Pixel Scroll 3/21/16 The Incredible Sulk

Posted on by

(1) SCALZI PREDICTS. Today John Scalzi answered “Reader Request Week 2016 #2: Will Humans Survive?”

But we’re smart! I hear you say. Sure, that’s true, but does it then follow that a) we’re smart enough not to basically kill ourselves by wrecking the planet, b) that our intelligence means that evolution is done with us. The answers here, if you ask me (and you did) are: We’ll see, and probably not. In the latter case, there’s an argument to be made that our intelligence will increase speciation, as humans intentionally do to our species what natural selection did unintentionally before, and do it on a much shorter timescale, in order to adapt to the world that is currently rapidly changing under our feet, in no small part because of our own activities.

So, no. Human beings, meaning Homo sapiens, will almost certainly not be here a billion years from now.

(2) LASFS SPEAKERS. Three big names will be guest speakers at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society in the coming weeks.

  • March 24 – Jerry Pournelle Speaks (My Favorite Book (LASFS meeting)
  • April 7 — Robert J. Sawyer – Special Guest (LASFS meeting)
  • April 28 — Larry Niven – Guest Speaker (LASFS meeting)

(3) MILLENNICON RIP. Millennicon 30, held last weekend, ended the convention’s run. Con chair Christy Johnson announced on Facebook:

It is with great sadness to announce that Millennicon 30 was our last. We tried our best to keep going but all good things must come to an end. We wanted to go out with a good con, and I think we did.

We were hoping for a higher attendance and hotel room nights, but alas, it was not to be.

Thank you to the best con-com, our guests of honor, dealers, artists, fan clubs and our attendees. Thanks to all those that lived local and still got hotel rooms. Thanks to those that regularly stayed at the hotel to help keep our costs down. Thanks to those that brought in their friends and family to join us. We survived this long because of you.

We hope you have enjoyed yourself over the years and remember us with fondness. We, the con-com, became a family through Millennicon. Many of you were also a part of our family.

Thanks for 30 years!

(4) COVER MODELS. Jim C. Hines has several fascinating photos from Millennicon here, including a faux book cover pose with Laura Resnick.

(5) TAXING MATTERS. At the SFWA blog, the issue that is every tax auditor’s nightmare is covered in “Ask the Tax Czarina: Hobby or Business?”

Q: Is my writing is a hobby or a business?

A: There are a number of factors the IRS looks at. The most important factor is whether or not you have a profit motive. You are not in a trade or business unless you intend to make a profit and have some sort of plan for how you’ll accomplish that. Note that this doesn’t mean you must make a profit. Lots of small businesses fail. But the burden of proof here is on the taxpayer. If you’re losing money, the IRS may assert that you’re engaging in a hobby, especially if you only do it part-time or your primary support comes from another source.

So, wow. That sounds subjective, doesn’t it? Why yes, yes it is. It’s a facts and circumstances test and can be highly individual.

(6) AMAZON LANDS DOCTOR WHO. Amazon Prime, which is replacing Netflix and Hulu as online video streamer, will initiate service this month reports Variety.

The man that stops the monsters is back! Seasons 1-8 of Doctor Who will be exclusively available to stream on Amazon Video starting March 27, with Season 9 coming on September 6 2016 and ‘The Husbands of River Song’ following on September 25. Fantastic!

(7) NUSSBAUM’S FAVORITES. Abigail Nussbaum is back with “The 2016 Hugo Awards: My Hugo Ballot, Publishing and Fan Categories”. Here’s just one example –

Best Fan Writer:

  • Nina Allan – Allan continues to be one of the smartest, most insightful reviewers currently working.  Her reviews for Strange Horizons never fail to convince me to read the books she raves about, and in her recent blogging about mystery novels she shows herself to be equally insightful about that genre as she is about science fiction.

(8) POLL WORKER. George R.R. Martin works to get out the vote in “Countdown to Liftoff”, which rounds up links to his Hugo recommendation posts, plus a few late additions:

I did overlook some good choices even in the categories I covered. Naomi Novik’s UPROOTED is her best work to date, a very strong fantasy (though I had problems with the ending) and probably worth a nomination in Novel. I forgot about EX MACHINA when talking about Long Form Drama, but it’s a gripping and well done film, worthy of consideration. I recommended OUTLANDER for Short Form Drama, but it should be noted that the first season was telecast in two eight-episode arcs, and only the second eight are eligible, as the first eight were broadcast in 2014. I think JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR. NORRELL should be nominated in Long Form as a whole, rather than in Short Form, by episode, but others disagree.

(9) A PIUS GEEK. In case you’re not getting enough of this, Declan Finn goes 15 rounds with Damien G. Walter, a bit of overkill, since he stretches Damien on the deck in the first round.

The level of stupid maybe be getting to me.  The Puppy Kickers — like Damien — seem to be going full on insane.  They’ve apparently decided that they can just spew insults, and it’s reality. Wright will never be a pro writer again because they hate him, and anyone they hate must be blackballed. Brad and Larry are demagogues, because Damien said so — and they “ran away” because Brad and Larry didn’t want to play with this crap anymore.

Then again, these ARE the same people that insist that Brad ran away to the Middle East, because being shot at was preferable to standing up to the great and powerful Puppy Kickers. Yes, there are some idiots who’ve actually stated this, online. In public.

See what I mean about the stupid? It burns a LOT.

Damien doesn’t even seem to consider that, had more of his friends came to play at the SP4 site, they could have taken over the list entirely. But that would have meant engaging with people who disagree with him.

(10) LISTING TO STARBOARD. Font Folly leads off its roundup “Keymasters and Gatekeepers” with this comment —

So the Sad Puppies have officially released their recommendation list. Yes, I said list, not slate. Last year’s was a slate because there were exactly five “suggestions” in each category and the puppy supporters were encouraged to vote the exact slate (whether they had actually read the stories or not) in order to ensure that they had whole categories locked up. This year different people are in charge of the Sad Puppy campaign, and they gathered a big list after taking recommendations for months. In all of the fiction categories, at least, there are more than five recommendations, so you can’t slate vote it.

A few other people have written about this year’s list. In sad puppies 4: the… better behaving?, Dara Korra’ti says a lot of what I was thinking when I saw the list. I’m glad that the Sad Puppies have taken a more transparent approach. I’m glad that the list isn’t dominated by stories published in only one very small publication house owned by one of the organizers. I’m really glad that three of the recommendations in a single category are not by the same author. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the people running it this year are sincerely trying to do no more than get more of the works they like on the ballot, rather than push a political agenda. I’ve never objected to recommendation lists no matter who makes those recommendations.

(11) TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE. Kate Paulk has placed asterisks beside two works on “The List” at Sad Puppies 4 whose authors asked to have them removed altogether. And did so with a characteristic Paulkian turn of phrase.

No corrections have been made yet: I’m still catching up from Lunacon. I’ll note the edits at the top of the page when I make them. The Mad Genius Club post will NOT be edited so my typos and miscategorizations will remain there for all posterity. Or posterior, which I suspect is the more apt way to put it.

In comments on “The List” at Mad Genius Club Paulk made this response:

Alastair,

I will not insult those who consider your novella to be Hugo-worthy by removing you from the List. I will, however, be updating the version of this post at http://sadpuppies4.org/the-list/ to note that you prefer that your work not be purchased, enjoyed, and nominated without your prior approval.

Alastair Reynolds answered:

Hello Kate. You’re welcome to do that, of course, but it does not represent my position. Nonetheless thank you for publishing my comment and I wish you all the best.

(12) SCALZI COMMENTS. John Scalzi has been following the news.

(13) GODWIN IS HOLDING ON LINE TWO. Jim C. Hines weighs in on Twitter.

(14) LOL. If for some reason you’re unhappy being recommended by the Bay Area Science Fiction Association, Kevin’s your man.

(15) GOOD FORM. Rachael Acks’ handy guide to “Reasons why I will not be replying to your argument”. Here is item #4 from a list of 17.

4. You have thus far done such a good job at arguing with straw man conceptions of my words that I’ve come to realize my input is entirely superfluous. Please feel free to continue this argument without me.

(16) FREEDOM. Chris Meadows’ TeleRead article “’Sad Puppies’ Hugo campaign posts recommendation list, spawns new controversy” delivers gritty details along with a broad overview.

In the blog post’s comments, Hoyt explained the current plan was to put an asterisk next to the names of those who asked to be removed—which prompted chuckles from other Puppies, in reference to the controversy of last year’s Hugo Awards ceremony that involved the handing out of laser-cut wooden asterisks to every winner that year.

[Thanks to John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day RedWombat.]

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

196 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 3/21/16 The Incredible Sulk”

  5. Fhtagn!

    (9) Wright will never be a pro writer again because they hate him…

    So Castalia House isn’t a pro publisher?

    ETA: Hey… really fifth!

  10. (9) A PIUS GEEK
    Nope, not me. Move along, nothing to see.

    (11) TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE.
    I admire the class, grace, and dignity Reynolds has been displaying in recent days. It’s inspiring. Also, no asterisk next to “Slow Bullets” at last check. Further, they didn’t even bother to turn URLs into links but left them as plain text?

    (15) GOOD FORM.
    Already bookmarked for future reference.

    (16) FREEDOM.

    Judging by Hoyt’s post, and the timbre of comments left to it, the Puppies are by and large reacting with undisguised glee that they are upsetting these “special snow flakes.” From this behavior, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder whether this was the entire reason for the inclusion of some of them on the list at all.

    Something something leopards something spots?

  11. Apparently some folks are confused why I don’t want to be associated with a group who spent a couple of years saying I was talentless scum.

    It’s a mystery! Concealed in a puzzle! And wrapped in an enigma!

  12. (11) TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE.
    Wait,

    Over the last few days, since Kate published the list of Sad Puppies recommends, we’ve been inundated both in email and in social media by people requesting, clamoring and whining to be removed from the list.

    .

    And so far only the Cat Valente & Howard Tayler list items have been tagged with asterisks, and presumably Alastair Reynolds’ will join them in due course. So I can only conclude that The Number of the Inundation is Three?

    *goes away muttering about English language abuse*

  13. So I can only conclude that The Number of the Inundation is Three?

    On that basis, I ate an INUNDATION of cheese coneys yesterday.

    My house is INUNDATED with cats.

    Snailmail routinely INUNDATES my mailbox.

    I am often inundated with phone calls in a single day!

    I wrote an inundation of stories last month.

  14. (4) COVER MODELS. Jim C. Hines and La Resnick

    I’m thinking that Hines’ attire was not skimpy enough for a book cover parody. But I still LOLed.

  15. Paulk made this response:

    I will not insult those who consider your novella to be Hugo-worthy by removing you from the List. I will, however, be updating the version of this post at [[…elided…]] to note that you prefer that your work not be purchased, enjoyed, and nominated without your prior approval.

    That quote crystalized it for me – the Puppies have a bad case of Intention Deficit Disorder.

  17. The reason writers like Cat Valente or Ann Leckie is on the Sad Puppies list is to me very simple: some fans set out to troll/test the way Sarah Hoyt and Kate Paulk et alii would run the Sad Puppies process.

    Now, by adhering to their process, and by including those authors, the SP admins called the bluff, and put the bind on several authors and the stance that many fans (including me) took with the Sad and Rabid Puppies in the Hugo voting last year.

    To me, the best strategic response (as opposed to tactical) is to ignore the Puppies here, at least from the viewpoint of most fans. From what I can see, by toning down their rhetoric, they’ve also lessened their ability to embolden their followers (which still was less than that Vox Day showed last year).

  18. @karl-johan noren: well-meaning fans who were taking the “openness” of the puppy-process at face value were ‘trolling’? when they participated?

    If they did participate.

    I find it very interesting that I’ve not seen one single post, tweet or even hint from an identifiable non-puppy claiming to have posted a “recommendation” on SPIV.

    Doesn’t mean it’s not out there – I could have missed it. On the other hand, I’d think that the SPs would be bruiting it about if they saw it (something like X criticized us for three years and is participating in our open, transparent, non-slate recommendation list). I haven’t seen that either.

    I sure hope children’s programming is being beefed up at BigMac this year….

  19. It’s a mystery! Concealed in a puzzle! And wrapped in an enigma!

    Sounds like another Scalzi burrito

  21. Steve davidson: I find it very interesting that I’ve not seen one single post, tweet or even hint from an identifiable non-puppy claiming to have posted a “recommendation” on SPIV. Doesn’t mean it’s not out there – I could have missed it

    At least a couple of Filers have said so, either in this thread or one of the others during the last 2 days.

    And I don’t believe for a moment that these Filers were trolling the SPs, they were acting in good faith.

    http://sadpuppies4.org/recommendations-best-short-story
    kathodus
    snowcrash
    robmatic
    Greg M.

  22. Hey, it’s nearly Good Friday and the cock’s going to be e-mailing his crow three times before the puppies are betrayed by these Judases.

  23. I’ve had someone argue to me on twitter, simultaneously, that Slow Bullets was voted for honestly on the SPIV recommendation list AND that we the readers don’t care for his work.

    And then there is Paulk’s response to Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds is all class. Ms. Paulk…is not, IMO.

    And then there is the news this morning from Brussels.

    So, the real world is full of darkness and bile, and the metaverse of the imaginary worlds I visit is full of the same thing.

    Maybe I should just go play CIV V for a while.

  24. @Karl @Steve: I saw several familiar non-Puppy names on the SP4 pages.

    There was a little discussion specifically about “Speak-Easy”, you can read it yourself. Doesn’t look to me like any kind of trolling; just some people talking about the story. The usernames are “ALIX” and “HAYLEY,” and I don’t see any particular reason to attribute them to one camp or the other.

    (More to the point, the SP4 list in the current context is one that’s just ripe for pretty much any result to be a flare-up.

    If the list was all hardcore Puppy fic, it’d be a slanted list. Non-Puppies getting in based on a few recommendations — bam, those names are now contentious and controversial. If they’d gotten in based on a dozen recommendations, that would’ve been a non-Puppy invasion and adoption of slating.

    No reason to assume specific ill-intention when pretty much any result looks bad, because of general ill-intention.

    So it goes.)

  25. There is a reason why I chose troll/test, since I don’t know the personal motivation for why one would add Ann Leckie’s books to the SP recommendation process. One can claim they test the processes and the sincerity of the SP’s, or one can claim that they are effectively trolling the SP’s.

  26. Karl-Johan Norén: There is a reason why I chose troll/test, since I don’t know the personal motivation for why one would add Ann Leckie’s books to the SP recommendation process. One can claim they test the processes and the sincerity of the SP’s, or one can claim that they are effectively trolling the SP’s.

    Or one can accept the fact that the Filers I named above were acting in good faith outreach to the Puppies.

  27. (6) AMAZON LANDS DOCTOR WHO.

    It’s very confusing when journalists use language like:

    Seasons 1-8 of Doctor Who will be exclusively available to stream on Amazon Video starting March 27, with Season 9 coming on September 6 2016 and ‘The Husbands of River Song’ following on September 25.

    I wish people would make clear whether they are referring to the old or new Doctor Who shows when they say things like that.

    The accepted use seems to be that seasons refers to the original run of Doctor Who. Seasons 1-8 of Doctor Who aired from 1963 – 1971.

    From context I assume the reporter must have meant series 1-8 of Doctor Who, the modern reboot which would have been broadcast from 2005 – 2014.

  28. @Peace:

    In my experience, season/series is much more a US/UK thing than an old/new thing. Plus, there’s a good bit of content missing from the early years of Classic Who…

    In other news, the new iOS update has finally restored the full-size split keyboard! No more itty-bitty keys to blame my typos on! 😀

  29. said:
    (11) TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE.
    Wait,

    Over the last few days, since Kate published the list of Sad Puppies recommends, we’ve been inundated both in email and in social media by people requesting, clamoring and whining to be removed from the list.

    .

    And so far only the Cat Valente & Howard Tayler list items have been tagged with asterisks, and presumably Alastair Reynolds’ will join them in due course. So I can only conclude that The Number of the Inundation is Three?

    *goes away muttering about English language

    I have not been following any of the Puppy matter this year. I know little of their list.

    I find it interesting that the Puppies this time around seem to be doing unto others with apparent satisfaction the things they have claimed were done unto them and which they once said were howlingly unjust and unkind. So it goes.

    At any rate, my comment was inspired by the presence of Howard Tayler, who by all reports (and in person) seems to be a thoroughly decent sort trying to tell a good story with some nuance and no small amount of humor.

  30. In my experience, season/series is much more a US/UK thing than an old/new thing.

    For the most part, but it sometimes does get used in this way specifically for Old/New Who.

  31. @Rev Bob:

    I probably just indulged in some classic fannish-type geekery.

    I know about the US / UK difference of language as regards television “seasons” and “series”. This isn’t that.

    What I am talking about is the terminology the various databases of Doctor Who information have settled on as regards differentiating Old Who from New Who.

    So far as I can tell, they all refer to the original run as “seasons” and the relaunch as “series”.

    When I see “season 1 of Doctor Who” I expect William Hartnell, not Christopher Eccleston.

  32. Apologies to John Denver:

    My Kindle’s packed
    And charged to go
    I’m downloading stuff I’ve bought before
    But I hate to leave without denting the TBR
    But the dawn is breakin’
    It’s early morn
    The taxi’s waitin’
    He’s blowin’ his horn
    Mentally I’m picking books
    That I could buy

    So miss me and pun for me
    Tell me that you’ll mock slates for me
    Fifth like you’ll never let it go…

    ‘Cause I’m reading on a jet plane
    Don’t know when I’ll be back again
    Oh Scrolls, I hate to go

    Probably won’t be around for the next four weeks. Have fun.
    Yes, yes, I submitted my ballot.

  34. The Puppy Kickers [..] apparently decided that they can just spew insults

    Puppies complaining that [insult] are being insulting, that never gets old <_<

    Also, Godstalk

  35. Paul Weimer (@princejvstin) on March 22, 2016 at 2:48 am said:

    And then there is the news this morning from Brussels.

    Brussels? … Goes to look at news.

    …

    Oh. Oh, damn.

  36. @Peace:

    As you note, the season-old/series-new is a fannish artifact. I am wholly unsurprised that Amazon did not adhere to that (relatively) obscure convention. If they were a Who-specific business, sure… but they’re a long way from being that. Besides, it’s not like the BBC’s putting together season sets of Classic Who, is it?

    Oh, and has anyone noticed that Amazon’s bumped their free shipping threshold from $35 to $49?

  37. Yeah, the season/series thing, within Doctor Who fandom, is pretty established. For example in the great series of guidebooks to the series, About Time, volume 1 is subtitled “1963-1966: Seasons 1 to 3”, while volume 7 is “2005-2006: Seasons 1 & 2”
    Likewise when fans talk about “season 6B”, it’s always in reference to the imagined stories that take place between The War Games (1969) and Spearhead From Space (1970) rather than, say, to the fact that the 2011-12 Doctor Who series (series 6) was split into two halves with a break in the middle.

    Personally I’d prefer it to be the other way round — Americans, who use “season” naturally, are far more likely to be talking about the post-2005 series, and pretty much every Doctor Who season before the 1980s lasted much longer than a single calendar season (usually between twenty-six and forty-two weeks), while the new series has stuck to “seasons” that actually last roughly three months, or one calendar season. But that’s definitely the way the fan convention has it.

  38. @steve

    Some of the Filers who tested the SPIV list are playing a very, very deep game if they are Puppies.

  40. @JJ: Thanks for the correction /information. I must have missed the connection (which possibility I was aware of and therefore the caveat in my comment).

    Apparently some fans are more tolerant and forgiving than I am. I can understand the impulse: if the puppies say they’ve changed, take them at their word. (My policy is different: cautiously re-extend trust, but verify….)

    I’m actually kind of glad I turned out to have missed those: It’s proved that the puppies can’t be taken at their word and that any attempts at reconciliation will either be rejected (see Frank Wu), ridiculed or twisted around to serve their political agenda.

    I also hear the argument (why would you do that to an author – especially one you like); this, I think, comes under the heading of “no good deed ever goes unpunished”. I can easily applaud the intention: if the puppies want back into the fold, give them a chance. But I do have to question the evaluation of the evidence that led to giving any credit to the reliability of puppy statements. In my opinion, it just wasn’t there.

    In fact, its rather plain to me that they do not want reconciliation, they want surrender. Domination. They want a system that they can manipulate to their benefit, just as they’ve accused the non-existent cabal of doing. This is not a fight for equality, it’s “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

    It won’t stop even after BigMacII. Maybe they’ll be frustrated by EPH and turn their attention elsewhere, but I doubt it. We’ll see all manner of bad acting directed at WSFS and the Hugos (probably starting with “bad reviews” of whatever wins the award this year).

    Rather than saying the best way to deal is to ignore them, I think the best way to deal is to accept the fact that we’ve got permanent, perpetual fuggheads attached to fandom and we must be careful to speak out and object every single time they act up. In their own eyes, silence equals acceptance.

  41. In their own eyes, silence equals acceptance.

    Inclined to disagree. They’re acting like attention seeking toddlers. Give them the respect they deserve.

  42. Seems to me that Valente really overestimated the effort and “strategic thinking” (LOL) put in the Sad Puppies campaigns. It’s always been a simple and lazy affair. This year they are going for “totally fair and transparent voting for the list” angle. Some of the non-Puppies decided to test it and made their recs on the site. And since there are so few recommendations in most categories this year, even one mention was often enough to make the list. That was the case with “Speak Easy”.

  43. @TheYoungPretender: I on the other hand did not participate in SPIV because I am playing the deepest game of all. When I finally make my move – oh when I finally make my move! on that day…well, I suppose it depends what my move is. Haven’t worked that out yet. Due time!

  44. All this talk of Mr Reynolds reminds me there’s a now-complete trilogy of his I haven’t read yet. Thanks for the reminder, puppies! More cash for Reynolds and The TBR Ranges acquire a new peak. I’m inundated with new books!

    (According to the 10th edition of the Pupspeak Dictionary, inundated has always meant having three things even if the 9th edition said it was five.)

    ETA – Brussels… Fuck. There’s too much shit in the world today for pissy, petty dickheads like puppies to get any more attention from me.

  45. @Jim Henley

    My reasons for my pseud are solid enough that the idea of handing anything about my IP to the Puppies seemed to be a very bad idea.

  46. Re 9, I see Declan Finn is working hard for the Puppy vote. The tack he is taking suggests that he, at least, thinks the Puppies haven’t changed a bit. Which makes it a great test for if the Puppies are really different this year or not. If he gets a nomination, they’re … not different.

    And in the meantime, we can all look at Dave Freer’s latest and remind ourselves that this is one of the writers the Puppies slated as one of the five best last year. That’s what Declan is trying to be not different from. I think he’s doing a good job fitting in, how about you?

    Regarding the results of SP4 I was noticing at the time that Filers were saying they had commented over there. I never did, but some penguin has to be first off the floe when it comes to being willing to reconcile, and I respect those first penguins. And once you decide to be a First Penguin, which is better to suggest for something you are going to temporarily accept for the sake of argument is a recommendation list–a work you like or a work you don’t? I suggest that honesty would require that it be a work you genuinely think is good.

    Looking at the list now I will point out what I have said several times before–a slate boosts the nominating power of a group by a factor of ten to twelve. That is why the Puppies locked everyone else out of whole categories last year despite being a minority of nominators. A “slate of ten,” if all items on that slate are equally attractive to that group, dilutes that by a factor of two, and “only” boosts their nominating power by a factor of five to six.

    I think the Puppies are trying to find out how much unfair advantage we will tolerate. And having items on their list that are less attractive to members of their group will actually work in their favor in two ways; 1) it willl work to funnel their nominations towards the other items, so the unfair advantage will actually be greater than it looks. 2) if something nonPuppy fans genuinely enjoy makes the final ballot on the strength of the nominations of nonPuppy fans, Puppies can take the credit.

    I don’t know that they were planning to do this; they don’t give the impression of thinking things through this far–but I think this is how it will work out.

  47. Wonders if it’s too late to register @SadPuppiesFive on twitter and use it to just retweet @WeRateDogs?

Comments are closed.