The Collar Out of Space 5/28

Posted on by

aka Twenty Thousand Comments About the Controversy by Jules Verne

Stampeding into this roundup are Kate Paulk, John Carlton, Nick Mamatas, Tom Knighton, Adam-Troy Castro, Brian Lowe, Max Florschutz, Rich Horton, Lou Antonelli , Amanda S. Green, Steve Davidson, William Reichard, embrodski, Lis Carey, Joe Sherry, Elisa Bergslien, Brian Niemeier, R.P.L. Johnson, Katya Czaja, Mary Robinette Kowal, “Orange Mike” Lowrey, Alexandra Erin and ULTRAGOTHA. (Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editors of the day Jim Henley and Soon Lee.)

Kate Paulk on Mad Genius Club

“So What Is Hugo-Worthy Anyway?” – May 28

So. What I look for when judging quality in narrative fiction (this mostly doesn’t apply to poetry and non-fiction and it sure as heck doesn’t apply to art) is this (in approximate order, even):

  1. Early immersion – I read a hell of a lot, and I find it very easy to become immersed in a piece. The earlier it drags me in, the better. If I don’t get the immersion, the interplay of the technical factors (prose quality, characterization, plotting, foreshadowing, etc.) isn’t handled well enough to do it. I’ve read pieces where I liked the premise and characters, but the craft wasn’t good enough to generate immersion. I’ve also read pieces that I hated but were well enough done to hold me despite that.
  2. Immersion is maintained until the last word – This is important: if something throws me out of immersion, it’s a serious technical flaw (because, yes, I’ve actually analyzed this. It could be a plot flaw that runs the piece into a bridge abutment. It could be something that breaks a character. It could also be prose so damned obtuse it sends me running for a dictionary – and I read Stephen Donaldson’s Thomas Covenant series without needing one…..

 

John Carlton on The Arts Mechanical

Eric Flint Owes Brad Torgeson And The Rest Of The Puppies A Huge Apology

This has gotten too long, Eric and I’m leave it with this.  WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!!! Before I knew what your relationship with Brad was, your posts were just more of the kind of crap we have been seeing all over.  Not only excusing the nuclear strike of hate, but seemingly justifying it.  Most of us thought you just weren’t aware of the whole story.  That was before how well you knew Brad.  Then you came into my thread [on Facebook] and acted like a perfect jackass. Beating up on me, well ok, I’m a big boy, and I’ve been beaten on by better than you.  Supposedly you are Brad’s friend, though. Yet you didn’t hesitate to demonstrate true douchery by taking a hit at him.  All the while he’s formatting that hit piece on himself for you before going on deployment.  A true friend indeed.

I’m sure you are aware of the Alinsky tactic of isolating the target and setting it up for destruction.  You also know that that’s exactly the time when friends need to stand together.  Yet there you were with the rest of the mob.  I’m asking myself why?  Couldn’t you just for once set aside your politics and support a friend who needs it? With all the voices turned  against them the puppies and Brad could have used another voice in support.  Even if you saw the screams of racism and misogyny you KNEW that it all had to be a  lie.  Yet you not did not call out the lies, you amplified them and did not speak out against them even when the CHORFs were attacking YOU.  And that’s why you owe Brad and the rest of the puppies a HUGE apology.

 

Nick Mamatas on Storify

“Engagement and Popularity in Science Fiction – Sad Puppies Are Sad”  – May 28

[Numbers 10 and 11 of 17 tweets]

 

 

 

Tom Knighton

“Sad Puppies, Noah Ward, and the abusive husband” – May 28

How, pray tell, did we screw any work, magazine or other entity over by nominating them?  First, that presumes that we not only sought to have everything on the slate nominated but also knew that the reaction would be to No Award everything we nominated.

Make no mistake, the decision to No Award the works on the Sad Puppy slate lies on you who have decided to judge a work by its fans.

Claiming that we “screwed over” a work because we nominated it is like an abusive husband smacking his wife because another guy said she was pretty, then turning to the other guy and saying, “See what you made me do?”

We didn’t make you do anything.  It is your decision to No Award works, not ours.  Just like the abusive husband trying to pin responsibility on the other man, you’re responsible for your own decisions.  We’re not forcing you to vote anything below No Award.  That’s been your call from the start.

Those of us on the Sad Puppy side just wanted to nominate things we like.  We didn’t like what had been winning, so we stepped up and nominated different stuff.  You act like we’ve committed an unspeakable sin because we didn’t do it the way you guys have been doing it.  We did it a different way.

 

Adam-Troy Castro

“Conniption Fodder” – May 28

[Ordinarily I avoid quoting entire posts – but this is, after all, only three sentences long…]

Any political differences I might have with the Puppies, any feelings of dismay I might have about the racism and homophobia and sheer unpleasantness displayed by some of them, are secondary.

What really infuriates me most is eighty years — eighty goddamned years — of SF writers and fans trying to persuade a skeptical and often contemptuous world that this is not a field of crap, jumped-up “Buck Rogers stuff,” as it’s so often been called, but a field of literature, material that was stylistically and thematically and conceptually ignored at the world’s tremendous loss, a fight that was led on the page by Campbell, for God’s sake, by Bradbury, for God’s sake, by Heinlein, for God’s sake, by Pohl for God’s sake, even from time to time by Harry Harrison for God’s sake, and in popular culture by Serling and Roddenberry for God’s sake, all that before we got to the likes of Vonnegut and Ellison and LeGuin and Silverberg and Russ and Malzberg and Tiptree and Brunner and Delany, with the occasional cruelly overlooked master like Kit Reed, and others, for God’s sake, all of them hammering hard at the limits of what this field was allowed to do, and what it was allowed to say, all of them breaking barriers and shattering ceilings, often in the face of tremendous opposition, while permitting the grand old adventure stuff to continue to flourish, until we have room for both Neal Stephenson and Neil Gaiman, for everything from Kim Stanley Robinson to China Mieville, for Nalo Hopkinson and N.K. Jemisin, all those good folks, after which we not only enter the zeitgeist but take it over, decades later, whereupon the Puppies come along and say, “NO! IT WAS NEVER ANY OF THAT GOOD STUFF! IT WAS ALWAYS *JUST* ROCKETSHIPS AND DRAGONS! IT WAS NEVER ANYTHING BUT PLAIN FICTION FOR PLAIN FOLKS! ANY PRETENSIONS OF ANYTHING ELSE ARE JUST AN ABERRATION OF THE LAST FEW YEARS!”

*That* is conniption fodder.

 

 

Max Florschutz on Unusual Things

“Battle of the Lone-Star Reviews” – May 28

A very vocal anti-puppy commented that simply because he was an outspoken anti-puppy, his books had been one-star bombed by the Sad Puppy supporters, and it was wrong. Except when the anti-puppies did it (yes, he actually claimed this in the same comment), because as long as they believed the were morally right, then they had a good reason to. Also, he dared more people to leave one star reviews on his book because all that proved was that they didn’t have a leg to—yeah, I started skimming it. It got ridiculous.

Point is, I checked him on Amazon, and indeed, he does have a very large number of unreasonable one-star reviews. He also had a few very well-thought out and explained one-star reviews to go along with them. I went along and did the helpful/not-helpful boxes as I browsed through them, because heck, even if the guy is loud and annoying to me, a scummy review is still a scummy review.

So, here’s what we have: individuals on both sides appear to be leaving one-star reviews for books of authors they don’t like. And at least one prominent individual on one of the sides has encouraged such actions as a “take that!” to which supporters on the other have responded in kind.

I don’t approve of either. In fact, if you’re encouraging this or engaging in it, you’re part of the problem.

 

Rich Horton on Black Gate

“A Modest Proposal to Improve the Hugos” – May 28

Though, I ask myself, why do I use the word “problem?” Surely it is a feature, not a bug, that there are so many stories published each year that are worthy of our attention? Indeed it is, but a result of that, I feel, is that if we want the Hugos to represent the very best stories of the year, we are failing, in the sense that it’s easier than before for a great story to slip under the radar.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that for a story to reach the final ballot it must receive 5% of the nominating ballots. That requirement is obsolete in a situation where so many more stories are plausible contenders. (Three times in the past five years the Hugo Short Story ballot has had fewer than 5 entries due to this rule, and in 2013 there were only three stories on the final ballot.)

Is there a way to solve this? I have a very simple suggestion. Change the rules as follows: instead of choosing the top 5 nominated stories for the final ballot, choose the top 10. (However, any individual nominator would still only be allowed to nominate 5 items in a category.) Also, lower the percentage threshold of total nominating ballots to be eligible for the final ballot to 3% (or, possibly, eliminate the lower threshold altogether). I’m not sure this change is needed in all categories – in some categories (Dramatic Presentation, Long Form, for one example) it’s been my impression that getting to 10 reasonable nominees in a given year might be a stretch.

 

Lou Antonelli on This Way to Texas

“Kansas City chronicles – ConQuest 46” – May 28

One of the practical things I did while at the convention was upgrade my membership for SasQuan from supporting to attending. They offered a $20 discount if it was done at the con. I also had a nice chat with the people at the table. I told them of my belief, because of the mob mentality being fostered by some people against the Pupps, that they should just announce the winners and forget the dinner. But they are aware of the possibility of unpleasantness and plan to keep a tight rein on things. I wish them luck. I hope I get out of Spokane in one piece.

One person I ran into at the con said he has suggested that, to prevent catcalls, boos and jeering, that the Hugo committee announce in advance which categories will not have an award this year, and the ceremony only deal with the presentations to winners. That sounds like a good idea, also.

 

Amanda S. Green on Nocturnal Lives

“Five days and counting” – May 28

As for today, well, it is difficult to find a topic to blog that doesn’t take me back to Sad Puppies and the Hugos. That is especially true when one author keeps turning up on my Facebook feed with his daily anti-puppy rant. Now, I’m a big believer in everyone is entitled to their own opinions but it is hard to not respond, either on his page — which would get me banned — or here. That’s especially true because he consistently misconstrues what SP3 stands for.

You see, by nature I’m a battler. I’m a brawler and I fight dirty. But I have learned over the years that there are some fights that just aren’t worth fighting. This fight, with this particular author is one of them. He is never going to change his stance, no matter what sort of evidence, anecdotal and concrete alike, he is presented with. He has written the history of the industry in the way he wants it to be remembered and to hell with everyone else. Taking the battle to him would serve no purpose except to prove, in his point of view, he is right.

 

Obsah XB-1 – June 2015 issue

[A Czech-language SF magazine presents both sides of the controversy. Jason Sanford’s article, according to Google Translate, is titled “You maniacs ! You destroyed Hugo Award !” while Brad Torgersen’s is called “Sad Puppies critics strike back.” Each author also has a story in the issue.]

??????????????????

 

Steve Davidson on Amazing Stories

“On Politics and Fandom” – May 28

Yesterday I sent out a general press release concerning the appointment of Judges to the Gernsback Science Fiction Short Story Contest (you can see a post here).

I received an email from one of the usual press outlets I send such things to, asking to be removed from our PR mailing list.

The name of the venue is unimportant.

What is important is that the request for removal from the list represents fallout from the 2015 Hugo Kerfuffle, otherwise known as Puppygate.

 

William Reichard

“What hope gets you today (puppy sadness)” – May 28

But that’s what earnestness gets you. Earnestness is a crime in our world. Even daring to try to believe in something hopeful and un-ironic wins you scorn. It gets you lectured. And this is one of the nuances that makes me able to understand some of the “puppies” in the Hugo debate. I tend toward cynicism and irony myself, but when someone tells me I can’t be hopeful, that it’s bad taste to be hopeful, that earnestness is corny per se, my hackles are raised and I think, well I’m going to be hopeful, then. I don’t even think I’m uncritical of hopefulness itself–I could name plenty of ostensibly “hopeful” works that weren’t much more than jingoistic rose-colored welding glasses. But Interstellar wasn’t that, and it seems facile–a critical trope of its own–to say it was.

 

embrodski on Death Is Bad

“SF/F Review – The Three-Body Problem” – May 28

Puppy Note: This book was not on the Puppy Slate. When I thought to myself “How did this book make it onto the Hugo Ballot?” my first thought was the same uncharitable thought that the Puppies normally have. I thought “This is cultural inclusiveness being taken too far. The liberal thought-leaders want to show they are racially/culturally diverse, and they know that this book is CRAZY popular in China! For it to be so popular among so many readers, it must be fantastic! So let’s make sure it gets a nomination regardless of its merits.” Thus a type of affirmative action – signaling your awesome cultural acceptance and diversity at the cost of nominating a book that would have been much more deserving of the Hugo on its merits.

Except that the Puppy Leaders have come forward to say that they love this book, and would have put it on their slate if they’d known about it!! And I’m like… WHAT THE HELL is going on?? OK, we all already suspect that the Puppies don’t have great taste in SF lit, but if they think this book deserves a nomination on its merits, than perhaps *I* am being a giant, insensitive dick by assuming that only someone with a hidden liberal agenda would nominate this. Obviously people must actually like it. And if I am lumping in the Sad/Rabid Puppies with their hated “SJW” nemesis for picking crap for political reasons, maybe that’s a big flashing sign that says “There is no such thing as the political-reasons voter, and the Puppies were even more wrong that I thought from the very beginning.” Seriously, if I can’t tell you apart from your political rivals based on book selection, I think you’re grasping at straws.

Second, apparently Puppy-approved books can be nominated without the Puppy’s help. In fact, despite their efforts in this case. If the liberal conspiracy you claim is keeping good works down keeps nominating things you like (much like they nominated Correia and Torgerson in the past…) then it might not actually exist.

 

Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library

“Saga (Collected Editions #3), by Brian K. Vaughan (writer), Fiona Staples (artist)” – May 28

In the end, though, I think too much of the background needed for the story to make sense is just not here. It’s likely in the two earlier volumes, but it’s not here in Volume 3, which is what I’m being asked to judge. I suspect I would like this a good deal better if I’d read the earlier volumes. As is, though? Art, very nice. Story, meh.

 

Joe Sherry on Adventures In Reading

“Thoughts on the Hugo Award Nominees: Graphic Story” – May 28

Time will bear this out, or not, but I think I will have had a much more difficult time ranking the nominees for Graphic Story than I will for any other Hugo category this year. There is just so much excellence here and the comics are all great in very different ways.  I will, however, hold to this ranking and this vote and live with it. But ask me tomorrow and I could reorder the whole thing and be equally comfortable with that order. I choose to draw the line today.

 

Elisa Bergslien

“More Hugo’s reading: Related Works … voted category most likely to make you completely bewildered” – May 28

My conclusion ?   I have no idea what the nominators were thinking with these selections. I just can’t find the redeeming value that would make any of this years items award winning.

 

Brian Niemeier on Superversive SF

“Transhuman and Subhuman Part VII: The Glory Game” – May 28

Today I’m reviewing John C. Wright’s review of Keith Laumer’s short novel The Glory Game.

“The novel is well crafted, concise, without a wasted scene or word,” says Wright, “and therefore has the clearest and most trenchant point of any tale I have ever read that is actually a tale and not a tract.”

Indeed, the book’s twist ending is incisively delivered in its last four words. Since The Glory Game was first published in 1973, this review will discuss the plot under the reasonable assumption that little risk remains of spoiling the final twist for long time sci-if fans. For those who are newly come to the fold, it’s recommended that you read the novel before continuing with this post.

Of the book’s characters, Wright notes that they are, “…rough sketches, painted in broad, energetic strokes, as befits an adventure yarn.” Yet the story’s driving conflict is moral; not military–the dilemma of a principled man told to violate his principles.

 

Adult Onset Atheist

“SNARL: Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form”  – May 28

I am not, in general, a big fan of TV. However, almost everything I watch, or want to watch, is on this list. My reviews for the Best Dramatic Presentation Short Form category will be short. They will be short enough that I can fit them all together on this one post. I present them in the same order in which they appear on the Hugo nominations list.

 

R.P.L. Johnson

“A Hugo Post – The Short Stories” – May 28

So what’s the final verdict? Totalled is the standout favourite for me so I’ll be voting as follows:

Totalled

A Single Samurai

Turncoat

No Award

 

Kristin on SciFi With A Dash of Paprika

“The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison” – May 28

Overall, a solid absorbing read with beautiful world building and solid character development.

 

Katya Czaja

“Hugo Award: Related Work” – May 28

Ranking Another race for the bottom. Difficult to figure out which was worse, the word-salad that was Transhuman and Subhuman or the not-a-book that was Wisdom From My Internet. In the end, Wright lost because he put words together in a form that can be described as essay and not just random, unrelated scribblings. Neither “The Hot Equation” nor “Why Science is Never Settled” were important enough to rise above No Award, but “The Hot Equation” came closest.

1) No Award

2) “The Hot Equation” by Ken Burnside

3) “Why Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts

4) Letters from Garnder by Lou Antonelli

5) Transhuman and Subhuman by John C. Wright

6) Wisdom From My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson

 

Mary Robinette Kowal

“Talk with me about being a fan of science fiction and fantasy” – April 11

[I linked to Kowal’s post before, but John Hertz would be deeply gratified if I injected “Orange Mike” Lowrey’s comment and her reply into the ongoing discussion and I am happy to do so.]

Definition of Terms (You can tell that I was on the debate team in high school, yes?)

  • Fandom – The community of fans who regularly attend fan run conventions.

 

Michael J. “Orange Mike” Lowrey in a comment on “Talk with me about being a fan of science fiction and fantasy” – April 11

As a historian, I do want to clarify one thing. Historically, SF fandom was centered in the fanzines, constantly refreshed by names culled from the letter columns of the prozines. Conventions were rare and widely scattered, whereas a letter cost less than a dime to mail, and fanzines could easily be printed and mailed for much less than a quarter-dollar. If you lived in a big enough town, this was bolstered and enlarged by local SF clubs, at least one (LASFS) still extant today.

Starting in the 1960s, and more in the 1970s, conventions became more common, but these sprang from the local fandoms (both club and fanzine), and carried on the same conversation, with many of the same participants still around. This conversation in turn (for those unable or unwilling to attend conventions in the flesh, or just wanting more doses of that fannish pleasure) shifted gradually from paper fanzines to online venues, from Usenet and e-mail lists to LiveJournal (and individual blogs) to Facebook. But all these were carrying on the same conversation, and some of the participants remained the same or were the spiritual heirs of the same conversants. We are all the heirs of Bob Tucker, of Forrest J Ackerman, of Jan Howard Finder, of Rusty Hevelin and Lee Hoffman, of Robert Bloch and Morojo, of John Boardman and Harry Warner, Jr., of Terry Carr and Russ Chauvenet and Vin¢ Clarke and Bob Shaw and Jan Howard Finder and Ross Pavlac and Ken Moore and Dean Grennell, of Samuel Edward Konkin III and Steig Larsson (yes, he was One of Us), of Judith Merril and Sam Moskovitz and Ray Palmer, of Frederik Pohl, of Tom Reamy and Bill Rotsler, of Damon Knight and Julie Schwartz, of Donald A. Wollheim. Some of them became pros; some remained “only” fans. But every time you argue about Hugo selection, or use the term “space opera”, or deprecate the use of the horrible neologism “sci-fi” or otherwise celebrate this wonderful thing we enjoy, you ARE part of that conversation, whether you ever get to a con or not. And you are part of science fiction fandom.

 

Mary Robinette Kowal replying to comment – April 11

Oh! Excllent point about the fanzines. My fault for forgetting because I joined fandom after the internet had already started to reshape things.

 

Alexandra Erin on Blue Author Is About To Write

“Sad Puppies Review Books: GOODNIGHT MOON” – May 28

goodnight-moon-300x250

Reviewed by John Z. Upjohn, USMC (aspired)

I suppose this book is supposed to be clever in that literary way that SJWs are so fond of, but I found it to be a confusing and unholy mess. It was very hard to follow. The prose was far too clunky and the signaling was all wrong. Good stories use signaling to tell you what kind of story they are, so you will know how the story goes and not be thrown out of it when something happens that you do not expect.

 

ULTRAGOTHA in a comment on File 770

Hwaet! The Great-Danes’ want glory through dubious achievements
The god-voice former infamy we have heard of,
How puppies displayed then their prowess-in-prose.
Theodore, their mighty king, in honor of whom they are often called Teddys.

From many a people their chrome-rockets tore.
Since first they found themselves rocketless and wretched,
The puppies had sadness: no comfort they got for it,
Waxed ’neath the woe, word-honor hungered for
Till all the fans o’er sea were compelled to
Bow to their bidding and bring them their nominations:

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

482 thoughts on “The Collar Out of Space 5/28”

  1. But it’s not up to me to tell Kate that hers is lacking.

    This is starting to read like a rhetorical back-and-forth where you slowly lead us to acknowledging that “oh, I guess her personal standard is her personal standard and it’s as arbitrary as mine so who am I to judge her for it” over the course of a bunch of comments. And of course it’s not up to any of us to tell her that her standard is lacking, but there’s no reason we shouldn’t say it, especially if we think so. And I do. It’s a bad standard.

  2. @Kimberly Yes. Like Flint, whom I’ve praised. Please note I didn’t say (or didn’t mean to say) that they are _right_ to think that, only that some people will. And clearly there were enough people here who felt similarly that it has caused a major headache.

  3. Sheesh, are the right wingers still obsessed with Alinsky?

    I first heard of him during the 2008 presidential campaign. I was at a Foolscap in a room with perhaps a dozen random fans, and I made some off-hand remark about Rush Limbaugh being a “mean-spirited blowhard.” I assumed that would be a non-controversial statement of obvious fact, of the “water is wet” or “Pope is Catholic” variety, but one gentleman really took exception to it.

    However, his manner of taking exception was not to defend Mr. Limbaugh’s character — a feat which defies even non-Euclidian logic — but to go on the offensive, assuming (correctly) that I was an Obama supporter, assuming (unknown) that everyone else in the room must also be an Obama supporter, and then calling upon all us presumed Obama supporters to defend the reprehensible doings of someone called Saul Alinsky.

    I had never heard of Alinsky — it seemed like a complete non-sequitur. This seemed to surprise the gentleman, who sputtered a great deal in an incoherent and futile attempt to explain who Saul Alinsky was and why every liberal or Democraticc voter in America was somehow honor-bound to defend their politics in light of Mr. Alinsky’s actions.

    Eventually, someone in the room said “oh, Alinsky, that’s a Fox News thing,” and everyone shrugged and moved on. The sputtering gentleman left the room. A few days later, I happened to catch about 20 minutes of Fox News, in a bar — yup, it was all about Alinsky. I don’t even remember what his crimes were supposed to be, although it all seemed mostly to be kind of a “repeal the 1960s!” dogwhistle of the kind the right wing had been making since I was a little girl in the 1970s.

    What I do remember was the gentleman’s obvious shock that the rest of us had never heard of Alinsky. He inhabited the Fox News bubble and didn’t seem to realize it was a bubble — he thought it was just the regular news that anybody would know about.

    Have they been going on about Alinsky all this time, and I didn’t notice? (I mostly know what goes on over at Fox News because The Daily Show or similar mocks it, so there could easily be things that escape my attention.) Are they revving up again in anticipation of Hillary Clinton’s campaign?

    Or — John Z. Upjohn, were you that guy at Foolscap?

  6. OK. I’d better go before the “boring character” allegations come out again. See you all soon.

  8. BE IT RESOLVED that from this point henceforth, no essay or other work shall be titled “A Modest Proposal” or any variation thereof unless it actually proposes the eating of babies, or proposes another act of equivalent depravity.

  9. @Steven OK, can’t resist one more statement: “audacity” would be on my list as well. That’s a great term for it.

  10. @McJulie … and now I know more about Saul Alinsky than I’d ever known … yes it’s a FoxNews bubble and sadly I have three brothers who are trapped in it and can’t understand why I won’t be their facebook friends.

  12. Going to Maine – This is starting to read like a rhetorical back-and-forth where you slowly lead us to acknowledging that “oh, I guess her personal standard is her personal standard and it’s as arbitrary as mine so who am I to judge her for it” over the course of a bunch of comments. And of course it’s not up to any of us to tell her that her standard is lacking, but there’s no reason we shouldn’t say it, especially if we think so. And I do. It’s a bad standard

    Ditto. I don’t think they’re a bad baseline and I appreciate that at least someone pro-slate is actually trying to give an actual idea of what they’re looking for in Hugo worthy work instead of making generalized insults about prior work.

    Personally when I’m stating things against her guidelines I’m not trying to say she’s wrong and those guidelines are wrong, but just enjoying the discussion on what people look for in award worthy stories using her opinion as a sounding board with which to have that conversation.

  13. Tuomas, would you please stop using this comment section as your personal blog?

  14. Well, looking at the discussion going around and around in ever decreasing circles, I think my earlier decision not to waste my time on the pontifications of Kate was a sound one. There are much more fun things to be done…

  15. Gully Foyle on May 29, 2015 at 11:35 am said:
    Formulations produce formulaic materials?

    I’m thinking about learning to paint, can someone list the formulation for a masterpiece for me?

    The academicians of the nineteenth century wrote reams of them. The resulting artworks can be seen stowed in the basements of museums worldwide.

  17. Peace – and there ya go. We just need a big old filing cabinet in a basement to store the masterpieces stamped out with paulks formulation

  18. Will –

    Or maybe there’s a whiff of “unpopularity contest” in your approach to the Hugos?

    I have never made claims, as Puppies have about popularity, that a book’s unpopularity should be a factor in its award-worthiness. I know you don’t mean it that way, but you’ve basically just implied that I’m both ridiculous and elitist. (Actually, I am elitist in one respect: I personally prefer that a work’s prose style be better than merely transparent, but I do recognize that for others, style’s only a vehicle, not a pleasure unto itself.)

    They are calling into question what the Hugos represent. Absolutely.

    Now I’m curious. Do you think commercial popularity should be a Hugo metric?

    And if the answer is: they only represent what each of us votes for, then end of story, no?

    Isn’t that what we had before? By rigging the ballot, the Puppies have kicked that particular justification entirely off the field and over the foul line. Do you think ‘individual votes’ are what the Puppies are achieving here? Or do you actually believe in the left-wing cabal, and agree with their argument that their voices could be heard only by gaming their way to the Hugos?

  19. Oh, foo. Will’s bowed out. I could have spared the comments section by checking before posting.

  21. @Bruce Baugh

    Much sympathy. I had to check out of the conversation yesterday because my various health thingymabobs were melting my brain out of my ears. I felt pretty awful about it because everyone had been so kind about answering my questions and I couldn’t reply to each one individually. I hope you feel more spoonful tomorrow. 🙂 I always find your comments interesting to read.

  22. Give Will credit for trying. He’s not being a creep about it. It must be hard to comment in a thread where people are disinclined or even hostile towards his position, and even if he’s not happy, he is engaging.

  23. @Will

    Paulk can have whatever standard she likes. We all have our own standards and we’re all entitled to them. Its the fact that, as a future slate runner and current slate supporter, she plans to force the Hugo ballot to reflect her standard and only her standard; that’s the problem.

  24. I agree, but his positioning of himself, and his words sometime belieing themselves, leaves me little sympathy. His stance nears, to my mind, a ‘humble brag’

  25. Kate Paulk’s standard is fine for Paulk. It’s fine for her to judge works for her own purposes, for nominating and voting in awards. It’s fine for her to use it to recommend works, and to criticise works. I applaud her for putting up her criteria which will face some scrutiny.

    She is however the Saddest Puppy-Elect*, heir to the pomp and majesty that is the Sad Puppy Movement. When she speaks on what makes something Hugo worthy she speaks with the voice of hundreds. Are “things Paulk finds immersive” worth hundreds of votes? Will it end up with a slate of Puppy regulars leavened by a few popular authors like this year?

    Since we are assured that next year puppydom will make it’s choices in an open and democratic manner then strictly speaking Paulk, as Chair-Puppy-in-Waiting (Sad Division), will have no more influence on any proposed list of recommendations than anyone else with the same visibility as the Maximally Sad Puppy in the movement, so I guess I have to nod and say “fine for Paulk I guess.”

    * Saddest Puppy-Apparent? Saddest Puppy-Presumptive?

  26. @Peace

    I appreciate both Will and Brian Z. for their contributions. They’re so much nicer to talk to than the die-hard Puppies, but still present questions and opinions that force the rest of us to clearly articulate the whys and wherefores of our positions.

    I don’t know whether I’m in the right all the time (odds point to no), but I prefer knowing why I’m thinking what I’m thinking. 🙂

  27. Steven Schwartz –

    From one of the File770 threads earlier:
    RedWombat on May 21, 2015 at 8:14 pm said:

    “… I had no idea Puppies 3 was going on until the Making Light post about it. Somebody had to remind me who Torgersen was. (“The one who wore a uniform so he had an excuse not to put on the tiara for the Campbell.” “Oh HIM! Right!” ) …”

    There were also a few posts on MonsterHunterNation.com where Correia said (approvingly) that Torgerson would wear the uniform so he wouldn’t have to wear the diadem/tiara that is part of the Campbell Award regalia.

    Torgefrson is not required to wear his uniform (he is in the reserves, and I believe he will be called upon to do another tour soon) except when on duty or on his duty station (it’s been a while since I had to be aware of the uniform regs), but is entitled to wear his Class-A to civilian functions, with the understanding that he is not there as an official representative of the service, even though, in uniform, he is considered to be an officially unofficial representative, but has to follow regs as most properly represent the service, unofficially.

    The following refers to “he,” but regulations equally apply to women in uniform.

    There are *very* strict regs about conduct of members of the service while in uniform (example: if a member of the service is running for office, he is not allowed to wear the uniform to any partisan political events or rallies. It is allowed at something like, say, a school opening, where they are representing themselves either as official or unofficial military capacity, but not as an officeholder, and not in a political capacity (busking for votes, etc). It is certainly allowed at something like an awards ceremony where the individual is being (or potentially being) honored. But putting on something like the Campbell tiara would be right out, as it would be against regs as to adornments to the uniform.

    Now, if Torgerson’s reasons for wearing his class-A’s to the Campbell awards was because he wanted to honor his service to the nation, I have no issue, and would ask him to accept the apology of the misunderstanding. Besides, the dress uniforms make the wearer look good, and when putting on the uniform one seems to partake of the pride and history of the service members who have come before. And it feels good. And it shows.

  29. Oh wow, does this mean we can start calling Torgersen and Correia “Pup Emeritus” now?

    …I wish they’d picked Paulk with colored smoke. That would’ve been AWESOME.

  30. I’m actually not sure what Will’s position is. And I don’t mean that sarcastically. I think he means to take the middle? And then leans ficklely with the winds of – ? I can’t always tell. His indignation on Paulk’s behalf surprised me. Writing classes and workshop sessions argue about what makes good writing all the time. It’s not an insult. And Paulk has assumed a leadership and mouthpiece role for the Puppies, so her pronouncements are bound to be scrutinized. If someone here had come up with the same criteria, they would have received just as much dissection and disagreement.

    To a certain extent, I’d wager one thing that sets Pups apart from other SFF readers (and possibly writers) is that they don’t enjoy analyzing works of fiction. They’re perfectly capable of it – they’ve got all the other nerd qualifications for obsessing about fan hobbies and opinions – but none of them sees the point. (Sorry – sweeping statements ahoy.) I even get the impression they perceive other readers’ lively interest in style, subtext, structure, metaphor, social commentary, and so forth as proof of liberal elitism, i.e. academic contamination. Maybe fiction isn’t supposed to be taken seriously – except as a fun diversion and a way of making a living. Or perhaps analysis ruins the fun.

  31. Oh wow, does this mean we can start calling Torgersen and Correia “Pup Emeritus” now?

    “Old dogs”, surely.

  32. Re Paulk’s list: for every item, I can think of works I love and admire that don’t conform. She and I are clearly very different readers. That’s cool.
    Supposedly the Pupful position is that they want to broaden the field of award-winners. Narrowing the field via criteria like these seems counter-productive.

  34. I’m actually not sure what Will’s position is. And I don’t mean that sarcastically. I think he means to take the middle? And then leans ficklely with the winds of – ?

    I think that Will sees the sincere pain and irritation that commenters on the puppy forums express and believes that there’s a “there” there.

  35. Well I have been following this discussion pretty closely the last week as I caught up on the blogs.

    The Hugo kerfuffle is fascinating to watch but I also want to say thanks to Mike and the folks here. He has a great site and knowledgeable commenters.

    I think if sad puppies 4 was a crowd sourced recommendation list that anyone could vote and advocate works for inclusion I would have no problem. Kate P’s list of what is Worthy is a low bar and to my view some what silly but it does not preclude worthy works which could exceed it.

    To clarify: what happened this year was not that. The Rabid Puppy slate swamped and overwhelmed what ever the sad puppies wanted to accomplish – and even those goals seem murky and ever changing.

  36. @RedWombat: “…I wish they’d picked Paulk with colored smoke. That would’ve been AWESOME.”

    But not as awesome as glitter.

  37. Nothing is as awesome as glitter, but then the Puppies would get into everything and you’d be stepping on them for years afterward.

  38. @ Going to Maine

    Okay. The pain and irritation do exist, yes. Along with other motives. I can honor the impulse to sympathize and bear witness. Will and I will probably end up talking past each other, however, so I’ll restrain my own tendency to bite off and chew things.

  39. The difficulty is that it was the Puppies who created Hugo nominees which are, to put it bluntly, a laughing stock. It is the Puppies who appear to be incapable of grappling with the fact that the Hugos are part of Worldcon, and that the legions of fans who do not live in the US know little and care less about the parochial concerns of US culture wars.

    The vast majority of us do, however, object to those parochial concerns screwing up Worldcon. The solution to Puppydum’s problems is for them to organise an all US convention which will then award prizes which reflect US culture.

    That way people can laugh at those awards without it reflecting on Worldcon, and without us having to watch toddler temper tantrums from people who are supposed to be grown ups…

  40. Iphinome:
    Thanks for the correction.
    I’d guess Torgersen’s problem with the tiara has to do with rigid gender roles? Other puppies cannot seem to get over Scalzi’s photo of himself in a Regency- style dress… Which was very flattering on him, in point of fact.

  41. Will, your demand for criteria for a Hugo candidate, or a formula which defines the same, reminds me of Po in Kung Fu Panda.

    Do YOU remember what was on the Dragon Warrior’s Scroll?

    Exactly — “there is no secret ingredient” — in the past, and hopefully in the future, the Hugos will still be what they have always been — those stories et alia that are chosen by the consensus of the Fen, those who participate in Worldcon.

    No less, and no more.

  42. It would be easy enough for Brad, or anyone who would not like to wear the tiara to take it with both hands, nod to the presenter, hold it up to present it to the audience, and then tuck it under his arm.

    Sheesh.

  43. If Libertycon (that’s the con where MilSF and Baen authors shine, right?) started up their own awards, it could grow into something respected and honored, much beloved by the readership of books that conservatives/MilSF fans/thrilling adventure fans and others like, and a guide to excellence in work of that sort.

    Heck, name it for Rodger Young.

    But they don’t want that. They want the awards they profess not to care about or to outright dislike. Or to wreck them so no one else can have them if they don’t win.

    Jim Baen built something. He didn’t try to wreck the rest of the field unless it was turned over to him. Maybe they should be inspired by his example.

  44. Introduction to Poetry
    BY BILLY COLLINS
    I ask them to take a poem
    and hold it up to the light
    like a color slide

    or press an ear against its hive.

    I say drop a mouse into a poem
    and watch him probe his way out,

    or walk inside the poem’s room
    and feel the walls for a light switch.

    I want them to waterski
    across the surface of a poem
    waving at the author’s name on the shore.

    But all they want to do
    is tie the poem to a chair with rope
    and torture a confession out of it.

    They begin beating it with a hose
    to find out what it really means.

  46. The problem with “Kate’s guidelines” is that they are a sort of negotiation with the unacceptable.

    Example:

    Can I shit on your carpet?
    HELL NO.
    Well, that’s a very dogmatic approach, isn’t it? How about I take a shit but then place a bit of toiket paper artistically over it?
    WHAT? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? It woukd still stink!
    All right, no toilet paper. What about if I light an incense stick?
    It would have to be a damn poweful incense!
    Well, YOU suggest something then!

    Etc.

    In other words, whatever the guidelines, gaming the Hugo by ballot stuffing is still gaming the Hugo by ballot stuffing. All of us had a perfectly good way of evaluating the relative merits of Hugo material, and the problem is that 80% of people expressing their nominations after much reading and thinking was deprived of any say in it. Kate Paulk has one vote. Just like me. She’s free to nominate what the hell she wants with whatever criteria she wants. What i object to is her depriving ME of doing the same.

  47. LibertyCon awards would be a way to go forward for their brand of science fiction but …

    Think of the tiaras !

    I was in moderation earlier but I hope puppies 4 is a more open and individual process.

  49. Tuomas Vainio: “Those are blog comments, on a blog’s comment section.”

    Nothing gets past you buddy!

  50. Yes, but you often directly responding to the authors of linked blog posts in the comments of this blog. This seems like a good place for commentary (e.g. “I agree with post X”) and discussion of said commentary, but the right place for responding to the authors is on their own blogs.

Comments are closed.