(1) WHO NEXT. From The Guardian, “Doctor Who showrunner says there was going to be a black Doctor”.
The starring role in BBC1’s Doctor Who was offered to a black actor but it “didn’t work out” according to the series showrunner, Steven Moffat.
Moffat said it would be “amazing” to have two non-white leads after Pearl Mackie, whose father is from the West Indies, was cast as the Doctor’s companion earlier this year.
He said the producers took a conscious decision to cast a non-white actor as the companion “because we need to do better on that. We just have to”.
Moffat said the show had tried to go one further by casting the first non-white Doctor, but the choice later fell through….
Moffat said Doctor Who had “no excuse” not to feature a diverse cast of black, Asian and minority ethnic actors. “Sometimes the nature of a particular show – historical dramas, for instance – makes diversity more of a challenge, but Doctor Who has absolutely nowhere to hide on this,” he said.
“Young people watching have to know that they have a place in the future. That really matters. You have to care profoundly what children’s shows in particular say about where you’re going to be.
“And we’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’
“And, outside of the fiction, it’s about anyone feeling that they can be involved in this industry as an actor, a director, a writer … It’s hugely important, and it’s not good when we fail on that. We must do better.”
(2) ‘MASS EFFECT. Mark-kitteh is excited that “Quatermass will return to television in a new series on BBC America”.
Quatermass is returning to television – over a decade since the character last visited the small-screen.
Created by legendary writer Nigel Kneale, Professor Bernard Quatermass is a genius scientist who battles alien forces.
First appearing in the BBC’s 1953 serial The Quatermass Experiment, the character has gone on to feature in numerous TV and film projects.
Now, BBC America is revisiting the character for a new series written by The League of Gentlemen‘s Jeremy Dyson, reports Variety.
(3) TEA AND JOCULARITY. Rachel Swirsky did an interview with Ann Leckie, or rather a “Silly Interview with Anncillary Leckie, Yes I said That, I’ll Be Here All Night”. Includes photos of Leckie’s bead jewelry.
RS: I’ve been reading your Raadchai stories for eleven years now (Yeah, eleven years. Let that sink in.) and I know the gloves and tea were in them by the time I started reading. Were they part of the initial germ of the Raadch, or if not, how did they evolve?
They weren’t part of the initial germ, but they got into the mix pretty soon after that. And I’m not sure where they came from or why they stuck–it just kind of worked for me somehow.
Which is how a lot of things are when I’m writing. Sometimes I’ll see someone say, like, “Oh, and this detail here, this is obviously Leckie doing this profound intentional thematic thing” and I’m like, no, actually, it was shiny, or else it made the story work the way I wanted it to, but I am not going to speak up and spoil the impression that I was actually doing this very sophisticated thing!
(4) SILLY SYMPHONIES. The Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra features LACO @ the Movies, an evening of Disney Silly Symphonies on Saturday, June 4 @ 7 pm The Orpheum Theatre.
Experience movie magic! Conducted by six-time Emmy® Award-winning conductor and composer Mark Watters, Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra performs the score live for an evening of Disney Silly Symphonies. These classic shorts, Walt Disney’s earliest experiments in animation, set timeless fables and fantastical scenes against a backdrop of lively classical music. With LACO providing the accompaniment live in the theatre, it’s an evening that’s sure to exhilarate your senses!
There’s no better setting for this night of classic cartoons than The Orpheum Theatre, one of LA’s most opulent and lovingly restored movie palaces in the historic downtown Broadway District. Bring the whole family and enjoy the show.
projecting on the silver screen a curated selection of landmark animated shorts including the first commercial short produced in Technicolor and five Academy Award winners!
- The Skeleton Dance (1929)
- Flowers and Trees (1932)
- Three Little Pigs (1933)
- The Old Mill (1937)
- The Ugly Duckling (1939)
- The Country Cousin (1936)
- Music Land (1935)
(5) A SPAGHETTI EASTERN. Aaron Pound reports on Balticon 50 in The Tale of the Good, the Bad, and the Shoe-Cop.
The Good: There was a lot that went right at Balticon 50. This was a unique event, as Balticon invited all of its previous guests of honor back to celebrate the fiftieth time this convention had been held. As a result, the lineup of guests was quite impressive for a relatively small regional convention, and a similar event is probably not going to happen outside of a Worldcon for at least a few years….
The Bad: Balticon 50 had a lot of issues. Some were beyond the control of the convention staff. The following problems, however, are pretty much squarely on them.
One glaring problem was that programming was a mess, and apparently so from the beginning of the convention. Balticon provided both a large convention book containing a schedule and a pocket guide that also had a schedule. The first problem was that these schedules were incompatible with one another, each listing events at different times – they diverged by a half an hour, which unsurprisingly served to make it difficult to figure out when an event was supposed to take place. The second problem was that many program participants had schedules that were, as Mur Lafferty described it, “temporally impossible”, with many participants double-booked for two events at one time, or booked with back-to-back events separated by several hotel floors…..
And the Shoe-Cop story? I musn’t lift all of Aaron’s material. Go read the post.
(6) LAW WEST OF THE AMAZON. “Amazon sues sellers for buying fake reviews”: TechCrunch has the story.
As part of its effort to combat fake reviews on its platform, Amazon sued three of its sellers today for using sock puppet accounts to post fake reviews about their products. Amazon has been aggressively pursuing reviewers it does not consider genuine over the last year, often using lawsuits to discourage the buying and selling of reviews, but this is the first time it has sued the sellers themselves.
Today’s suits are against sellers who Amazon claims used fake accounts to leave positive reviews on their own products. The fake reviews spanned from 30 to 45 percent of the sellers’ total reviews. The defendants are Michael Abbara of California, Kurt Bauer of Pennsylvania, and a Chinese company called CCBetter Direct.
(7) BYRON PREISS BACK IN THE NEWS. The late publisher’s clues have yet to be fully deciphered, as Vice explains in “The 35-Year Long Hunt to Find a Fantasy Author’s Hidden Treasure”.
There is a treasure buried somewhere in Milwaukee. Not just in Milwaukee, but in nine other North American locations, including (possibly) New York, San Francisco, and Montreal. And it’s not so much “treasure” as hunks of ceramic encased in Plexiglas. But one man’s trash is another man’s marketing strategy.
The treasures were hidden in 1981 by publisher Byron Preiss, as part of his plan to promote his new book, The Secret. Preiss’s fantasy paperback (which predated the identically titled self-help book by a quarter of a century) included a series of puzzles in the form of cryptic verses with matching images. If solved, they’d lead readers to a real-life ceramic bin, or “casque,” containing a key to a safe-deposit box, which held a gem worth roughly $1,000….
The next puzzle wasn’t solved until 2004, when an attorney named Brian Zinn tracked down a casque in Cleveland from a verse that mentioned Socrates, Pindar, and Apelles (all three names are etched into a pylon at the Cleveland Cultural Gardens). After four hours of digging holes, he found the casque buried next to a wall marking the perimeter of the gardens.
To date, the Cleveland casque is the last known resolved puzzle. “Byron Preiss, according to family and friends, figured all of them would be found upon publication. I don’t think he realized how difficult the poems were,” said James Renner, an author and filmmaker who’s working on a documentary about the book.
Preiss died in a 2005 car crash at age 52, and never disclosed the locations of the remaining casques. His publishing house went bankrupt and was acquired by a rival press. Many people viewed the sale as the last chance to redeem the gems, suggesting now, there may only be empty bins.
But 35 years later, people are still searching….
As for the gems, which were believed to be confiscated in bankruptcy proceeding after Preiss’s death, Preiss’s widow Sandi Mendelson told VICE they’re safely in her possession and will be available to the first people to recover the remaining casques.
“If somebody would find something, yes,” said Mendelson. “I haven’t done anything with them, so they’re still around.”
(8) FAN WRITER. Kate Paulk resumes her study – “Hugo Awards – The Nominee Highlights – Best Fan Writer”. She frankly concludes, “At least one of the nominees probably should be there…”
(9) HEMSTREET’S WAVE. Ray McKenzie reviews The God Wave at Fantasy Literature.
Like The Martian before it, it is the science in The God Wave that makes for such an engrossing and convincing tale. The story feels utterly believable and meticulously researched, whilst not being overbearing; the novel will please hard- and soft-sci-fi fans alike. Hemstreet uses plenty of familiar tropes throughout, and you’ll recognise scenes reminiscent of Alien and Star Trek.
(10) VICTORIAN GAZING DRAGON. Hampus Eckerman said, “Seeing the nice posable dragon in the last pixel scroll reminded me of this dragon illusion.”
Ever seen those illusions where there is a face that seems to turn toward you? I’ve seen it in theme parks and museums like the Exploratorium, and the Disneyland Haunted House thing. But, now you can make your own. All you need is a printer and some scissors!
(11) SEEING REALITY. Kameron Hurley asks “Is Living Worth It?”.
Being that close to death all the time changes the way you think about life. It’s why I feel such an affinity for other people who’ve been through it, or who are going through it. My spouse is a cancer survivor. He had just finished the last of his radiation a few months before we met. We understood life in a way that only people who’ve stared at death really do. You appreciate the little things a lot more. You constantly feel like you’re running on borrowed time.
Most of all, you get how precious life is, and you do your damnedest to hold onto it.
In reading this post from Steven Spohn over at Wendig’s site, I was reminded of this again. I may have all the appearances of being able-bodied, but when people talk about tossing out people for being defective, I can tell you that somewhere on there, no matter how far down, I am on that list. I know that because before I got sick, I put people like me on that list. I believed in “survival of the fittest.” What I didn’t realize is that “fittest” is a lie. The “fittest” don’t survive. There are some truly ridiculous animals out there (pandas??? Narwhales??). Those who survive are the most adapted to their particular niche. That is all. They are not stronger or smarter or cooler or better built or more logical.
(12) THE DARK SIDE. Smash Dragons interviews horror writer Hank Schwaeble.
What is it about horror and dark fiction that appeals to you the most?
The peek behind the curtain. Not necessarily a peek at something real, but a peek at the sort of things that we might wonder about that we don’t understand. Few of us believe there really are goblins in the shadows, but what if there were? That’s the nature of shadows—you don’t really know what’s in there. What we do know, however, is that there is a dark side to life, to human nature. Horrors and atrocities are real, so exploring them in fictional ways allows us to deal with them intellectually and philosophically. I don’t believe it’s just morbid curiosity, either. Our brains are wired to sense things about the world, about our environment. We are driven to explore, to discover, to learn. We enjoy so many creature comforts, so many sources of entertainment, so many colors and sights and recreations, I think many of us are drawn to seek out the opposite as a way of reminding ourselves of how good things can be. It’s like listening to the blues. People don’t play Muddy Waters to be depressed, they listen to him to be reminded of struggles, of adversity, of our common humanity. People like me, I believe, like dark fiction because a part of ourselves like to swim in deep waters, to be reminded that we can be afraid, intrigued, mystified. When we lift ourselves from the pages, the world seems a much brighter place.
(13) SPEND MORE MONEY. Disney and Lucasfilm are getting their prop makers into the retail business.
Kylo Ren’s most prized possession is now an ultimate work of art: https://t.co/XVlhkzzrCXhttps://t.co/dN3Kubg9nR
— Star Wars (@starwars) June 1, 2016
Propshop, in collaboration with Lucasfilm, is now making official prop replicas of its work from The Force Awakens available to collectors in a new line called Star Wars Collectibles: Ultimate Studio Edition. Wave one is a treasure trove of memorable gear from the film: FN-2187 (i.e., Finn) Stormtrooper Helmet (with blood streaks!), Kylo Ren Helmet, Poe Dameron X-wing Helmet, Darth Vader Helmet (Melted), Rey Staff, Chewbacca Bowcaster, Kylo Ren Lightsaber Hilt, and Rey Lightsaber Hilt. Propshop is making them the same exact way it made the original props: 3D prints of the final output made for the film, all hand-painted by the original prop makers.
For example, the melted Darth Vader helmet (a limited edition of 500) goes for $3,750.
(14) IS LONGER BETTER? There will be an R-rated extended edition of Batman v. Superman available for digital purchase on June 28 and on disc July 19 says CinemaBlend.
Although Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was especially intense for a PG-13 movie, the “Ultimate Edition” is including extended or brand new action scenes that are more comfortable nestled in rated-R territory. So if you liked the original version’s fights, get ready for even more bombastic throw-downs. Along with these sequences, this cut is also including 30 minutes worth of scenes cut from the theatrical release, taking the runtime to over three hours. This includes one (or several) featuring Hunger Games star Jena Malone. Several months ago, it was rumored that she was playing Barbara Gordon, a.k.a. Batgirl/Oracle. However, in this trailer, she’s seen with blonde hair and looks like she’s working at the Daily Planet with Lois Lane. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean she’s still not Barbara. Maybe this version dyed her hair and took a job at the Planet to separate herself from the Bat-Family. Still, this is peculiar.
(15) HOWDY STRANGER. The Space Between Us comes to theaters August 19.
In this interplanetary adventure, a space shuttle embarks on the first mission to colonize Mars, only to discover after takeoff that one of the astronauts is pregnant. Shortly after landing, she dies from complications while giving birth to the first human born on the red planet – never revealing who the father is. Thus begins the extraordinary life of Gardner Elliot – an inquisitive, highly intelligent boy who reaches the age of 16 having only met 14 people in his very unconventional upbringing.
While searching for clues about his father, and the home planet he’s never known, Gardner begins an online friendship with a street smart girl in Colorado named Tulsa. When he finally gets a chance to go to Earth, he’s eager to experience all of the wonders he could only read about on Mars – from the most simple to the extraordinary. But once his explorations begin, scientists discover that Gardner’s organs can’t withstand Earth’s atmosphere.
Eager to find his father, Gardner escapes the team of scientists and joins with Tulsa on a race against time to unravel the mysteries of how he came to be, and where he belongs in the universe.
[Thanks to Hampus Eckerman, Martin Morse Wooster, Michael J. Walsh, and John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Doctor Science.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@Brian Z: He was spot on. And the only chance to get the rockets their lustre back now is to behave with that kind of integrity – voluntarily standing down from all the internet campaigns.
Splendid! Puppies can stop running slates in order to rig the Hugo awards for their own benefit.
@Mike – fair enough and I am sorry for phrasing myself so provocatively, I do normally prefer to discuss actions rather than use labels (if nothing else, knowing that certain labels tend to distract people from discussing the actions) and I did for a moment forget where I was and that I was in the presence of people who feel differently about Ellison, more positively and so forth.
@Robinareid – I admit I cribbed that line from tumblr, where people tend to say it sincerely and with genuine affection, unlike how I said it lol a longer “bless your heart” if you will 😉
Hey I have a pretty sizeable Lackey collection myself, even the ones she has pointed at as “just paying the bills” books I find easy to read and get into. But the Arrows trilogy will always have a special place in my heart, similiar to you, in that it was the first spec fic book that made a big impression on me. I remember first reading it in grade 4 (or 6? somewhere around there) and really identifying with Talia for reasons that are not obvious or clearcut, there was just some things about her personality and such that I felt connected to somehow. And Vanyel’s books also made a big impact on me, I am pretty sure that was the first book I’d ever read with a gay protagonist of any kind, and sure there are now some elements to the characters and plots of the Valdemar universe that are problematic and some things are just plain silly or made me go “uh his girlfriend, a horse?” lol but Lackey still gets credit for that particular mind-opening and giving me those feelings of what it feels like to be able to see the protagonist in the light of “hey that could be me!” which are two very important things to me personally. If that doesn’t count for anything with those poo-poo’ing the “fall” of modern fiction then I got nothing. Books become popular because people like them, you’d think that would count for something.
@Aaron yeah and hopefully anyone reading my comments can see that I did not take my remark about Ellison’s problematic words and actions and add a remark such as “And that’s why no one should like him or his work” because that wasn’t my point. It’s a common tactic of those against social justice to try to “trap” activists in their own words, which is what Brian is trying to do and poorly. He thinks that if he shows us that our “beloved” or popular progressive authors said this bad thing or that, that we will automatically be compelled to shun them and shun everyone who enjoys their work, leading us to tear ourselves apart by these harsh imaginary rules that Puppies and others think we have, because we must or we’ll prove our rules to be fake! Oh no, our imaginary rules have been proven fake, we must disband and apologize for any inconvenience! Or we’ll just feel so betrayed that we’ll give up this whole social justice thing and let the Puppies win Hugos and gamers make games about ladies in bikini armour with realistic boob jiggling action or whatever else they resent so much not being able to do or have as they like without commentary or censure.
The reality is that given the way literature and pop culture is right now, trying to enjoy something without any problematic elements is mostly a matter of luck, because art reflects society and we definitely haven’t sorted that stuff out yet. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t important to acknowledge these problematic elements and dismantle the ideas they support through active dialogue and criticism, but as you Aaron and Lenora and Robinareid have touched on, it’s complicated and doesn’t have to be an either/or choice situation. It’s up to each person to decide where they draw the line, as their personal history and their place in the social hegemony will inform how certain words and things affect them.
So you agree that the Puppies and everyone else should stand down? Splendid.
Peering back through the mists of time, by the way, I realize there was actually a high profile genre author blog up in 1996, making it a good candidate for Ellison’s wrath.
Was that a paraphrase? 😀
Sunhawk, given the controversies you mentioned about things Ellison said and did in the last few years (please note that I don’t think those things were fine, or remotely excusable) I can appreciate how it wouldn’t be obvious to you that I was paying careful attention to the things Ellison said way back then because of all of the times over the course of the 20th century that he demonstrated his integrity. That’s OK.
But you should probably stop listening to Aaron.
Good lord Brian the voting amendment is going ahead, there is literally no way that any of your endless trolling and attempts at gotchas are going to change that, especially here on this blog where there aren’t actually any staff or admin of the Hugos! I know Kevin pops in now and then and other past Hugo/Worldcon organizers/staff but it’s pretty clear none of your ridiculous convoluted attempts to steer people into accepting or agreeing with your point of view have made any progress on him or anyone, so are you just another contrarian who likes taking the opposite view of every debate? It can’t be that you actually expect your words to have any impact other than irritation and scorn, especially since you just called a bunch of people here animals and trash, you may have missed this in high school debate club but namecalling is just silly and you actually really suck at this “influencing people and making friends” business.
Goodluck with your weird “magical rules” efforts Brian, is paraphrase the new Aristotle? Do you think you are actually making some sort of point in your posts about Ellison? You’ve been doing all this nudging and winking, like come on just say whatever grand point you have been “heh heh”ing over for five pages, I am SO BORED ALREADY
BrianZ only read the last half of How to Win Friends and Influence People.
you don’t really do justice to Ellison’s comments on the Hugos, which I assume were the ones he made in 1996
It appears from the copyright date that that video is from 1995.
He took to the airwaves to declare that someone had successfully “bought” (that is, lobbied for) a Nebula
Actually, he didn’t say that. He said a “vastly untalented person” had won a Nebula, and implied that it was lobbied for, but he didn’t actually say it had been or how it had been accomplished. The 1995 Nebula winners were Greg Bear, Mike Resnick, David Gerrold, and Martha Soukup. The Hugo winners that year were Lois McMaster Bujold, Mike Resnick, David Gerrold, and Joe Haldeman. It isn’t clear who would be the “vastly untalented person” Ellison is referring to.
He might have been referring to the 1994 Nebulas (or Hugos). The 1994 Nebulas went to Kim Stanley Robinson, Jack Cady, Charles Sheffield, and Joe Haldeman. The 1994 Hugos went to Kim Stanley Robinson, Harry Turtledove, Charles Sheffield, and Connie Willis. Once again, it is unclear who the “vastly untalented person” might be. Then again, it is pretty clear from his history that Ellison has a pretty idiosyncratic idea of who is an is not talented.
Harlan is so vague in his video that there isn’t really any way to tell what he might have considered evidence of chicanery. He doesn’t describe what form the alleged lobbying took, and doesn’t explain exactly what he thinks constitutes “begging” for votes on the internet. He doesn’t actually substantiate his claims with anything but vague hand waving, so I’m not really inclined to take him seriously on this point. There just isn’t any way to determine what kind of behavior he is complaining about, so trying to make some sort of conclusion as to what people should and should not be doing (as you suggest) is stretching the content of this video to the point of dishonesty.
But then again, dishonesty is kind of your thing, so that’s not surprising.
@Sunhawk: It would be so much easier for Brian if people didn’t bother to fact check the things he says so he could paraphrase all kinds of things deceptively and then no one would know what a serial liar he is.
Sunhawk,
I wasn’t talking about EPH. I was talking about the spirit of the Hugo Award and how not to undermine it.
However, you don’t seem to understand my views about EPH clearly. Here are the reasons EPH or EPH+ is a bad idea:
1. The Hugos depend on honest participation. This doesn’t stop being true when you fiddle with the rules.
2. Even if neutral improvements to the voting system might be introduced in at least a reasonably neutral, apolitical manner in theory, there is far too much vitriol and negativity in the air to do that right now.
3. EPH actively works against fans who come together organically to select excellent SFF by treating said coming together the same way it does a politically motivated “slate.” Thus it actively undermines the very purpose of the awards. If you don’t believe me, you might listen to Jim Henley.
4. Ratifying EPH might encourage the spread of the social attitudes which informed it, and in that way encourage, not mitigate, the ongoing trend in which fans have come to think of themselves as divided, squabbling subcultures, unable, or at least unwilling to come together to read and honor the same cherished authors. This may be unavoidable, but if it is, that would beg the question of why continue to have a Hugo ceremony.
5. EPH doesn’t do a very good job of accomplishing its stated objectives, and the “improvement,” EPH+ will exacerbate the disadvantages.
6. Introducing EPH in such a negative, vitriolic environment effectively encourages anyone with grievances against other persons or communities within fandom to use it tactically to undermine them. The most glaring example is that a coordinated bloc of voters could use it to play kingmaker. That is, they could dominate the ballot, even most of the long list, by coordinating to nominate 5 or 10 items, so long as some of them also have broad support outside the bloc, rewarding the nominees they approve of while simultaneously denying places on the ballot to nominees they might wish to undermine. This is not hypothetical behavior, either since (pending release of the nomination data) we can make a reasonably educated guess that this was done in 2016 by a number of the readers of Vox Day’s blog.
When I pointed this out to Jameson Quinn, he proposed yet another modification to the rules, which he calls “Extend finalists,” to counter it. That proposal hasn’t gained traction. if it does, I’ll comment further.
Let’s translate Brian Z into normal English:
1. Voting works best when people are honest. Therefore nothing should be done to prevent dishonesty from working.
2. Making dishonest people feel bad is worse than letting dishonest people run the show.
3. A change in the voting system might change the results. A fairly unlikely hypothetical might come to pass that Brian thinks is much more likely than it actually is because he doesn’t understand how EPH actually works.
4. Elections should only be conducted among homogeneous groups that have no differences of opinion on major matters. If the electorate is divided, there just isn’t any point in having a vote.
5. EPH isn’t perfect, therefore it is worthless and everyone should content themselves with doing absolutely nothing.
6. If EPH passes, people might do things they are already doing. The fact that they are already doing them is clearly the fault of EPH, even though it has not been passed.
Aaron, that’s correct, 1995.
I suppose one could have a look through Usenet at what was being said then. Sawyer’s author blog did go up in 1995. Sawyer didn’t win a major award until 1996, but had a remarkably strong showing in 1995 that might have been grist for the mill. For a 1995 Nebula win Ellison thought was inappropriately lobbied for, since Ellison refers to “sour grapes,” perhaps he was talking about a category he appeared in, and that narrows things down.
For a 1995 Nebula win Ellison thought was inappropriately lobbied for, since Ellison refers to “sour grapes,” perhaps he was talking about a category he appeared in, and that narrows things down.
The only category Ellison appeared in in 1995 was won by Resnick. By 1995, Resnick had already won two Hugos, and been nominated for ten others (although only eight were for fiction writing). He had also been nominated for a Nebula five times. Resnick’s Nebula winning story in 1995 also won the Hugo in its category.
It is possible that Ellison may have considered Resnick to be “vastly untalented”, but the rest of the science fiction community seems to have disagreed.
Other than several thousand who no-awarded him last year. LOL.
It’s been a very long time since I read that story so I’d have to go back to it, but in general I’ve read some Resnick stories that were not as strong as others. Ellison’s claim was that the work in question was not organically nominated, due to inappropriate lobbying of SFWA members. So the question isn’t “can that nominee ever turn out a good story?” If it was in fact Resnick, the question is more like “how come he got nominated more often than everybody else?”
I was curious if Google would shed any light. Well, at least it yielded a little heat.
Because I’ve added Brian Z to my plonkscript, I only see white space instead of his comments.
Dear Filers, to me Brian Z is a “negative space” experience shaped by how other posters respond to his comments. Based on this, I have no regrets about deploying the plonkscript. I’d also like to thank the various “Speakers to Brian” for making the effort; I myself have given up.
@Soon Lee: Welcome to Plonking the Troll; we hope you enjoy your stay, I mean, uh, we hope you enjoy slightly more time than you had before. Only slightly, since there’ll still be another 500 comments replying to Brian Z, and some of those may be interesting. (I find it very difficult not to at least skim the other 500 comments in World War Z, I mean, World War Brian Z.)
But every little bit of time saved helps, with these busy comment threads! 😉
@Mike Glyer: Oh wait there’s a Pixel Scroll title idea for ya:
World War Brian Z
😉
You’re welcome!
Reading just that one comment (I half-expected something like that) to say:
::snort:: 😉
Brian it’s not that I don’t understand your Hugo vote amending protests. It’s just that I don’t, on any level, care in the slightest what your protests are. I don’t even need a script to white out your posts because the minute you start rambling on for the millinionth time about your objections, my eyes seem to instinctively slide right over your posts. Heck that sometimes happens even with your regular posts, ain’t that something!
I just do not care what your problem is with the Hugos and I’m pretty sure by now no one else does either. You saying it a hundred more times isn’t going to change that, it will just make it more true. But keep digging that hole, buddy! Maybe I’m wrong and you are just one more repetition away from convincing us all!
@sunhawk There must be a follow-on effect, because MEGO now whenever the inevitable responses start. I know I’m probably missing out on some discursive gems, but life is short, and I save pages of reading that way.
@sunhawk I was going to say MEGO when I see the inevitable responses, but I guess that would prove I also wasn’t being completely honest with myself.
ETA: I did say it after all!
Other than several thousand who no-awarded him last year. LOL.
As an editor. It may come as a surprise to you, but there’s a difference between writing and editing.
Ellison’s claim was that the work in question was not organically nominated, due to inappropriate lobbying of SFWA members. So the question isn’t “can that nominee ever turn out a good story?”
That’s not what Ellison said. He said a story by someone who was “vastly untalented” won a Nebula. He didn’t say “a bad story by a good writer” won. He also implied that lobbying took place, but he didn’t say what form this lobbying took or what stage of the process the lobbying came. You’ve inserted a whole bunch of assumptions that aren’t actually in the video in question.
Sunhawk, you are under no obligation to care about my objection to the Hugo proposals.
You definitely don’t understand it, since a little while ago you thought it comes down to harsh imaginary rules and realistic boob jiggling action, and you seem like an honest person so I assume you weren’t lying.
But sure, if you aren’t interested, don’t bring it up.
@Brian Z: So you agree that the Puppies and everyone else should stand down? Splendid.
Lazy false equivalence, Brian. You can do better than this.
@Aaron,
You used Resnick’s past editing nominations in your argument.
In my opinion a writer Ellison found untalented could still produce some good stories. I hazily recall having issues with “Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge.” I don’t remember reading his two other nominated stories that year, or the anthologies he edited. Ellison’s decision not to identify the writer meant that if he did think Resnick’s four Hugo nominations that year were a collective problem (like some questioned those of Seanan McGuire or John C. Wright) he couldn’t say.
Since you are correct that Ellison didn’t specify a stage, the winner was not “organically chosen.”
@Mokoto, if you replied to my suggestion that everyone stand down from all the internet campaigning by saying the Puppies should “stop running slates” without everyone doing so, then that is your false equivalence.
@Brian Z: if you replied to my suggestion that everyone stand down from all the internet campaigning by saying the Puppies should “stop running slates” without everyone doing so, then that is your false equivalence.
Brian, this is not a case where everyone is running slates. This is a case where one party is running a slate. In response to this behavior, another party has proposed changing the rules, to provide some defense against future slates.
You’ve been dredging through statements made by Cherryh and Ellison some time ago for two reasons: 1) to claim that Cherryh and the puppies are expressing the same sentiment when they complain about the quality and content of literature. 2) to justify current slates by comparing them to Ellison’s unfounded claims of past skullduggery, what you are now calling all the internet campaigning.
Context matters. Cherryh and Ellison did not run slates in order to rig the Hugo awards for their own benefit.
@Mokoto: “Lazy false equivalence, Brian. You can do better than this.”
No, no he can’t – er, I mean, he won’t. This is one of many reasons why some of us filter/ignore him. 😉
He worked so hard to find that seashell! It offers no concealment but he’ll be damned if he lets it go.
@Mokoto, if you replied to my suggestion that everyone stand down from all the internet campaigning by saying the Puppies should “stop running slates” without everyone standing down from all the internet campaigning , then that is your false equivalence.
I’ve not said “everyone is running slates.”
I’m not making claims 1) and 2) you describe.
The change doesn’t defend against what happened in 2016, must less what might be done if a group of science fiction fans are goaded into trying to “beat” your “defense.”
You used Resnick’s past editing nominations in your argument.
No, I didn’t. I specifically pointed out that only eight of his previous Hugo nominations were for writing, setting off the other two as being different. This is a case of you seeing what you want to see and then running to the result you want to run to without actually bothering to read (or listen) to what was said.
In my opinion a writer Ellison found untalented could still produce some good stories.
That’s not what Ellison said. Once again, you’re inserting an unwarranted assumption of your own into the mix in order to claim Ellison said what you want him to have said. This sort of thing is why you have your justified reputation for being dishonest.
I hazily recall having issues with “Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge.” I don’t remember reading his two other nominated stories that year, or the anthologies he edited. Ellison’s decision not to identify the writer meant that if he did think Resnick’s four Hugo nominations that year were a collective problem (like some questioned those of Seanan McGuire or John C. Wright) he couldn’t say.
You’re assuming he mean Resnick, and you’re assuming he had a problem with Resnick’s Hugo nominations. Ellison was talking about a Nebula win, although even he wasn’t sure on that point.
Since you are correct that Ellison didn’t specify a stage, the winner was not “organically chosen.”
Ellison didn’t specify anything, and that’s the problem with your entire set of claims. What did Ellison mean by “lobbied”? Do you know? I doubt it, since Ellison didn’t say. It could mean something that everyone else doesn’t see as a problem. Ellison has a well-deserved reputation as something of a fringe crank on a lot of issues. How do you know his criticism here was valid? He didn’t provide any evidence to support his claim other than someone he thought was untalented won a Nebula.
What did Ellison mean by “begging for votes”? One might note that he is referring to a different author when he talks about begging for Hugo votes, and you seem to have conflated the two into “Resnick”. Did the unnamed author say “Hey, I’m nominated for a Hugo and I’d appreciate your vote”? Did he say “I have a story that’s eligible for a Hugo, check it out and if you like it vote for it”? Did he say “Vote for my story and I’ll grovel at your feet afterwards”? What? You’ve said one could look through old Usenet posts to try and see, well, why don’t you? You’ve made an assertion, it is up to you to back it up. Otherwise you’re just passing on innuendo and pretending Ellison said more than he did.
The change doesn’t defend against what happened in 2016
Since it hasn’t been tested against 2016 data, you have no idea if this is true or not. Once again, you seem to really really want something to be true, so you declare it is. That’s dishonest.
Brian, how do you define internet campaigning? How does this relate to puppies rigging the Hugo awards for their own benefit?
Brian your one skill does appear to be the ability to make completely illogical jumps from “I didn’t understand Sunhawk’s point” to “Sunhawk doesn’t understand MY points AND she may be lying!” like are you for real? Is there a hidden camera hanging around you at all times? Hi Mom!
Yes, you did.
Otherwise, you would have said “Prior to 1995, Mike Resnick had eight Hugo nominations for his writing. He also had one nomination as an editor, but I am convinced that Harlan did not evaluate the person’s level of talent as an editor, although he didn’t say that. He had three more Hugo nominations in 1995 for his writing, plus one as an editor, totaling 13 Hugo nominations, including four in 1995 alone, but only 11 for writing which I am positive was the only talent Ellison was speaking of.”
I never claimed that’s what he said. It’s what I think.
Make up your mind. Is it my assumption, or am I claiming Ellison said it?
If the assumption that a writer Ellison finds untalented may sometimes still be able to write a good story is unwarranted, produce your explanation for why you believe such a writer must be incapable of doing so.
It isn’t valid in the case of Resnick, based on my evaluation from sampling Resnick’s entire body of work – admittedly, not based on the stories and edited anthologies he was nominated for in 1995.
Actions encouraging others to give you an award, rather than simply letting the work stand on its merits.
Did they teach you that one in lawyer school?
Any form of asking people to vote for your work.
No. I guessed it was most likely Robert Sawyer, who had the first famous author blog in 1995 and enjoyed a remarkable level of success in being nominated for awards in that year, though he didn’t win a Nebula until the following year.
Why? My comment was that the authors Ellison was referring to are likely Resnick and probably also Sawyer. I haven’t said I’m certain. I’m closer to certain after seeing what Mike Glyer dug up, but that’s simply of historical interest.
It’s been tested against 2014 data, and was immediately followed by the addition of the proposal “extend finalists” as a means to counter the strategy. Ask the creator of EPH who announced on File770 that he was running further tests to investigate the scenario, and should be able to tell us the results. If you get a response, I’ll be pleased to see progress.
Going on the internet and encouraging people to vote for you.
No.
@Brian Z: Going on the internet and encouraging people to vote for you.
Brian, you’re working towards the argument that everyone involved has engaged in similar behavior, so we should leave our doors unlocked and do nothing when the science fiction fans return.
Give up has been the foundation of your argument for some time. Likewise has been your description of the puppies as fans, as if this excuses their behavior. If they want to win an award, they can earn an award.
Yes, you did.
No, I didn’t. Go back and actually read what I wrote, not the version you think I wrote. I specifically noted that only eight of his nominations were for writing.
I never claimed that’s what he said. It’s what I think.
You’ve claimed it is what you think Ellison might have been saying. You have no idea if Ellison thought a bad writer could produce a good story. One might conclude that if Ellison thought the Nebula winning story in question was good, he wouldn’t have thought it a problem that it won.
If the assumption that a writer Ellison finds untalented may sometimes still be able to write a good story is unwarranted, produce your explanation for why you believe such a writer must be incapable of doing so.
That’s not what I said and not what Ellison said. Go back and watch the video. At no point does he comment on the quality of the story other than to say a “vastly untalented writer” wrote it. He doesn’t say “this writer is usually terrible, but this story is good”. Nor does he say “this writer is terrible, and so is this story”. He is silent on this issue. You’re the one adding assumptions to what he said.
It isn’t valid in the case of Resnick, based on my evaluation from sampling Resnick’s entire body of work – admittedly, not based on the stories and edited anthologies he was nominated for in 1995.
The issue I was asking about was whether Ellison was correct on the issue of lobbying. To wit: Was what the unnamed author did something that people other than Ellison would consider lobbying. Since you have no idea to know what Ellison considered to be lobbying in 1995, you have no way to determine if his argument had any merit then, and even less of a basis to determine if it has any merit now.
Actions encouraging others to give you an award, rather than simply letting the work stand on its merits.
You don’t actually know that. That’s the problem – you’ve decided that you know what Ellison was thinking, and happily enough, you’ve decided that it happens to match exactly what you are thinking. The problem is that Ellison doesn’t actually say what he thinks lobbying is, so anything you insert into that gap is you being a liar. Again.
Did they teach you that one in lawyer school?
Are you going to deny that Ellison is a fringe crank on a number of issues?
Any form of asking people to vote for your work.
Again, you don’t actually know that is what Ellison meant.
No. I guessed it was most likely Robert Sawyer, who had the first famous author blog in 1995 and enjoyed a remarkable level of success in being nominated for awards in that year, though he didn’t win a Nebula until the following year.
Of course. That’s why you said that Ellison might have been upset by Resnick’s multiple Hugo nominations. Because you think the person begging for votes on the internet was Sawyer. Right.
How about you go back and produce a post or comment from Sawyer in the 1994-1995 era in which he was “begging for votes”. That way we can see exactly what the issue was, and evaluate whether it has any relevance to the current day. I’m suspecting you won’t, because you’re lazy and dishonest, and facts are difficult and problematic for you. Unless you do produce some actual posts, everyone will know you’ve just been talking out of your ass again.
Why? My comment was that the authors Ellison was referring to are likely Resnick and probably also Sawyer. I haven’t said I’m certain. I’m closer to certain after seeing what Mike Glyer dug up, but that’s simply of historical interest.
Because it is up to you to establish that the kind of lobbying and begging that was being done to show that they are actually things that people other than Ellison would consider to be objectionable, and establish that they similar to actions taken now. Since you don’t seem to think it matters (as you can apparently divine what Ellison was thinking), you haven’t provided any evidence at all linking what Ellison said in 1995 to anything that has happened since 2013. No one takes you seriously because you don’t bother to actually support your claims with anything but hand-waving and dishonesty.
It’s been tested against 2014 data, and was immediately followed by the addition of the proposal “extend finalists” as a means to counter the strategy.
And the 2014 data isn’t the 2016 data. The strategy you claim EPH wouldn’t work against was used in 2016, not 2014. As I said, you have no way of knowing how effective EPH would be against the strategy you are talking about. You just really really want it to be true, so you try to claim it was even though you have no idea if it is. That is dishonest. Again.
Ugh.
You cited his editing nominations, and only later claimed them irrelevant.
No.
He’s good with words.
Now it’s “fringe crank on a number of issues.” What, did you remember that Glyer told us how Ellison set the standard for the way his generation did business? Nice save.
“Lobbying” and “vote for me” are not big words.
A minute ago you said it was two people’s nominations.
If people today objected like Ellison, they wouldn’t have taken a guy who inundated a million blog viewers with Obligatory Self Pimpage Award Posts urging them to consider every last thing he’d written from Shadow War of the Night Dragons to The Day the Yogurt Took Over to his blog itself, pinned a medal on him, and made him President of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America.
The Hugos have sailed so far from Ellison’s vision it’s no wonder they’ve been smashed on the reefs.
You are arguing against accepting Schneier and Quinn’s results as support for EPH? I’ll be sure to let them know.
I’m not sure who this helps, except it seems to fit in. From Ellison’s Sci-Fi Buzz, episode 167 in 1996.
So Ellison did present a precise technical working definition: “sucking for votes.”
You cited his editing nominations, and only later claimed them irrelevant.
if by “later” you mean “in the same sentence” you would be correct.
He’s good with words.
And yet it is still impossible to determine what he is thinking if he doesn’t actually define what his terms mean. He didn’t, and yet you seem to think you can fill in the blanks with your preferred option.
Now it’s “fringe crank on a number of issues.” What, did you remember that Glyer told us how Ellison set the standard for the way his generation did business? Nice save.
It is the exact same thing I said the first time. You just didn’t bother to read what I wrote. As usual.
“Lobbying” and “vote for me” are not big words.
Except he doesn’t say what would constitute “lobbying”. He also didn’t say what “begging for votes” would consist of. You’re inserting your assumption of what those words mean and attributing that to Ellison.
A minute ago you said it was two people’s nominations.
I did. You’re the one conflating the two.
If people today objected like Ellison, they wouldn’t have taken a guy who inundated a million blog viewers with Obligatory Self Pimpage Award Posts urging them to consider every last thing he’d written from Shadow War of the Night Dragons to The Day the Yogurt Took Over to his blog itself, pinned a medal on him, and made him President of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America.
So you’re taking the position that putting out a post saying “I wrote these things that are eligible” and equating that with “begging for votes”. I can now conclude that you are a complete idiot. I think many others will agree. If I were to take a page from your playbook, I’d say that Ellison would agree with me.
You have yet to establish what Ellison considered to be lobbying or begging for votes in 1995. You have no idea what he thought constituted such actions, but here you are, dishonestly claiming that he had to mean what you want him to have meant. Until you provide an example of the begging for votes Ellison was complaining about, you don’t have a leg to stand on and are just talking out of your ass. Again.
You are arguing against accepting Schneier and Quinn’s results as support for EPH? I’ll be sure to let them know.
I’m arguing against making false claims about what the data does and does not show. I know that you have a hard time distinguishing the truth from a lie, since your stick in trade is constant lying, but the fact is that EPH has not been tested against tactics used in 2016, so there is no way to know whether it will be effective against it. Your claim that it has been shown that it will be ineffective against the tactics used in 2016 is simply a lie.
So Ellison did present a precise technical working definition: “sucking for votes.”
And by that definition, the eligibility posts put up by people like Scalzi that you seem to hate aren’t campaigning for votes, because they don’t meet that definition. In other words, Ellison’s opinion from 1995 doesn’t seem to offer you the support you have been claiming.
@Brian Z:If I wanted to paraphrase I would have said: Funny how you guys spend a year and a half screaming nonstop about how some people’s books are total garbage and piles of stinking poo but when a Grand Master had a similar reaction to similar books you shrug […]
Because the context is different. Cherryh and Ellison did not rig the awards for their own benefit.
I bet if someone has the slightest clue what Ellison and those other five award-winning writers were talking about, they’re probably one of those people who are qualified to vote for the Best Professional Editor, Long Form.
What rubbery goblin would that be, Brian?
The only thing we have left to wonder about is how to define “cheating tactics to push garbage onto awards ballots,” exactly. If you can define that I wish you would just do it instead of spewing ad hominem.
Oh, that one! He ran a slate in order to attack “SJWs” and get an award for himself and his vanity press because he didn’t know it was wrong.
Nobody’s been put in charge to dictate what’s cheating and what’s garbage or to police the awards shortlist.
If only there was a mechanism to address this problem.
He was spot on. And the only chance to get the rockets their lustre back now is to behave with that kind of integrity – voluntarily standing down from all the internet campaigns.
False equivalence, Brian. What internet campaigns?
I wasn’t talking about EPH. I was talking about the spirit of the Hugo Award and how not to undermine it.
I’m sure the spirit of the award is very important to you.
The change doesn’t defend against what happened in 2016, must less what might be done if a group of science fiction fans are goaded into trying to “beat” your “defense.”
Vandalism is a common phenomenon. People deal with it.
If people today objected like Ellison, they wouldn’t have taken a guy who inundated a million blog viewers with Obligatory Self Pimpage Award Posts urging them to consider every last thing he’d written from Shadow War of the Night Dragons to The Day the Yogurt Took Over to his blog itself, pinned a medal on him, and made him President of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America.
Tell me how bitter Scalzi makes you.
If you want to say that you meant from the beginning that Hugo nominations for editing are completely irrelevant to the the question of whether someone is talentless, go ahead and say that.
You went from a blanket smear of Ellison as having a well-deserved reputation as a fringe crank on lots of issues to challenging me to confirm or deny whether I think there are any issues he is a fringe crank on, which is just the sort of baloney they teach you in lawyer school.
Try copying any unfamiliar words and pasting them into Google. Ellison described what was unacceptable with precision and an economy of words, without personally attacking the people who did it in the same breath.
A level of integrity and conduct, Aaron, that we should all aspire to.
Actually it has.
False. I didn’t say what I think of eligibility posts. If you had thought to ask politely I would have told you that a bibliographic style list on an author site is a useful service, but specific pleas to consider work for Hugo nominations are unseemly for many reasons, not the least of which is they unfairly benefit authors with the most page views.
False. I’ve long enjoyed Scalzi’s work, think he’s a decent guy, and am glad he backed away from “self-pimpage” which was the right direction to move in. I believe that in the past he was inadvertently leading by example down a dangerous path.
False. I said nothing about “people like Scalzi.” Other authors who choose Scalzi self-pimpage are certainly not directly comparable. They generally have no hope of getting his traffic unless they can think of something very innovative to do with a cat. And I don’t hate them either.
False. Scalzi’s historical pattern of awards season self-promotion exactly meets that definition, which was “All it means is that you’ve got the largest readership at the moment, and you are sucking for votes more profitably than anybody else.”
If you want to say that you meant from the beginning that Hugo nominations for editing are completely irrelevant to the the question of whether someone is talentless, go ahead and say that.
That is exactly what I said from the beginning. You really aren’t good at reading (or listening) comprehension. They are irrelevant to whether someone is a talentless writer, which the claim that Ellison actually made. Not talentless in general, but a talentless writer.
You went from a blanket smear of Ellison as having a well-deserved reputation as a fringe crank on lots of issues to challenging me to confirm or deny whether I think there are any issues he is a fringe crank on, which is just the sort of baloney they teach you in lawyer school.
He does have a reputation as a fringe crank on a lot of issues, which is what I said from the beginning. As of yet, you haven’t contradicted this other than to whine.
Try copying any unfamiliar words and pasting them into Google. Ellison described what was unacceptable with precision and an economy of words, without personally attacking the people who did it in the same breath.
Try understanding that words have a wide range of possible meanings, and what one person might consider to be “lobbying”, someone else might not. What one person might consider “begging for votes” another might not. We don’t know what Ellison means when he says lobbying or begging for votes because he didn’t tell us. Your attempts to pretend that this is a simple issue just shows how poor your reasoning skills are.
Actually it has.
So, where are the results? You claim they show something specific, but then link to a comment by Quinn saying that he will run a hypothetical test in the future. You do realize you have to show the results match you claim, right?
False. I didn’t say what I think of eligibility posts.
Sure. That’s why you said this:
You really are very bad at reading, aren’t you? You don’t even seem to understand the things you yourself have written.
I’ve long enjoyed Scalzi’s work, think he’s a decent guy, and am glad he backed away from “self-pimpage” which was the right direction to move in.
You do realize he’s only decided to recuse himself from award for the current year right? You’re reading quite a bit into his one-year decision.
Scalzi’s historical pattern of awards season self-promotion exactly meets the definition, which was “All it means is that you’ve got the largest readership at the moment, and you are sucking for votes more profitably than anybody else.”
Actually, it doesn’t, because that’s not the context that Ellison used that line and not what Scalzi has done, but at this point it is clear that you’re simply too stupid to realize this. You either lack basic reading capabilities or you are simply comfortable with lying in every other sentence you write.
It’s getting harder to pick out any substance but I’ll give it a shot.
You made that claim later, and I disagree with it. However, if you are saying that’s what you meant at the beginning, I have zero objection to that being what you meant.
You are free to go on and say whatever you like about Ellison, Aaron. Fringe crank, we got it. Anything else?
We’ve just unearthed a quote from him saying “All it means is.”
Is every eligibility post like that?
Nice one! I’ll have to remember it.
He toned down the Self Pimpage stuff quite a while ago. Declaring himself ineligible this year, since you ask, was again a move in the wrong direction., Who is Scalzi to tell us mere mortals whether or not we should nominate his work? Some god on Mount Olympus? He’s generally moved in the right direction, but my personal opinion is that particular post was not productive, and the general pattern of authors saying “please don’t vote for me” is not productive.
If they don’t want to be considered for further nominations, fine, they can either say that publicly or else privately decline. Picking and choosing which years they want to be nominated, for which works, and for which reasons? It’s a fan award. That stuff should be up to fans.
You mean Scalzi doesn’t have a big readership? Scalzi didn’t ask for votes?
Dear Brian,
You’ve established over many comments that you are simply too stupid and too dishonest to deal with. Your commentary adds nothing of value to any discussion you participate in. Enjoy being whited out permanently.
@Mike Glyer not sure who this helps, except it seems to fit in. From Ellison’s Sci-Fi Buzz, episode 167 in 1996.
Thank you it was interesting reading. Much better than 80% of the discussion on this thread. Thanks. Looks like he’d be against what the puppy leadership has done. Nice to have things easily settled by facts.
Cheers 😀
Mike Glyer,
Setting aside memorial essays that half of the citizens of the galaxy wrote to mark Isaac Asimov’s passing, the most significant original material Ellison placed in Gardner’s magazine seems to be his script from “I, Robot: The Movie” in November and December 1987.
Between 1986 and 1989, there were three reprints, “Laugh Track,” “The Function of Dream Sleep,” and “The Few, The Proud.”
But Ellison’s last hurrah was the August 1990 essay “Xenogenesis,” an updated version of some of his reflections on fans.
One is forced to conclude that the secret only Gardie knows has little to do with the stable of writers sent out, hats in hand, to the wilds of the mid-90s Internet to seek their fortunes, or else that the Hugos have been secretly controlled since the late 60s by a cabal based at the Advanced Research Projects Agency.
But since I’ve been criticized for not doing enough to fight slates, I’ll chip in by mentioning that when he stopped selling anything to Asimov’s at all, he chose to go out with this: