aka One To Forsee For Puppies
Reactions to Edmund R. Schubert’s withdrawal as a Hugo nominee dominate today’s roundup, illustrated here by quotes from Lou Antonelli, N. K. Jemisin, Deirdre Saoirse Moen, George R.R. Martin and Dara Korra’ti. Annie Bellet elaborated on her own withdrawal in a comment left on Jim C. Hines’ blog.
The rest of the roundup takes note of new voices like Michael A. Rothman, Rachel Iliffe, John Popham, Moira J. Moore and Brenda Noiseux, and hears more from Amanda S. Green, Will McLean, Sandy Ryalls, T. L. Knighton, Vox Day, Sean Wallace, Nick Mamatas and others. (Credit for these titles belongs to File 770 contributing editors Laura Resnick and Matt Y.)
Lou Antonelli on Facebook
I don’t know how useful it will be to attend an event whose master of ceremonies is openly antagonistic to most of the potential honorees, and who is already predicting the outcome (below) and has – in other places – essentially vowed a blacklist (“It will take people a long time to forget how you tried to destroy the Hugos” or something to that effect). I mean, if I win one, will he hit me over the head with it? Where’s MY Safe Space?
https://twitter.com/nkjemisin/status/592824983774179329
https://twitter.com/nkjemisin/status/592825415145811969
https://twitter.com/nkjemisin/status/592825835930910721
https://twitter.com/nkjemisin/status/592826303138639873
Deidre Saoirse Moen in a comment on Sounds Like Weird
[Edmund] Schubert stated on the IGMS website that he didn’t know about the slates until afterward, and I’ve updated the post with a link to his statement. (I’d seen the link mentioned before my post, but I wasn’t able to get through to the site at that time.)
While I can see an argument for doubting his word, I’m of the “I take people at their word unless I have a reason not to” school of thought.
George R.R. Martin on Not A Blog
“Schubert Withdraws” – April 28
Edmund R. Schubert, the editor of ORSON SCOTT CARD’S INTERGALACTIC MEDICINE SHOW, has announced his decision to withdraw from the Hugo race…
I understand the reasons for his withdrawal and applaud his integrity. It cannot be easy to walk away from a major award, perhaps one that you have dreamed of someday winning. And this takes courage as well; like the others who have dropped off the Puppy slate, he will undoubtedly come in for a certain amount of angry barking from the kennels.
Dara Korra’ti on crime and the forces of evil
“edmund schubert bows out” – April 28
Edmund Schubert says he’s published queer authors in Intergalactic Medicine Show, and will continue to do so, and he says that’s with the full support of Mr. Card. Also stories by and of women, and various racial groups and religions. That’s good.
But I’ve got an assortment of assaults and a hospital visit and more money than I want to think about and years of lost time and decades of living in various degrees of fear all spent fighting for my legal and occasionally physical life against Mr. Card’s allies, and, to a lesser degree, Mr. Card himself. He and his friends on the social right have quite literally cost me and millions like me untold amounts of both blood and treasure.
And his erstwhile allies still are, across the globe, American fundamentalists exporting their religion of hate, getting execution laws passed, spreading the same lies they weren’t able to sell at home any longer.
So don’t expect that to stop mattering to me. And never, ever, dare tell me that it shouldn’t matter. Because, maybe, for you, it doesn’t have to. But to me? That’s quite a luxury. One I will never have.
Annie Bellet in a comment on Jim C. Hines’ “Choosing Sides”
Thank you for writing this post, Jim. The Us vs Them and points scoring thing overtaking what the Hugos should be is exactly why I withdrew.
I should clarify though that when I say I didn’t do it because of pressure from either “side” I am not saying there wasn’t pressure (I had plenty of messages on all sides telling me to hang tough, that my story was amazing, that I shouldn’t decline just because of who might have voted for me, etc, and messages saying I should be ashamed of myself, that I’d stolen the nomination from a real writer who actually deserved it, etc). I’m saying I made my decision for many other reasons. It’s one reason I took nearly two weeks to withdraw, because it was a very tough decision and I wanted to make sure I was doing it because it was right for me, for my own reasons, and not because of what people around me were saying was right or wrong. Because I wanted to make sure my withdrawal was for me and that it could be something I felt comfortable with instead of just a reaction to other people’s pain.
Hope that clarifies.
Michael A. Rothman on Facebook – April 28
For the Big-F Fandom community who feels aggrieved that people are acting unethically or against what you feel is right, then let me make a suggestion. [This is coming from a guy who participates and runs standards organizations, so it’s not exactly coming from someone who doesn’t have a clue.]
– Change the rules to match your expectations. That means no hidden agendas or intent, be forthright about what WorldCon and more specifically the Hugos are about and form the rules around that.
If you don’t do that, all your belly aching is just that. Pathetic whining that no adult should be doing and nobody who isn’t in your clique will respect.
If you set rules, you are drawing a line in the sand. Nothing more, nothing less.
All this argument over seemliness and the proper type of voter etc. is just not professional and not what people in the real world do. You come off looking silly and quite pathetic.
Rachel Iliffe on Rachelloon Productions
“#SadPuppies : Stop the Hugo Awards Bullies?” – April 28
In 2013 when I first started this blog one of my first posts was about the STGRB controversy. For those of you who don’t know, STGRB stands for ‘Stop The GoodReads Bullies’, and was a group who formed one side of another SJW conflict—however, this was a little different to the more recent debacles we’ve grown to love.
The basic background was this: a number of popular intersectional feminist book-reviewers had been declared ‘bullies’ by a group of mostly independent authors whose books had been criticised by them for reasons of sexism etc. Now, the timeline here was very murky, or at least it was when I first became aware of it, concerning who had stated this whole thing. There were accusations of ’rounding up mobs of fans’ flying back and forth from one side to the other (I’m sure the SJWs have a word for that in their Newspeak lexicon… eh, I probably don’t want to know) and of course, accusations of doxxing, threats and harassment.
Those who supported STGRB claimed that their books had been criticised unfairly, and that when this occurred more often than not the friends and followers of these feminist reviewers, many reviewers just as popular, would immediately give their book a correspondingly poor rating on Goodreads without even thinking of actually reading it for themselves—and with many of these being indie authors, drive the average rating of the book down significantly and negatively impact the impressions of potential readers.
Amanda S. Green on Mad Genius Club
“And the tantrums continue” – April 28
The logic of so many of them fails on almost every level, from assigning SP3 as some sort of partner or even tool of GamerGate to fear that if SP3 is successful we might — gasp — get a writer like Diana Gabaldon winning a Hugo and we mustn’t have that because she writes icky romances.
Give me a freaking break. (Yes, I said something different but I’m censoring myself this morning.)
I think it was this last one that sent me screaming into the night. The fear that someone who writes fantasy with a distinct romance bent might be nominated, much less win was so over the top. It was as if those making the complaint truly believes science fiction and fantasy are still pure genres. Obviously they haven’t read much lately. If they had, they would see that there is genre crossing all around. Yes, you can, with a lot of searching, find a pure hard science fiction novel, but they are few and far between. Fantasy has, for years, had some aspect of mystery or romance or the like in it. The mixing of genres, when done well, is a good thing.
I’ll repeat that, mixing of genres when done well is a good thing.
It helps by bringing in readers who might never have picked up a science fiction or fantasy book. That brings more money to the writers and publishers. It will bring in even more new readers as word of mouth spreads. Where is the harm in all that?
The very fact that some of those who are anti-Puppy are afraid that icky romance writers might invade their ivory towers of Awardland simply proves what so many of us have been saying. Those folks have gotten too comfortable with their hold on the awards and refuse to admit, even to themselves, that there might be award-worthy books outside their comfort zone.
John Popham on The Infinite Reach
“The House of Many Rooms” – April 28
Of course, it is an ill wind that blows no one good. If nothing else, the sturm und drang surrounding the Hugos appears to have re-energized the larger science fiction community’s engagement with the Hugo voting process. George R. R. Martin commented in his blog post What Now? that a air of complacency has surrounded the nomination process in recent years, with many Worldcon members abdicating the nomination process to a small group of Worldcon insiders. As I pointed out in 2,122, for every voter who submitted a nominating ballot this year, at least seven of the ~16,000+ eligible voters did not. I’d expect to see next year’s nominations get a lot of love from the science fiction community. With more fans voting, the 2016 nominations should represent a much broader cross-section of (lower-case) fandom’s population.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the Hugo Awards’ current open nomination process will survive beyond 2016. George R. R. Martin wrote in the same blog post that Worldcon members currently in control are crafting changes to the voting rules. The proposed changes are intended to preclude interlopers from nominating ‘undeserving’ authors and their works for Hugo Awards in the future. By definition, such rule changes would have to limit the democratic nature of the nominating process; shifting influence from the general public (who can buy a supporting Worldcon membership for $40) to insiders who can be, it is supposed, counted on to nominate works that reflect the will of Worldcon’s current movers and shakers.
Moira J. Moore on Archives of the Triple S
“moiraj.livejournal.com/364402.html” – April 28
Many people have come to feel that it doesn’t matter who gets what award at the Hugos this year, because the whole thing is tainted. There will always be an asterisk beside the awards handed out. To me, Schubert’s announcement is a stunt. Schubert is rejecting what has turned out to be a worthless award – leaving it so late that they can’t actually take the name off the ballots – and trying to look like he’s taking a moral stand, when he’s really just making the Sad Puppies’ argument for them. And pimping out his magazine.
Will McLean on A Commonplace Book
“Keep Calm and Carry On” – April 28
Team Puppies are not, in my opinion, covering themselves with glory at this time. The Sad Puppies are in the awkward position that their slate got a lot of mutual votes from the Rabid Puppies. So they must dance an awkward dance between “We have no association with the Rabids, although we have obviously benefited from their nominations” and “We refuse to disavow the Rabids in any way, because you can’t make us and we don’t want to, and we’re not saying we don’t approve of them, but we won’t say we do approve of them either.” I think they fall between two stools.
Brenda Noiseux on Women Write About Comics
“Hurtful Fandom and the Damage of the Puppies” – April 28
Since the location of each year’s Worldcon is selected by the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS) two years prior to the date of that convention, dedicated volunteers are working for two years to produce a great experience for their fellow fans in the community. On top of that, committees bid for the site of the Worldcon, a process that can take an additional one or more years. That means that volunteers could be working on a convention three to four years in advance.
Which brings me to why the slate voting campaign has bothered me so much that I don’t want to think about it. Producing Worldcon and celebrating the winners of the Hugo Award is a gigantic all volunteer collaborative effort. For a small group of disgruntled fans, to take advantage of a loophole raises a giant middle finger to all those who dedicated countless hours to the hard work of making the Worldcon, the science fiction and fantasy community, and ultimately the Hugos better. That people who claim to be fans and part of this community could do something so hurtful, feels so personal and leaves me feeling raw.
Yes, there are issues in the literary science fiction community. Yes, there needs to be more diversity in the works that are encouraged and celebrated while at the same time retaining the high standards. Yes, there needs to be an embracing of new fans, younger fans, more diverse fans.
Change is never easy nor does it happen overnight. Positive organic change is happening in the science fiction and fantasy community, and I’ll keep doing my part and putting in the hard work to help it along.
Sandy Ryalls on Black Gate
“The Proxy Culture War for the Soul of Middle-Earth” – April 27
Privilege Distress and the Proxy in the Proxy War
Privilege distress is better defined here than anything I can manage. For those who aren’t going to read another article: privilege distress is the feeling of unease felt by people who are having injustice that works in their favor re-addressed.
It’s a permanent fixture in the culture war, and most political discourse. There’s a reason that Republicans play well with white men and Democrats play well with women and members of racial minorities. That reason is that the broad strokes of the culture war are whether we want a society which favors those it favors, or whether we want one which works for everyone.
One of the major fronts of the culture war in the age of the Internet Native is the ongoing clash between the Social Justice (SJ) movement and the self-proclaimed Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). Media is a pretty big part of that front because it’s a major principle of the overarching SJ philosophy that culture is important and shapes the rest of society.
SJ activists want geekdom (along with the rest of society) to be a safe, inclusive space.
The MRAs don’t think there is a problem and look upon attempts to change our culture with suspicion and hostility.
To MRA’s, the fact that women have buying power in the media sphere and people have ways of having social discourse that doesn’t pander to white maleness is a threat. This isn’t just ideology. It’s also identity.
I mention the Republicans because Coriella did. Because he flat-out crowed that the vandalization of the Hugos was an act of red state, culture war, privilege distress and he linked it to the gamer movement which responded to mild criticism of some video games with death threats, the leaking of personal information, and a threat to shoot up a university.
The proxy part is where this intersects with geekdom. One of the unfortunate shared experiences of most geeks is bullying. Most geeks feel outside of social normality because they’ve been put there by other people. The trauma carried by a lot of geeks surrounding this is very real and very unfortunate.
It’s also true that, in a lot of ways, the SJ philosophy is born of an intellectual liberalism; that its adherents go beyond geekdom; that it can often take a snooty, condescending tone; that outrage is certainly in its playbook; that problematic parts of geekdom can be caricatured in ways that are reminiscent of the bullying faced by a lot of white male geeks.
This makes it very easy for the places where the MRAs meet geekdom to paint the places where the SJ activists meet geekdom as judgmental, insurgent, outsiders intent on stripping away their solace and condemning them for the unforgivable sin of being a weirdo. To tie that white male geek identity with an antipathy to SJ activists as a group rather than engaging with the issues which are actually being fought over.
T. L. Knighton
“Tale of Two Fandoms” – April 28
First, let’s look at the CHORFs. Yes, I’m going to use it, and I really don’t care how bad someone we accuse of being a CHORF claims it’s never going to be a thing. Mostly because it is, so she can get over it. CHORFs also tend to lean left politically, but not universally.
The CHORFs tend to prefer more literary science fiction, which is fine. I don’t care for it, but the world isn’t built around my preferences. However, that’s not where it ends. The CHORFs seem to feel that they are the arbiters of taste and decency. They feel they’re also the arbiters of morality. They know why a bisexual person disagrees with them about things, and it’s things like self-hate and homophobia (and a bi person can be homophobic? Does that mean a black person actually can be racist?) because no sane person could possibly disagree with them.
CHORFs tend to control awards, because historically they’ve been the group that really cares about that sort of thing. They’re the masters of the whisper campaigns, the rallying of their buddies to get their names on the ballot quietly and behind the scenes, but would never do something as unseemly as try to rally supporters in public…unless they do it, then it’s totes different because reasons.
Mark Hemingway in The Weekly Standard
“Revenge of the Nerds” – April 27
[Note: TWS has given a new timestamp to the same piece linked here on April 17, if you were reading the roundup then.]
For more than 50 years, the Hugo Awards have been handed out at the annual World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) to honor the best science fiction and fantasy writing of the previous year. But when the nominees for this year’s Hugos were announced, it touched off a firestorm unlike any in the awards’ history.
That’s because so many of this year’s nominees are perceived (not always correctly) to be conservative or libertarian. A group of right-leaning science fiction authors organized a campaign to stuff this year’s Hugo Awards ballot with writers they felt had been overlooked.
Kgbooklog in a comment on More Words, Deeper Hole:
Maybe it’s time for a new rule: If 10% or more of the finalists decline their nomination, the Hugo Award is canceled for that year and the time and space reserved for the award ceremony is used for the Business Meeting instead. (If I’m counting right, we’re up to 7.5% this year so far.)
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
Vile Minion pride – April 28
Dear Evil Legion of Evil, It has come to my attention that our vile faceless minions, in their abject loyalty to Our Evilness, crave more than the mere lash of our whips, the daily sustenance of SJW blood, and the occasional bones of an SJW on which to gnaw. Such is their pride in the growing spread of the dark shadow over lands hitherto unengulfed that they have begged for badges of recognition with which they can strike yet more fear into our craven and cowardly foes.
It is, of course, exceedingly risible to imagine that we should raise them up to the extent of providing them with names. Or, as one minion, who is unfortunately no longer with us after an accident that involved six Hellhounds and the untimely ringing of a dinner bell, once had the temerity to suggest, pay them wages. But it occurred to me, in a stroke of Indubitably Evil Genius, that it might be useful to be able to tell the difference between these otherwise indistinguishable, and indeed, faceless, creatures. Therefore, in my Tender yet Sinister Mercy, I have graciously acceded to their pleas.
Nate on The Pan Galactic Blogger Blaster
“Slight Design Change” – April 26
I am Number 1.
I am Nate… and I approve this message.
Dammit.
[Vox Day wrote that the first batch of numbered icons was gone in 45 minutes.]
Sean Wallace on Facebook – April 28
Without context, for James Nicoll, Mike Glyer, Michael J. Walsh, and Nick Mamatas: “Highlights included moderating the guest-of-honor interview with Tor publisher Tom Doherty (in which he revealed the facts that ebooks account for only $400,000 of Tor’s $100,000,000 annual gross sales, and that it now takes printing three mass-market paperbacks to sell one (it used to be that you only had to print two to get one to actually sell); and that SF (as opposed to fantasy) actually grew eight percent for Tor last year).”—Robert Sawyer’s website, 2005
Nick Mamatas in a comment to Sean Wallace on Facebook – April 28
Last year Tor grossed seven dollars, and killed and ate interns for food, and took out four mortgages on the Flatiron Building to get John Scalzi on the Dayton Daily News best-seller list for a single Thursday afternoon and in fact they are already bankrupt, out of business, and everyone has been fired and Tor exists only as one of those fannish in-jokes in the Hugo Awards, like Cordwainer Bird. Forever and ever, Amen.
[And finally, Sad Puppies meets Godwin’s Law.]
La scalata fascista del premio Hugo per la fantascienza http://t.co/DllfqArup3 #hugoawards via @carmillaonline pic.twitter.com/vzrtiiIfMv
— occhiopesto (@occhiopesto) April 28, 2015
Seen on Facebook today… 🙂 pic.twitter.com/Vz9kMw48Ax
— AmyCat ???? #ByeDon! (@BookUniverse) April 28, 2015
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Just as a point of clarification, Torgersen isn’t going to Worldcon because he’s a warrant in the Reserves and his unit is deploying.
Do you genuinely think SP/RP dominating the Hugo nominations is funny? And do you truly want to see us take even more nominations next year?
I think you thinking it matters is quite funny personally and yes, I suspect you’ll take more nominations next year, and that might be enough to kill the Hugos. Well done. Good for you.
What’s next?
As for the voice – it depends on what he’s writing – VD here is doing all the taunting, xdpaul is raising many of the same talking points with the same points and some of the same references and they seem to intersperse to such an extent that yesterday I was losing track of which one was repeating which oft debunked theory that time. That said, last night xdpaul was sounding more and more like another author notorious for his word salads so I would happily be wrong.
If he’s not a sock do I believe he’s what he says he is? No, honestly I don’t.
I’m right here Daveon. Address me directly.
Tried that, its like ‘debating’ with smoke. You made some comment some threads back about why ‘people’ wouldn’t debate with Mr Beale directly.
You have my answer – you don’t debate. You make statements of ‘fact’, that you don’t back up, then you walk them slightly back and make another unrelated one.
You’re very good at it though if that is any consolation?
Daveon: Just as point of information, MidAmericon II (2016 Worldcon in Kansas City, Missouri) long ago decided to set its supporting membership rate as US $50, which is likely to be also the case for the undecided 2017 bid and future years. So, not just $40 after Sasquan.
And, for all the Internet urchins urging a $5 supporting membership rate, feel free to run Registration for MidAmericon II and guarantee to fund the huge shortfall that you think you can prevent through application of adequate amounts of handwavium.
(Me, I’m going with an attending membership, if only so I can enjoy world-class BBQ. Because I’m elitist scum and life is good.)
‘Do you genuinely think SP/RP dominating the Hugo nominations is funny?’
The Vietnam War wasn’t funny, but cartoonists and satirists found plenty to mock about Nixon.
Daveon wrote: xdpaul is raising many of the same talking points with the same points and some of the same references
Copy and paste has much to answer for.
I’m not perfect in discerning authorial ‘voice’, but deponent avers that he’s pretty good at it. Comes of way too damned much reading. (Personally, I blame LASIK.)
@Steve Moss
“First, there are unwritten rules in baseball? Soccer? I grew up playing baseball. I’m the commissioner (pro bono) for a 1,200 child youth soccer league. I’m unfamiliar with the idea of “unwritten” rules.”
hard to believe that you grew up playing baseball and are unaware of the “unwritten” rules. Try google …
dude! EVERYBODY knows about the “unwritten” rules!
this appalling display of ignorance makes it hard for me to give credence to anything else you write. Sorry.
Fair enough. I’m still on the fence about 2016, because I’m rather expecting to have to travel long haul for 2017 and I’ll need a year off… still, stranger things have happened.
So, as a separate data point because I booked late, I’ve spent $190 on a membership, $180 on flights, at least $800 for my room, not to mention my spending money for the convention, and I’ve bought the 3 Hugo Nominated Novels I want to read… I really do wonder how ‘sticky’ puppy support is without getting ‘free’ books from the publishers versus people who are prepared to buy things and read them?
Weirdly, a few years ago the predominately left wing book bloggers were complaining that the problem was privileged elitists blocking them from taking part in the Hugos. I find it ironic that I’m getting the same attack from the other side of the political divide. It’s quite funny when you think about it. 🙂
Rick: They keep holding Worldcons in my area, the year after I move away. It’s aggravating. I’m hoping that DC wins 2017 so I’ll have a chance at it.
Rick Moen, you say you’re “going [to KC], if only so I can enjoy world-class BBQ.”
Have you done any research yet, to find out what places are worth seeking out, other than the obvious (Arthur Bryant’s)?
I know a lot of people who’ve signed up just to support Helsinki this time, so it’s going to be a battle I think. Not to mention I have no objection to them bribing me in Finish vodka :p
I won’t mind too much if Helsinki wins. I understand that they have quite a vociferous fandom and a pretty awesome con planned. If it does, I’ll probably see about wandering BACK to Kansas for MAC II.
Daveon wrote:
I really do wonder how ‘sticky’ puppy support is without getting ‘free’ books from the publishers versus people who are prepared to buy things and read them.
The incentives associated with the Hugo Packet have increasingly become, IMO, problematic over time, and not just in that area. I’ve already speculated (elsethread) that Orbit was ahead of the curve in cutting the inclusions of its novels from 100% to the same ~15% traditionally offered as a free ebook sample. With Sasquan supporting memberships soon to break 10k, more of the Best Novel publishers may IMO arrive at the same conclusion.
Evidence about other incentives problems prior to this year has been spotty: (a) There have been many reports of supporting members having little interest in the Worldcon, and mostly in the Packet, but it’s a little anecdotal. (b) There is a firmer case to be made for supporting members having nominated (mostly) novels they haven’t read as a tactic, hoping to thereby get to read them for free.
Rick Moen
[email protected]
I think that if they did away with the voting packets, the shorter-form fiction would suffer the most. Novels are easily attainable through interlibrary loan — I currently have all 5 finalists either on my kindle or my couch thanks to my local library. It is much harder to get my hands on the short stories and novelettes. Also some of the zines are not easily accessible without a voter packet.
Even without the packet I’ve found a lot of short fiction available online, it will require more work from the individual but I don’t think it will be too hard.
Our own Mr Beale made all of John C Wright’s work available just last week which I downloaded, read and deleted all in one evening.
But yes Rick, I’ve seen similar posts about the packet, and I’ve seen at least one comment along the lines of voting for book 2 because they didn’t want to buy it. The packet is a privilege not a right and there are far more reasons to join and go to a WorldCon than some free books. Being able to meet relatively big name, and big name authors in a bar and chat like you’re normal people is something I’ve grown to treasure about WorldCon versus larger events.
Daveon, I am not here to debate, certainly not someone of your limited capacity to do so. I was politely addressing your boorishness without saying it by name. But since you clearly need it spelled out:
Address me directly and stop being a boor about your third-person conjecture and obsession of which famous author’s my writing most resembles. As I said, I have no problem with you insanely insisting that I am someone’s sockpuppet; foolish people believe all sorts of lies all the time, and I’m not the sanity police.
But when you accuse or discuss people here, do it directly, unless of course you enjoy making “fandom” appear to be petty, rude and oblivious to the common etiquette of internet comments.
Nice try reframing this an issue of “debate” – your typical bait and switch, but this is about civility. I don’t care if you are civil or not – it makes no difference to me – but if you want to have any prayer of restoring fandom’s alleged reputation of being a “civil tribe,” you might want to start by behaving like an adult.
Jim C. Hines’ most recent comments may serve you as a guide.
‘but if you want to have any prayer of restoring fandom’s alleged reputation of being a “civil tribe,” you might want to start by behaving like an adult.’
This is called ‘concern trolling.’ It’s about as high as your level of discourse gets.
“I think you thinking it matters is quite funny personally and yes, I suspect you’ll take more nominations next year, and that might be enough to kill the Hugos.”
Of all the things that might happen, this just isn’t one. It simply isn’t in their power to do it. Worldcon will roll on for decades more and long after the Puppies get bored of trolling or realize their tactics make them less respected, not more, the Hugos will still be rolling. In fact this drive has brought membership up, which extends the time the Hugos can keep going.
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2015/04/finalists-2015-hugo-award-with-free-fiction-links/
Most of the short fiction finalists are already available to read free online (so you don’t have to wait for the Hugo packet). As a reader I appreciate the generosity of the publishers; it’s been the practice for a few years now.
With the novels, I can understand if the publishers don’t want to gift them to the Hugo voters when they could be *selling* them the books. I don’t think an excerpt is quite sufficient. While you can probably tell if it’s not very good from an excerpt, a book can start well yet screw up its ending. I was thinking that an excerpt coupled with a discounted ebook price for voters might be a good compromise.
Samuel Clemens was a real asshole. If I called him anything, it would propably be just that. Otherwise, I *do* find Beales comments very funny. They are just so darlingly cute.
“Nice try reframing this an issue of “debate” – your typical bait and switch, but this is about civility. I don’t care if you are civil or not – it makes no difference to me – but if you want to have any prayer of restoring fandom’s alleged reputation of being a “civil tribe,” you might want to start by behaving like an adult.”
So Rick, this is the stuff I’m thinking about. Plus the ‘your limited capacity’ crack is what had me thinking Beale, if he’d made some kind of sexual comment I’d have said it was a slam dunk.
And ‘civil tribe’? Oh ok. After all these days of your constant changing of tack, moving of goalposts and failure to provide a single shred of evidence to back your assertions (Tor is failing?) – I don’t think I’m under any requirement to be civil, even if I were part of a ‘civil’ tribe, which I’m not. I’m not actually an adherent of the fandom as a safe space concept – fandom is, like everything else, a bit of a mixed bag and quite obviously has some very unsafe and unsavory types hanging around in it. Believe me, I’ve done security at WorldCon room parties…
So yes, your concern about WorldCon fans being seen as nasty is noted, as was Steve Moss’s concern about WorldCon fans, and Brian Zs. You’re a very concerned lot as NelC has noted.
Andrew, will you explain how you think increased membership in this year’s Worldcon “extends the time the Hugos can keep going”?
The superior version of “Reduce supporting membership fees to $5” is “Create a voting-only third class of membership for $5.”
Once someone tells me how to keep the Church of Scientology from instructing all their members a voting-only membership, I’ll even be in favor of it.
The Hugo packet for everything but the novels is I think essential. Incomplete novels might be the way to go.
Watching all the movies and dramatic presentations has been hard for many and they aren’t in the packet.
Andrew – the larger question is whether or not Beale can produce enough Flying Monkeys under the current rules to make the ballot so bad nobody will vote for it.
I agree the WorldCon will go on with or without the Hugos.
To be honest, as I’ve said, I suspect the Puppy-aligned concerned types will get bored before the people who are prepared to spring the thick end of a grand just to go to a Science Fiction convention.
rcade @ 11:43- By “fandom” do you mean the Worldcon collection of “trufans”? If so, then no I don’t understand them. And the more I read, the less interest I have in understanding them.
Daveon @ 11:52 am- Thank you for the “sea lion” reference. Google is my friend and helped me figure out the intended insult.
“Sea-Lioning is an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims. The term was coined in September 2014 by anti-GamerGate Internet users to mock perceived online discussion tactics employed by GamerGate supporters.”
Your apparent belief that I have “sea-lioned” you suggests that you are feeling a bit pressed to defend your position(s). Don’t worry about it. At this point I’ve confirmed my initial instincts and I doubt that there is anything substantive you can add which would change my mind as to what’s going on.
clif @ 12:17 pm- You can be as closed minded as you like on the issue. From what I’ve been reading on various blogs this may be an attempt to “disqualify”. If I am correct, this means my opinion of you has dropped into the basement. “Sorry.”
There are no unwritten rules in baseball or any other sport that I am aware of. What you may be referring to is a pact between male friends/teammates (they hurt you, I’ll hurt them; or, don’t sleep with my girl and I won’t sleep with yours; last one at the bar buys the beer; etc.), but you’ll find those aren’t “rules”. The conduct associated with what you call the “unwritten rules” tends to be against the actual rules. So no cookie for you.
“Andrew, will you explain how you think increased membership in this year’s Worldcon “extends the time the Hugos can keep going”?”
Because they fund their activities through membership fees. If membership dived dramatically that might kill the Hugos but getting more members is pretty good for them. A spike means that they could survive lower membership rates for a longer period of time.
“to buy” even. I should never post during lunch.
Morris Keesan: Not yet, but in Anthony Bourdain I trust.
There was an epic episode of Bourdain’s Travel Channel programme ‘No Reservations’ in which he visited, and dined in, Kansas City. There are some detailed notes available for free. Travel Channel also lets you free-stream clips and a recap. There’s also a list of locations elsewhere. (Clips might be embargoed to some readers via geoIP tracking, sorry.)
He did not go to Arthur Bryant’s, just as his Philly show eschewed ritual stops at Geno’s or Pat’s for a cheesesteak. Because hackneyed.
The full episode is available on several streaming services for a fee.
If you enjoy No Reservations, please note Bourdain’s other two-season series (currently on hiatus), The Layover. His visit to Hong Kong for The Layover is recorded in an episode authentic and vivid enough to make me homesick. Not to mention hungry.
Rick Moen
[email protected]
Daveon says:
Indeed, I recall Redshirts being a particular target of their ire, on the grounds that its win was clearly the result of the voting population consisting mostly of conservative male SMOFs who wanted to go back to the shoot-’em-up sf of the 1950s. Funny how things change.
VD — “I’m not a sociopath. As it happens, I’m actually unusually empathetic. I understand your pain. That’s why I gave you the opportunity to back down.”
I’m loath to indulge in internet diagnosis, beyond the colloquial, “So-and-so’s a loony!”, but nobody who could write the above should claim to be neurotypical. It just isn’t something that an empathetic person could write, never mind one eager to claim a high empathy score. I’m not absolutely convinced that you’re not the type of loony who thinks he can gain advantage by pretending to be a (different kind of) loony, but either way, you’re seriously fucked in the head.
For those interested in “free books” you should consider going to Worldcon. I walked away with 4 HCs and a bunch of paperbacks last time I attended one. Hell Balticon had one of Sanderson’s tomes in it last year. Cons are great for free books.
“Your apparent belief that I have “sea-lioned” you suggests that you are feeling a bit pressed to defend your position(s).”
No, quite the opposite – I’m fairly convinced that there is nothing I could say to defend my positions that wouldn’t generate a response asking for more clarification, hence my use of the phrase and why I think it’s is so apt. Whether it is the use of phrases like ‘slate’, ‘bloc’, ‘unwritten rule’ and so on, you seem to always want more regardless of how clear in conventional English the use is. Unless English isn’t your first language? I’ll confess that American English idiom sometimes can be annoying, as can British English, but the meanings are abundantly clear to everyone else.
For example: What you may be referring to is a pact between male friends/teammates (they hurt you, I’ll hurt them; or, don’t sleep with my girl and I won’t sleep with yours; last one at the bar buys the beer; etc.), but you’ll find those aren’t “rules”.
How about a more simple one: while the RULES state you can exit the United States on a Visa Waiver unlimited times for periods of less than 90 days, if the Border Service come to believe that you are breaking the ‘spirit’ of the immigration service rules if not actually breaking them, they have the discretion at the border to refuse you entry and ban you from travelling to the US again for 5 or 10 years, no appeals.
Somebody xdpaul appealed to earlier has fallen foul of this and despite some very good legal support she was straight out of luck.
But I am fairly sure this example isn’t good enough for you, you’ll come back with another shift in the sand and it all starts again.
As I just said to ‘xdpaul’ I am under no obligation to be nice to you no matter how pleasant you try to be.
“Andrew – the larger question is whether or not Beale can produce enough Flying Monkeys under the current rules to make the ballot so bad nobody will vote for it.”
I’m sure he can. But I doubt anyone can keep it up as long as I can. I’ll keep putting up and voting for work the Puppies hate long after they are all in adult diapers. It’s sad that the next few years may not have credible competitions but that’s no reason for me to stop.
Don’t bunt to try to break up a potential no-hitter in progress.
That’s an example of an unwritten rule in baseball.
Easy, eh?
In the worst case, the 2016 Worldcon could simply run a “Worldcon Special Award of Merit” in parallel with the Hugos, and define it to be awarded on the basis of a special jury, or by voting only among attending members, or by throwing a bunch of hardcovers down the hotel stairs and seeing which one hits the bottom first, or whatever. If the organizers of the 2017 Worldcon like the WSAoM winners better than they like the Hugo winners, they could repeat the process. If after enough iterations the SF-reading public at large responds more favorably to “Worldcon Merit Winner” than they to do “Hugo Winner”, then the Hugos can be abandoned for griefers to play with, or repealed, or supplanted.
Interpret griefing as network damage, and route around it.
Daveon- Be as unpleasant as you like. I’ll try to remain polite, if only because it’s what a man does as opposed to a spoiled petulant child.
I’ll think you’ll find that as a government actor, a border patrol agent’s discretion to allow or refuse entry is codified in statue or case law as a written rule. Much like prosecutor has discretion whether he or she charges someone with a crime (or not).
It’s fairly clear to me reading these posts that you are a WorldCon regular. You feel that a bunch of unwelcome guests have crashed your party. Except it isn’t your private party and it isn’t fandom’s private party. It’s the party of anyone who cares to attend and/or vote so long as they comply with the written rules of admission. Fandom usually does so. Others have done so this year. Get over it.
If you don’t like it, change the rules. Then you can debate the pros and cons with GRRM, etc. As for me, I intend to read the stories and vote.
Steve Moss: I don’t think you can quite understand the reference without boarding your personal steam locomotive in Victorian garb and being accosted by grandstanding marine mammals.
“By ‘fandom’ do you mean the Worldcon collection of ‘trufans’?”
I answered exactly what I meant by the word fandom, so you can’t possibly need to ask that question. Calling your behavior sealioning is right on the nose.
Rick Moen: Outstanding link!
Nick @ 1:22 pm- Except when the Padres did it. Others have done it before. And nothing could be done about it when they did it, because it wasn’t a rule.
Of course we could call it a rule. But a rule without consequence isn’t much of a rule. Maybe it’s a tradition, maybe it’s etiquette or manners, but it isn’t a rule.
It’s a lot like Daveon’s insistence that a slate means what he says it means, even though the plain English language of a slate is very clearly “a list of candidates for nomination or election.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slate
He likes to add things to it, which is fine (and why I stopped engaging with him after I posted the definition the last time). This is America and he’s entitled to voice is his subjective interpretation as to the meaning of words, but in using the English language I prefer to utilize the plain English definition as opposed to Daveon’s.
You think that because people broke the unwritten rules, means that there are no unwritten rules?
@Mike Glyer: That’s the canonical origin of the Internet meme about ‘sea lioning’ — lastingly popular because cartoonist David Malki absolutely nailed it. It’s even funnier when you realise that, the Internet being the Internet, Malki was soon motivated to clarify that no, he was not casting aspersions on actual sea lions, was using them strictly metaphorically, and regretted any offence they may have taken.
Rick Moen @ 1:36 pm- It was very funny.
rcade @ 1:37 pm- And I provided a response based on my interpretation of your statement. If my interpretation was wrong, correct me. If my interpretation is correct, then you have my position.
If that make me a sea-lion, I shall add it to my coat of arms (complete with Victorian top hat) if and when the Queen decides to knight me (i.e. never).
Oh Steve, you are confused.
Rules can be broken whether they are written down or not. The mere fact that a rule can be violated doesn’t make a rule a non-rule.
Further, the issue of slate has been dealt with already. You’re wrong, both in your appeal to Merriam Webster and in comparing the definition of the word slate to the idea of unwritten rules. Lists of opposing candidates would compose a slate if you depended on MW’s definition, which is incomplete. A slate is a list of candidates with a *common political platform*, and doesn’t matter how many Puppy Partisans check their talking points memo where it says “Point to M-W.com”, a slate will remain exactly that and not just any old list.
I’ll think you’ll find that as a government actor, a border patrol agent’s discretion to allow or refuse entry is codified in statue or case law as a written rule.
Actually, not according to my Harvard trained immigration lawyer, in fact she was very clear that the issue is being seen to break the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. i.e. the spirit is the Visa Waiver is a favour to friendly countries to make it easy for business people and tourists to travel in and out. However, if they feel that you are abusing the favour the border agents may, with ZERO court oversight deport you without you ever technically having entered the USA. As I said, somebody who has been invoked on this very list fell foul of it.
But here’s the thing – you asked for an example. You were giving an example. You reject it on spurious grounds and ask for another. That’s Sealioning.
It’s fairly clear to me reading these posts that you are a WorldCon regular. You feel that a bunch of unwelcome guests have crashed your party.
Well, actually no, if you’ve been reading my posts you’ll note that what I don’t think is going to happen is that the Puppies and fellow travelers are going to ‘crash my party’ because I don’t think any of them are particularly going to come to the party. I’ve also made it very clear that I enjoy WorldCons with or without the Hugo Awards, so there is an element of me that doesn’t much care.
What I do care about is people pretending to be worried about the Hugos while supporting somebody who seems to want to destroy them because he can’t have them. I care about people seeing the Hugo Packet as a right of somekind. I really care about people behaving in a destructive manner for no readily apparent reason and then trying to cover it up with concern and politeness. And most of all, please don’t pretend to me that Amazon rankings mean anymore than the Tripadvisor review or that a fairly poor MilSF novel is better than some of the best SF written in the last 20 years because then I know you’re not arguing in good faith.
How about we use what Wikipedia says about Slate Elections instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_%28elections%29
“A slate is a group of candidates that run in multi-seat or multi-position elections on a common platform.
The common platform may be because the candidates are all members of a political party, have the same or similar policies, or some other reason.”
That is the usage I’m using, its the usage that Nick, NelC, Rick, Mike OGH and all the others disagreeing with you are using.
You can use your own if you like, but it doesn’t change what the words mean in the context, British English or American. Now if we were talking about ‘tabling’ this then we’d have a proper discussion, but the usage is the same on both sides of the pond.
“If my interpretation was wrong, correct me.”
You don’t want to be corrected. As a longtime commenter to Vox Day’s blog, you’re here just to make noise.
There’s a fairly classic case a few years ago of violating “unwritten rules” of basketball at, IIRC, the interscholastic level, but I can’t find the reference right now. It involved the team adopting a very nonstandard strategy which allowed to win regularly but was castigated as “not real basketball”.