aka Dandelion Whine
In the roundup today: Vox Day, Gary Denton, Spacefaring Kitten, Alexander Case, Leonie Rogers, D. Douglas Fratz, S.C. Flynn, A.J. Blakemont, Kary English, Damnien G. Walter, Mark Ciocco and Declan Finn. (Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editors of the day ULTRAGOTHA and May Tree.)
Grimlock * The Vision
“Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, Irene Gallo and Jim Butcher…” – June 28
Jim Butcher takes a lot of offense at what Gallo said, and yet he stands up for her when people harass her: ….
Classy, Mr. Butcher. Very, very classy.
I’ll be reading more of the books I have, even though I was like, ‘meh.’ I keep thinking I might because I heard they got better, and now I want to do it to support Butcher for standing up against harassment, even when he was offended by that person.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“I don’t care what you do” – June 28
Rabid Puppies is not, and has never been, a marketing campaign of any kind. We don’t need it. Rabid Puppies is about one thing and one thing only: to prevent the SJWs in science fiction from imposing their thought-police on the genre. I’m no more interested in marketing myself in this regard than Charles Martel was when he led the Franks against the Umayyads.
As several of the VFM have pointed out, the SJWs have it all backwards. They have to think that I am somehow duping thousands of idiots and fools into openly opposing them because the alternative is to accept how massively unpopular they are and how dismally their decades-long campaign to tell people what science fiction they may and may not read has failed.
Science Fiction has been for progressives and the oppressed, for those who can optimistically imagine the world differently N/A #sadpuppies
— Easter Lemming ???????????????? (@EasterLemming) June 28, 2015
Spacefaring Kitten on Spacefaring, Extradimensional Happy Kittens
“Kitten/Puppy Dialogues (on America)” – June 28
I have to say. In my opinion, Captain America is a boring, one-dimensional (well, I did claim he is zero-dimensional, but I’m not sure if that’s possible) character. Therefore, you seem to think, I also want all men put down. There’s a logical leap I don’t quite follow. I also don’t think you should do too hasty conclusions about what my gender is, because you know nothing about it.
But let’s dissect your statement a bit further.
What I’m actually disliking here is a Hugo finalist that was not on either of the two Puppy slates you’re probably promoting. In fact, I believe Captain America: The Winter Soldier was plugged by some actual, outspoken feminists, such as the smart and wonderful Book Smugglers Ana and Thea. For the record, I don’t think they are in league with the imperialist patriarchy there. Rather, they and I have a somewhat different taste as far as superhero movies are concerned.
I have every reason to believe that the Puppy-supported Hugo finalists Lego Movie, Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar will all be better, even though I haven’t seen the first two of them yet. What I know of them so far seems promising. A Puppy supporter criticizing me for this seems odd.
Alexander Case on Breaking It All Down
“Small thing bugging me about the Hugo Awards” – June 28
All You Need Is Kill, by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, is published in English by Haikasoru in 2004. Gets an nomination for the Seiun Awards (Japanese version of the Hugos) in its home country, nothing at the Hugo awards.
Then, All You Need Is Kill gets a manga adaptation, with art by Takeshi Obata (of Death Note and Bakuman fame), which is published in the US by Viz in 2014 – both volumes and an all-in-one omnibus. Does not get a Hugo nomination for Best Graphic Novel.
The film version, on the other hand, with a white director, white stars, white screenwriter, and which generally is as white as hell, gets a Hugo Award nomination for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form.
That doesn’t seem right to me.
To be clear, I’m glad the film was nominated. However, the lack of nominations for any versions of the story made by, you know, Japanese people, gives a vibe that the only way a work of Japanese speculative fiction can get for a Hugo Award.
https://twitter.com/damiengwalter/status/615220107912937472
Leonie Rogers
“Frustrated” – June 28
Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been working my way through the packet – which is what Hugo voters get in case they haven’t read the appropriate nominations. (I might add that I’m a prolific reader of Spec Fic, but there’s so much stuff to read, that I just don’t have enough time to read it all, so a lot of the stuff in the packet is quite new to me.)
The title of this post is ‘Frustrated.’ And I am. I’ve read quite a few Hugo nominees and winners over the many years I’ve been reading Spec Fic, and I’ve enjoyed pretty well all of it in all its varied forms. But this lot? I’m struggling through a lot of it. I’ve read all the short stories and novelettes and most of the novellas. Ho hum. Sigh. Honestly….sigh….
As an early career writer myself, I appreciate good writing. I also know that I don’t always get it right, but I really thought Hugo nominees would have it down pat. Nope. Or at least not this lot. Don’t get me wrong, there are some decent stories, and some of them are decently written, but so far, the vast majority are not exciting me at all. And as far as a couple of them go, they’re not well written at all.
I do have to thank the Hugo Packet for introducing me to Ms Marvel, though. I will actively go out and find more of her. (Apart from Phantom comics, I haven’t really read a lot of graphic novels.) In the meantime, I will continue to slog through the rest of the packet, hoping to find a gem here and there. Then I shall vote accordingly. On the upside, I’m feeling pretty happy about some of my own short stories right now….
D. Douglas Fratz on SF Site
As a result of all this, the Hugo Awards are now famous outside the field for all the wrong reasons. The New Republic even covered Puppygate, and sensible blogs were written by top authors — most notably serial blogs by George R. R. Martin — that made sure all of broader fandom knew what had happened. Connie Willis, Robert Silverberg, David Gerrold, and other deans of SF have all weighed in with level-headed views. The big losers here, of course, are the many fine authors who produced superior works in 2014 that should have been nominated, including many mentioned above, and we will know who they were when the full voting is announced.
But we all lost here. In the past, I would estimate that 90 percent of those nominated on the Hugo ballot are among the top 10 percent of candidates, making it a reliable index of quality. Everyone who relies on the Hugo Nominations and results to help choose future reading lost something this year. (Also everyone who wishes that those hours Martin, Willis, Silverberg, and others spent addressing the issue were used to write new fiction!) Thank goodness there are still other awards, including the Locus Awards and even the sometimes quirky Nebula awards, for this purpose. I hope that the Worldcon administrators will find a way to prevent future block voting, but there is some chance that (like our own government’s counter-terrorism policies) the solutions will simply make things slightly worse for all. Which is, in the end, just what terrorists seek to have happen.
S.C. Flynn on Scy-Fy
“Interview with A.J. Blakemont” – June 28
SCy-Fy: Thanks! What potential traps do you see in SFF blogging?
AJB: Let’s be respectful! It is always possible to express one’s opinion or disagreement without hurting other people’s feelings. SF fans tend to be passionate and opinionated, and, sometimes, they get carried away. The current debate about the Hugos is a good example. No one owns the truth: not me, not you, not this guy with hundreds of thousands of followers. No one….
SCy-Fy: Posts of yours that have had the most impact or controversy?
AJB: My recent post on the Hugos: “Is the system broken?” caused controversy. Sad Puppies’ campaign manager wrote to me. Something tells me that my chances of being nominated for a Hugo are close to zero. Well, fortunately I care naught for awards! A writer should care only about readers, period. I wanted my readers to hear my opinion, and if it means being at variance with influential people in fandom, so be it.
Kary English
“An open letter to Puppies and everyone” – June 28
If you read Totaled and loved it enough to nominate it, thank you. That’s exactly how the Hugos are supposed to work, and it shouldn’t matter to me or anyone whether you identify as a Puppy or not. So if you’re one of those readers, then rock on. I am humbled and grateful for your support.
But as we know, Bob, there was a push this year to nominate things sometimes without having read them, and for reasons that had little to do with fannish enthusiasm. I never asked to be part of that, and had I been given the choice, I would not have wanted my work used that way.
I’m also not comfortable with the ballot sweep. My sense from the Sad Puppies is that locking up the ballot was never one of the goals of the movement, and that it was accidental, unintentional and unforeseen. If I’m wrong, and nominating five works in some of the categories was a deliberate attempt to sweep the ballot, then I wouldn’t have wanted to be part of that, either.
The Hugos should represent all voices, so if Sad Puppies is about drawing attention to works that might otherwise be overlooked, I can support that and I’m happy to stand for it. But if it’s about shutting out other voices and other work, if it’s about politics or pissing off certain segments of fandom, that’s not something I can get behind.
The whole point of fandom is that our love for the genre unites us. It’s about having a place where genre is paramount, where literature comes first. So if that’s who you are, and that’s what you want, then I’m with you. That’s why I invited everyone to talk about books here on my blog.
But if you’re in this with some other agenda, take it elsewhere. I don’t want to be part of it.
Kary English on Facebook – June 28
Here’s what I hope will be my final comment on the Hugos.
As a result of this statement, I have been delisted from Vox Day’s voting preferences, which is fine with me since I never agreed to be part of that in the first place…..
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“Hugo Recommendations: Best Short Story” – June 28
This is how I am voting in the Best Short Story category. Of course, I offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his 386 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.
- “Turncoat”, Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
- “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
- “On A Spiritual Plain”, Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, 11-2014)
- “A Single Samurai”, Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)
Mark Ciocco on Kaedrin Weblog
“Hugo Awards: Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form” – June 28
…. This year, we have at least two nominees that were deserving (and that didn’t have Upstream‘s impenetrable style), including Coherence (to be fair, there are some eligibility concerns on that one), The One I Love, and maybe even Snowpiercer (a film I kinda hated, but it seems up the voters’ alley). Alas, they did not make it, and to be sure, Hollywood had a pretty good year, putting out plenty of genuinely good movies. Indeed, I even nominated 3 of these, so I guess I shouldn’t complain! My vote will go something like this (I’m going to be partially quoting myself on some of these, with some added comments more specific to the Hugos)….
[Comments on all five nominees.]
File 770 thinks some #SadPuppies are simple. We've read your comments section, Mike. Don't go there. 🙂@sadrbtpuppies
— Declan Finn, editor/author #IronAge action novels (@DeclanFinnBooks) June 29, 2015
[Very brave, Declan, pretending what I said about you was addressed to Sad Puppies in general. Now go and change your armor…]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I know so many people named Jim/James… and I’m 40, so I’m not sure where that demo fits.
Not nearly as many Jasons and Brians, of course, but still plenty of them. I think I may have met someone named Steve, once, but I’m not sure.
@ MickeyFinn – for some reason I am suddenly reminded of an Elvis impersonator I saw once, who sewed all his own costumes. He had a bitchin’ Spider-Man Elvis suit. (He sang Elvis standards, and composed original music about Elvis. One involved Elvis drinking from the Holy Grail. You had to admire his dedication to the theme.)
Basically what I’m saying is that it wouldn’t kill the Supreme Court to jazz it up a bit.
(Also autocorrect thinks bitchin’ should be Bitcoin. This is good for…never mind.)
Hmm 5 Hugo’s. I can’t check on another browser window without losing the text so hopefully these are legitimate. These are all books that stuck with me.
The Worm Ouroboros ERR Eddison
The Dragon Waiting John M Ford
The Chanur Saga CJ Cherryh
At the Mountains of Madness HP Lovecraft
The Dragon Never Sleeps Glen Cook
@PhilRM – I read Vurt during lunch breaks and I remember looking around whenever my coworkers walked in, thinking “Can they tell I’m high?” and then “Wait a minute, I’m dead sober, it’s this book!”
@ KB
We are in complete agreement except for the one point that my example doesn’t change if it happens in a group. It just takes more people then and they all have to agree, or the discusion happens anyway.
It’s also wrong.
The rest of your post goes on to talk about whether it can be said that various justices are doing their job well or not. But regardless of whether they are or aren’t, they didn’t arrogate to themselves the seat of judgment.
We recruited them for it, made them go through an approvals process, and gave them the job, stamped, sealed and approved.
They’re in the seat of judgment because they were handpicked for it.
@andyl: “Apparently Stephen/Steven was the 3rd most popular boys name in 1954 in the UK and Wikipedia says it was at the height of its popularity in the 50s and 60s. But you are right it isn’t very popular these days.”
I find this uniquely hilarious, in that I work with no fewer than three people named some version of “Steve” – and this is not a large company.
@Greg: “Side note: does anyone know how Samuel Pepys got from 1660 to 1611?”
That was part of the infamous Samuel Pepys Fiasco, chronicled by Thursday Next.
Rev:
When I was part of the cinema club at college, we had three other members named Steve, to the point that they were called Big Steve, Little Steve and New Steve. There were a couple of others who’d been members before my time, so there were occasionally references to Old Steve and…I’ve forgotten what the fifth Steve was called.
But that wasn’t because the name was popular at the time, it was because it had been popular twenty years earlier, around the time all those Steves were born.
It’s like when the profusion of teenage girls named Madison appeared, it was because SPLASH had been a hit 15 years or so ago. When names are popular, babies get named. So your three Steves are the result of the name having been popular when they were born.
Or maybe not. Flukes happen too.
@ KB
I read “arrogate themselves the seat of judgment” as “had no business deciding” with the understanding that this may be a criticism of the outcome when the argument is that the Supreme Court had no authority to overrule the states in this matter.
mk:
What you may be missing, then, is that when someone politely declines your requests, and indicates that they’re going to continue to decide on their own, rather than be guided by your wishes, there’s nothing wrong with that.
But this seems to be the very position you’re arguing with.
Mark Hopper over at the new round-up provided the below link on name popularity by year in the US:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/index.html#ht=2
Copying over my comment from there:
So for 1920 (which I think is Steve Rogers’s most commonly given year of birth), Stephen was 96th most common (0.1610% of names), Steve was 127th most common (0.1165% of names), and Steven was 270th most common (0.0380% of names).
For comparison, most common name was John, with just over 5%.
I can’t believe no one has mentioned that the Hugo Awards had to be suspended during the duration of the United States Civil War. The blockade of Confederate ports, and the neutrality of the British and French Empires also made all the pre-war literary correspondences much less frequent as the Atlantic Trade routes were disrupted. The archival records of C.I. Defontenay and Jules Verne still have their fan letters from Ambrose Bierce in 1860, but these types of letters became much less frequent as the war went on.
Baby Name Wizard is a good site for looking at the popularity of names in the U.S. over the years.
Kurt Busiek: It’s like when the profusion of teenage girls named Madison appeared, it was because SPLASH had been a hit 15 years or so ago.
Sort of like all the women out there who are named Rhiannon, Rihanna, Brianna, Reanna, etc etc etc after the Fleetwood Mac song, because most of those parents had no idea how the song name was actually spelled.
I don’t. I commented on it because it literally says these guys chose for themselves to sit in judgment of things. I think it’s funny (and incorrect) to say that about appointed judges. Supreme Court judges, yet, whose job is to choose what cases they judge and then to judge them. They are charged to do these things, it’s literally their job.
Still, rather than keep repeating my point, I’ll note that I recognize that you don’t read it that way. That’s probably why I made the observation and you didn’t.
But I do think it’s still a valid and amusing point, especially when expressed with a certain frontier twang. So I’ll stick with it.
Particularly if I get to say “fuckin eagle acrost it.”
NB to onlookers: The Oglaf dwarves would say “fucken eagle.” Totally different thing.
@ KB
That is not what I’m arguing with. What I’m arguing with is the next step after what you describe. What I’m arguing with is the characterisation that me expressing my wishes implies wanting JJ to make her boundaries my boundaries. Basically, that there’s anything wrong with me saying once what I would like to happen.
Ok, recently it also kind of annoys me that you keep missing the point and explaining the obvious to me.
snowcrash:
The Steve Rogers in the movies has a birthdate of July 4, 1918. The one in the comics has a birthdate of July 4, 1922. So it splits the difference, at least.
Both of those dates were established multiple decades after the character was created, so what years Joe and Jack were going for, we don’t know. But it was somewhere around then.
In any case, the 96th most common name for a baby boy in 1920 still meant that there were a lot of Steves born that year. My name was the 130th most popular in the US the year I was born, and I’ve still met a fair number of Kurts around my age.
[As it happens, in 1920 there were 1772 Stephens and 418 Stevens born, so he was one of 2190 Steves. Not as many as there were Stanleys or Eugenes, but enough so that it’s not beyond the pale for them to have named him that.]
mk41: What I’m arguing with is the characterisation that me expressing my wishes implies wanting JJ to make her boundaries my boundaries. Basically, that there’s anything wrong with me saying once what I would like to happen.
Except that it wasn’t just once. You went on and on about how those of us who were quite legitimately upset by yet another reference to physical violence by a Puppy were not allowed to call such statements “threatening” unless we could state that we personally felt threatened. That was your boundary on that issue, and you kept insisting that the rest of us should conform to that boundary.
@ KB
Your take certainly was amusing!
Alas, on a serious note it poses the question whether you genuinely believe Torgersen is of the opinion the people in the robes had no business being there. That he is ignorant of the way the supreme court justices are selected and what their job is. Because that or something similar is what you imply when you suggest Torgersen meant that literally.
This was at least the second time, though.
I agree with JJ. You’re asking her to substitute your judgment for hers. She’s declining politely.
The thing is, you’re in charge of your own choices. If you don’t like the responses you’re getting, you can stop the conversation. You don’t need me to. You don’t need to tell me that I’m missing your point rather than seeing it just fine and disagreeing with it.
Into each life some annoyance falls. If you’re determined to get me to agree with you when I don’t, you’re participating in the process that causes you annoyance. Feel free to shrug, figure I’m a dope, and move on. Or don’t. Up to you.
I’ll be moving on, though, because we’ve stopped saying anything new, and with all due respect, that’s when I figure things aren’t going anywhere.
Thanks!
@ JJ
You’re kind of changing the topic on me here.
My boundary on that issue was “be honest”. Don’t say “threatened” when you mean “uncomfortable” or “repulsed” or “dislike” or “upset”. In as much as honesty is a basic principle, yes, my argument was prescriptive. I went on and on on that matter far longer than I wanted because people were responding and I felt my position was mischaracterised.
I think I’ve argued against Brian Z being called dishonest rather than asked people not to, although since its a difficult topic for me its possible I’ve slipped (I think the closest I got was saying I’d really rather people didn’t). I try and keep asking for people to do things for when I think someone’s jumped over the aggression line and needs to take a deep breath. Which is still, of course, subjective, and I certainly wouldn’t be surprised or annoyed if I were ignored or snapped back at, since there’s no guarantee that I’m correct.
Since we’ve cheerfully veered off in any and all directions, including ones without ObSF, I think asking someone to avoid a subject or an approach to a subject is not going to get very far. If recipes and cat pictures are on topic, so is Torgersen’s inability to shine a light on his own actions.
Re: Video game violence
Last I heard the research pointed to a more obvious aggression response after playing frustrating games than violent ones, but that it was pretty difficult to isolate video games as a cause for anything. It ends up being a chicken and the egg problem.
ETA: @mk41, I think you were asking for more precision in emotional response than is practical. Emotions don’t really work that way.
Jim Henley,
This one was brilliant – thank you! – but now that I’ve thought about it more: it does seem extreme for an art director to be fired for a facebook comment (though it happens in this day and age), but if world famous Guardian reporter Damien G. Walter did somehow clarify who he is talking about, he might receive a less than friendly visit from Timothy the Talking Cat.
Five Hugo’s …
Islandia
The light princess
The female man
Native tongue
The other wind
Good point. Certainly a big part of the issue.
From the other side, “X said something threatening” is a statement of fact, says X did something inarguably wrong and may even be grounds for involving the police. So, um, I don’t know. It’s difficult. My proposed solution is to keep the emotional response in check until it can be expressed sufficiently clearly. Another way might be to say “X said something I found threatening”, then it’s clearly a personal reaction. “threatening” to me is a very serious allegation.
In the matter in question it was clarified that people felt it contributed to a climate which condoned violence and that the climate was threatening, that made a lot of sense to me. Someone (JJ?) also said he/she felt threatened (though I’d never have understood that from the post which was apparently meant to mean “Hell, yes!”), so that was clarified as well.
@BrianZ: Two questions.
1. Did you actually attempt to contact Damien G. Walter about what Damien G. Walter meant?
2. If not, why are you asking us? This is why people have decided you’re a troll. You find some random thing that you think proves there’s some kind of conspiracy or prejudice, when it’s really just Damien Walter being Damien Walter. Or you’re just violating Wil Wheaton’s rule #1.
The only reason I’m not asking Mike to ban you is because you helped persuade (inadvertently, of course) a lot of people to vote for E Pluribus Hugo. You may continue to prove useful in the future as a concern troll.
Tuomas Vainio said:
In other words, it appears that our blogger did not consider or notice certain aspects that were portrayed in the film, such as Steve Rogers’ problems trying to find his place in the modern world. It has not been that long since Steve Rogers was fighting in the Second World War, where as for everyone else that war has already become ancient history.
I doubt that you can watch the film and not notice that part of the storyline. The reason it didn’t work for me is that in the film this is just Cap’s backstory. It’s, in my opinion, completely irrelevant to the plot and it doesn’t affect Cap’s actions in any way. Actually, that piece of backstory makes Rogers’s sermons against modern mass-surveillance just more unbelievable and irritating.
A movie about his difficulties with adjusting to the modern world could be quite interesting, I agree, but Captain America: The Winter Soldier wasn’t about that at all. It was about fighting in spandex with a frisbee, as far as I can see. I guess some (most?) other people get more out of the film, and I also haven’t read some of the comics recommended here, let alone any fan fiction.
Gabriel F. said:
I apologize for going along with Jackass Poster and gendering you when you haven’t identified yourself. Mea culpa, and I mean that sincerely.
For the record, I think the fact that your handle involves the word “kitten” will forever identify you as female unless you consistently correct it.
Thanks! I don’t mind the pronouns, really. My own first language doesn’t have gendered pronouns at all and I often miss them when I’m not paying extra attention (and make horrible mistakes when writing fast), so policing it is not something I could do.
spacefaringkitten: My own first language doesn’t have gendered pronouns at all and I often miss them when I’m not paying extra attention (and make horrible mistakes when writing fast), so policing it is not something I could do.
Holy shit. I’m known for being able to identify people online for whom English is not a first language, because the structural differences are really noticeable to me (and I tend to smack down anyone who ridicules those people for issues of grammar or spelling). I’ve had native-English speakers incredulously ask me “How could you tell that? I couldn’t tell!” when, to me, it seemed blindingly obvious.
It isn’t that not having English for a first language is a problem. It’s not. In fact, I have a huge amount of respect for people from countries with a different first language, who are generally far better at English than Americans are with other languages (hell, most Americans are monolingual, which I think is absolutely criminal).
It’s just that — I knew from what you’d said, you weren’t from the U.S. But your English is so good, I could not tell that it wasn’t your first language. You are maybe the second person where this has happened (though, obviously, there were undoubtedly some people I couldn’t identify because they were just that good at English).
So, wow. Kudos to you.
Maybe you’d consider coming over here and teaching a bunch of Americans how to speak and write proper English? Because we’ve got a lot of them who need it. 😉
Greg, why don’t we just go ahead and ask Mike if he thinks people should be banned for asking what something that is linked in the roundup means, or saying that it was unclear, or potentially problematic. I’m interested to know as well.
While we are waiting, please have a look at Wheaton’s Law yourself.
Greg, let me reply to the second part of your comment too.
It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that my purpose was not to shred EPH, burn it to ashes, and scatter them to the Wind’s Hind Quarters. My purpose was to encourage attention to and discussion of it in precincts beyond Making Light, a forum where I certainly wasn’t made to feel particularly welcome and at least potentially some others may not prefer to congregate.
So my mission is pretty much accomplished. What’s your mission? To browbeat me about what a bad person I am until I’m either driven from the pack or I start to tow the party line? Don’t be ridiculous.
Brian, why were you made to feel unwelcome in ML? Was it because you were regularly misrepresenting other peoples comments there, and that you didn’t engage with any of the answers that your initial questions got you? Was it because you continued this pattern even after being cautioned by one of the moderators there?
I’m just asking, as I would like to encourage attention to and discussion of your commenting patterns.
Also, ITYM “toe”
Brian Z.:
Speaking For Others Here
Greg, why don’t we just go ahead
That’s Not What You Meant + Bonus Wounded Innocence
and ask Mike if he thinks people should be banned for asking what something that is linked in the roundup means, or saying that it was unclear, or potentially problematic.
Smarm
I’m interested to know as well.
Brian, you are well aware that what Greg meant is whether you should be banned for your chronic Trolling behavior, which is destructive to this community.
If you honestly gave a shit what Damien Walters really meant, you’d have asked him yourself 36 hours ago when you first posted here, rather than the 9 posts you made here during that time span going on about Walters’ tweet and asking the people here what it meant, when they couldn’t possibly give you an answer.
The truth is you honestly don’t care what Walters means, all you care about is trolling the people here and wasting their time.
FUD about EPH + Bonus That’s Not What I Meant
Brian Z.: It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that my purpose was not to shred EPH, burn it to ashes, and scatter them to the Wind’s Hind Quarters. My purpose was to encourage attention to and discussion of it in precincts beyond Making Light
If it was your intention to make that “blindingly obvious”, then you’ve failed miserably, and should consider taking some Communications Basics classes at your local Community College.
What is blindingly obvious is that you are vehemently opposed to EPH getting passed, and you have been doing your best to sow as much fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the proposal as possible, in the hope that the people here would be too stupid to see through your painfully-transparent posts.
I’ve got a signed copy of Vurt. And the Paul McGann audio.</smug>
I do feel the need to make notes and charts when reading his other books, both/ the sequalishs and others, big charts with lots of dotted lines, or I get lost in names and places.
I wonder where I’ve put them…
And now I’ve read down to your futher comment – I played the audio at work in the lunch break; a very short excert before I thought “perhaps not” and took it home to embarress my children instead.
I enjoyed The Winter Soldier, but I could see an argument that most of the work on establishing Captain America’s character was done in the first movie and isn’t really present in the second. (The first movie – or at least the first half of it – is very good). I was never a particular fan of the comics, and it would be very easy for a character like that to rub me the wrong way, but I liked it.
The fanfic was great (and for similar reasons)
The Mark Millar version of the character was appalling. Millar is reliably appalling.
JJ, nope. I just think EPH fails to address the root problems by simply pointing at “puppies” and emitting a kind of Donald Sutherland shriek. It isn’t an entirely bad thing to fiddle with the Hugo rules.
EPH does have real downsides, and in any case it certainly isn’t going to restore the Hugos to their former glory. Unless people think more seriously about the changing voter culture, what you’ve got left is a popularity contest where every “faction” is assured its own piece of the pie.
As I said earlier, I’d rather join a quest to seek for the five best things, not squabble with other warring tribes.
The conversation reminds me that I’m increasingly finding myself applying the standards of the internet to Real Life(tm) by spotting trolling tactics in the wild. For example, yesterday one of my co-workers asked if I could possibly explain a statement by a 3rd party to her, which prior experience told me was cover for then launching into a complaint about how the general issues with BigProject were actually unique to her special-snowflake self. Rather than engaging yet again I said “Ask him, not me”. So refreshing.
(Oh, and the definition of sealioning has helped illuminate an entire class of interactions that I have to have on a depressingly regular basis)
Brian Z.: I just think EPH fails to address the root problems by simply pointing at “puppies” and emitting a kind of Donald Sutherland shriek.
As that is not at all what EPH does, you have just reinforced my assertion that you are doing your best to sow as much fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the proposal as possible.
Brian Z.: EPH does have real downsides
If that was the case, you have as yet failed utterly in elucidating what they might be.
Brian Z.: and in any case it certainly isn’t going to restore the Hugos to their former glory.
As you are in the only one here who’s been asserting that the Hugos have gone downhill, it’s not necessary for EPH to restore any “glory”. What EPH will do is restore fairness to the nominating process by eliminating the susceptibility for a <20% minority to take the entire ballot.
Brian Z.: Unless people think more seriously about the changing voter culture, what you’ve got left is a popularity contest where every “faction” is assured it’s own piece of the pie.
No, when EPH passes, what you will have left is a nominating process where factions cannot control the process — which is exactly as it should be.
Brian Z.: As I said earlier, I’d rather join a quest to seek for the five best things, not squabble with other warring tribes.
No one has been stopping you from doing this, except you yourself. If you’re not interested in squabbling, then why have you made a profession of doing so with the other commenters here?
Your trolling behavior, your lies, your disingenuousness, are destructive to this community. But of course, you don’t care about that — in fact, that’s your goal.
@Mark,
I was going to reply to Brian Z’s latest comment but then I reminded myself of xkcd386.
what JJ said.
@Doire
I’m jealous. I have a first edition of most of Noon’s work including Vurt (not signed though unfortunately), but don’t have the audiobook. There is the first 30 minutes of it on Youtube though and it sounds amazing.
@Soon Lee
…and I know exactly which one you mean without having to check.
If a lot of people who are otherwise sensible have concluded bad things about you, you don’t have to believe them or agree with their conclusions, but you probably ought to look at what they’re saying about your behaviour and think about whether you need to change what you’re doing to get the results you want. If you meet one asshole you met an asshole, but if everyone you meet is an asshole…
—
So far as I’m aware the only person to be outright banned who was initially allowed to comment (I think Mike Glyer has mentioned that there are some commenters whose first comment wasn’t let through at all) is Tank Marmot, so I’d be surprised to see Brian Z join that elite group. Needing every comment to be personally checked over before being allowed through is a very different type of thing from anything Brian Z has ever done.
Did Mike actually permaban our furry armoured friend, or just get fed up releasing his comments on that particular day?
@Mark
Well, we haven’t seen him since, but I suppose he might’ve just given up. I was under the impression it was a full ban.
snowcrash, Mark, JJ, et al, I’m sorry, I may have missed your point, so could each of you please explain it to me again? Something about squabbling?
@Meredith
He’s probably just lulling us into a false sense of security.
@Brian Z
To pick a single and easily actionable point, stop asking people what someone else meant. Either make your own point and own it, using whatever it was as a springboard, or go ask whoever actually said it what they meant, and then make your own point and own it.
That one has definitely annoyed multiple people over multiple conversational threads. (Incidentally, its been helpful to me to see it happen, as I have occasionally wanted to make a statement along the lines of “I wonder what/if/who” and its made my comments stronger to avoid that and stick to making solid points that I believe in rather than wasting pixels speculating about other people. I’m not suggesting anything that I haven’t tried out myself.)
@ Mark
I’m not sure he’s capable of that sort of subtlety, but hey, maybe he has hidden depths!
Aw, c’mon Brian. This is weaksauce trolling for you. At least in your other posts you leave open the possibility that you are just being incredibly obtuse/ unaware. But a comment like this is just pure Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
Meredith,
I like you, but let’s be clear here. I am not Damien G Walter’s social media consultant, career guidance counselor, HR director, best friend from college, priest, or tennis partner, and we don’t follow each other on Twitter. (I Tweeted once in college and never tried it again.) Why should he answer to me? If he considers it important, he can issue a clarifying Tweet, assuming 140 characters is sufficient to name the person or persons he wishes “The Hugo Awards” to blacklist. Or maybe he does google vanity searches and knows he was in the roundup. He seems to have friends who read this, so maybe they’ll tell him. Who knows.
Mike linked to something topical, and I said, in a quite a brief comment, actually, what I thought about it, like one does here, in a discussion thread devoted to discussing these links. I was attacked for it a dozen times, and although I’ve been fairly selective about what I respond to, each time I do respond I am attacked a bunch more times about everything from whether words mean what it says the dictionary to how dare I defend a bunch of assholes.
I’m not responding because I think it is helping me make my case. I’m responding because I genuinely want you folks to think about what you are doing.