravatar. English Breakfast is one of my favorite teas. *clinks cups*
@Tasha Turner: Thanks for the summary, and I forgot to say, I’ve had several cups of tea today. Let me pretend they’re for World Peace. 😉 Anyway, one bit I’d like to add to your summary/history, in case anyone forgot, is the whole thing with removals last year. This is another bit of context, of history, that makes “remove from your SPIV list KTHXBYE” different from asking to be removed from any hypothetical or real rec list.
Brad Torgersen (sp?) claimed he asked folks’ permission, but it turned out (a) he didn’t ask everyone and (b) he wildly misrepresented the slate to some that he did ask.
So, IMHO it’s even more understandable than it might have been, that (a) a lot of people feel Kate Paulk should remove people when asked, and (b) people would get ticked off that she isn’t doing so. (But as I just commented to Lenora Rose, asterisking with an explanation would IMHO be a reasonable response.)
@Soon Lee, I said Reynolds was polite. That doesn’t make him more able to demand to be taken off somebody else’s rec list. Smear is a synonym of taint, the word he chose to describe Paulk’s list and its relationship to last year’s events.
Whoops, I forgot to claim a tea! I had Earl Grey, some kind of Oolong??? with blueberries and who knows what else, and then at a restaurant I had green tea. It’s late, but I’m still thinking of having a cup of White Christmas Tea (white tea with almond & vanilla). I mean, 4 cups really only counts as 2-3 since green & white are weaker, right??? 😀
@Doctor Science: Whoops, I thought I had noted some other Scott McKowen work, but I see I hadn’t tracked anything else down yet. As much as I love the Uprooted cover, I’m waffling a little on nominating someone for one excellent work, especially when I am, as they say, spoiled for choice in this category – artists I like as much, but who have several works in 2015. ;-( I’ll probably swap him out for someone else on my long-short-list.
@ BigelowT: Of course, reviews aren’t always used to determine whether to read something. I like reading reviews of books I’ve read*, to see what someone else thought, and maybe get me thinking more about what I read. That’s probably not why anyone writes them, however. 😉 Well, the thinking part, but I doubt anyone writes reviews for people who already read the book. Also: I’m glad to see a reviewer chime in with a grasp of nuance. 😉 Thanks for your comments in this subthread.
* I don’t seek them out; I mean, for reviewers/review sites I read, I don’t skip the ones for books I’ve read. I read them eagerly, to see another take on it. Like books discussions here, I suppose, except one-way.
@Various: I’d like to recommend, oh, all the comments above by BGHilton, Aaron, Hampus Eckerman, and BigelowT, just to name a few (sorry to everyone else). I won’t retract this if asked, nor even asterisk it, because that would be absurd. See, all rec lists are not identical. 😉 😛
@Greg Hullender: “You do realize that everyone is going to think you’re gay now.”
Despite my dislike of your earlier analogy along these lines . . . ROFLMAO, dude! ::bows:: 🙂
@Kendall: Your spelling of Torgersen was correct. He seems to have a name that is fairly difficult to get exactly right, so I don’t blame you for being confused.