The Hydrophobia That Falls On You From Nowhere 6/12

aka The Puppies of Wrath

Today’s roundup stars David Gerrold, Tom Knighton, Rand Simberg, Phil Sandifer, Abi Sutherland, Doctor Science, Edward Trimnell, Jenn Armistead, Lela E. Buis, Peter Grant, Sarah A. Hoyt, Natalie Luhrs. Robert Sharp, Lis Carey and Lou J. Berger. (Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editors of the day Seth Gordon and Steve Moss.)

David Gerrold on Facebook – June 12

Okay — so far, so good. If you wanted to suggest that there is a certain insular attitude among regular Worldcon attendees and supporters, even a clique-ishness, you could make that case — from the outside, it could look like that.

But actually, no. Because any convention — especially the Worldcon — is open to anyone who wants to buy a membership and attend. So no one is being kept out.

The issue — the idea that I’m creeping up on here — is the perception of a science fiction community. It’s an open community. Anyone can be a member of this community. Just show up. The ceiling constitutes an introduction. (ie. “You’re in the room, you’re here, you’re one of us. Hello!”)

So, in actuality, the community isn’t insular and it isn’t a clique — but it does have a lot of people in it who’ve known each other for a long time, and that can be intimidating to newcomers.

Now — here’s where I’m going to make some assumptions.

1) Based on the evidence of his online screeds, Vox Day does not consider himself a member of the science fiction community. In his own mind, he apparently considers himself a righteous and noble warrior fighting an evil establishment that sprawls like a cancer across the literary landscape. Based on the evidence of his online statements, he is at war with the community. He wants to disrupt and destroy. He has — by his own devices — selected himself out.

2) Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia, and others who have identified themselves as the “sad puppies” are very much a part of the SF community. They have demonstrated — by writing and publishing stories, by attending conventions, by being nominated for awards, by writing blogs and participating online — that they have a personal investment in the workings of the SF community. They are not enemies, they are (to the extent they participate in fannish endeavors) fans like everyone else.

Now, having made those distinctions, let me expand on them. ….


Tom Knighton

“David Gerrold: Sad Puppies ARE part of ‘SF community’” – June 12

I’ve been very upset by some of the things I’ve seen from David Gerrold since the Hugo nominations were announced.  Honestly, knowing such a person wrote my mother’s favorite Star Trek episode was upsetting on a personal level that really doesn’t make any sense, but there it was.

However, Gerrold’s tone has mellowed recently.  Today, he stated something that few would acknowledge, and that was how Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, and the rest of us are part of the science fiction fan community in a post on Facebook early this morning. ….

That said, I’m willing to explore alternatives, but only so long as the horrid things we’re called ends.  Gerrold brings up the Paris Peace Accords and the amount of time it took just to get things rolling for various reasons.  In light of that, a comparison to a bloody war, I think it’s fair to note that I see no reason for us to disarm if the other side refuses.  CHORF and SJW remain in the arsenal, and will be used if necessary.

Calling us Sad Puppies won’t bring them out from me.  Calling us racists, homophobic, misogynists, or similarly will.  I’m damn sick of it.  Those words have meanings, and they’re being stripped of those meanings by using them to describe minorities of all stripes who stand with the Sad Puppies simply because they like different books.


Rand Simberg on Transterrestrial Musings

“David Gerrold” – June 12

..says Sad Puppies are a part of the SF community.

Well, that’s mighty white of him.


Philip Sandifer

“John C. Wright Has Just Advocated For My Murder” – June 12

In the comments over at Vox Day’s blog, John C. Wright posted the following:


The first line is Wright quoting a previous post of mine. The second paragraph is him advocating for my murder. Because he disagrees with my definition of mysticism. I am, to be clear, not particularly scared by this. I do not imagine that John C. Wright will now be hiding in my bushes, waiting for the opportune moment to strike. This is empty, vicious rhetoric of the sort that Day and Wright specialize in – sound and fury that, while not exactly signifying nothing, is still clearly told by an idiot. Hell, if I were a woman blogging about the stuff I blog about I’d get half a dozen far worse threats a day. The threat itself is not a big deal.

Doctor Science in a comment on File 770 – June 12

If any Puppies are in the neighborhood: *this* is what the conspiracy of Hugo voters you think has been going on for years looks like. Not covert conversations, not a sekrit batsignal telling us who the Approve Authors are this year, but a lot of people saying, “I just read this thing, it’s great!” and explaining *why* it’s great, with other people saying things ranging from “me to!” to “what are you, nuts?” to “meh”.


Edward Trimnell

“So why are they mad at Tor Books?” – June 12

The science fiction community is currently divided into two factions: For the purposes of our discussion here, we’ll use the names they’ve assigned to themselves: the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) and the Sad Puppies.

*  *   *

The SJW faction believes that science fiction is primarily a vehicle of identity group politics. For the SJW faction, the ideal science fiction story would feature an angry feminist of color who receives a visitation from a band of transgender aliens one night as she is driving home from a Women’s Studies seminar somewhere in Massachusetts.

Over the course of many chapters, the transgender aliens explain to her why all of her problems result from white male exploitation.

The plot line is resolved when the angry feminist of color leaves her husband or boyfriend, gets a closely cropped haircut, and moves into a lesbian commune in western Massachusetts. (A closing monologue about the evils of the George W. Bush administration is optional.)


Jenn Armistead in letter to Library Journal – June 1

If the Sad Puppies don’t want to be conflated with the Rabid Puppies or called mean words like misogynist, perhaps they should have done a better job of explaining how what they were doing wasn’t a reaction to the “large” number of minorities who won the Hugos last year (Wilda Williams, “Set Your Phasers to Stunned: 2015 Hugo Nominations Stir Controversy”). Yes, it’s lovely that your slate also has women and brown people and that women and brown people were involved in creating Sad Puppies, but if you are going to claim the past winners didn’t deserve their awards but received them because of their gender/race/sexuality/whatever, you have to be very, very careful with your messaging, because it is going to tend to sound like you don’t like women/brown people/LGBT/whatever winning awards instead of white men.

The choice of the term Sad Puppies also doesn’t help your position. It was obviously chosen as a nod toward the anti-SJW [Social Justice Warrior] term, and it is rather disingenuous to claim otherwise. At the very least, your message was not received as it was intended. At worst, you sound like Gamergaters crying, “But it’s about ethics in game journalism!”

At the end of the day, I don’t think it matters. This is about a small subset of the sf reading population vying with another small subset of the sf reading population over a popularity contest. The rest of us readers will continue to read whatever we prefer. If we don’t see ourselves and the works we care about reflected in the ­Hugos, we’ll just go elsewhere.

—Jenn Armistead, Literacy Coordinator, Tulsa City-Cty. Lib. Syst.


Lela E. Buis

“Replying to intent” – June 12

As a mere short story writer, I’m coming late to the front. I’m just picking up on the issues here. I don’t know what Vox Day has against Tor, but it looks to me like he’s attacking the editors as a way to get at the organization in general. As a battle-hardened flame warrior, I have to say that it’s important to look at the enemy’s intent instead of what s/he says. Attacks can be shut down if you know what they’re really about.

John Scalzi? Just a guess.


Peter Grant on Bayou Renaissance Man

“Tor: the latest developments (or lack thereof)” – June 12

I wonder whether Tor’s and Macmillan’s lack of response to my letters, both public and private, is because they think I don’t mean it?  Do they think I’m just ‘small fry’, not worth bothering about?  Do they think my words are ‘a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing‘? Do they think I’m making an idle threat, or don’t have any support?  Time will tell.  I know what other authors and individuals in the SF/F community have said to me.  Let’s see whether they back up their words with action.  Whether they do or they don’t, I know what I’m going to do if the situation doesn’t change.


Sarah A. Hoyt on According To Hoyt

“Dispatches From Another World” – June 12

But one thing is to know it instinctively – and even then when I write about it, people email me to tell me that I am wrong and “paranoid” and yeah, one is always afraid – and another to have one’s nose rubbed in it in the form of a supposed adult saying with the simplicity of a 12 year old that the people who oppose her are “racist, sexist, homophobic” and “bad to reprehensible” even before the “poopy-head” level classification of “neo-nazis.”

Look, it is the fact that Irene Gallo is sincere and, in her own mind, fighting on the side of angels, that is shocking and scary. And it fits perfectly with what I’ve seen in the publishing world (other than Baen, natch) in my years working as a professional writer.

These people don’t live in the world we live in.

Most of us – well, some of us – went through excellent universities, and read voraciously, and were subjected to the barrage of media that projected the same mental picture Ms. Gallo has: the left is eternally right (when they were wrong, their mistakes – like segregation – are now attributed to the right) and the future is a bright socialist utopia (really communist, but we’ll call it socialist so as not to scare the squares) and anyone who stands against it is an evil right winger, a fascist, a neo nazi and by definition racist, sexist, homophobic.


Natalie Luhrs on Pretty Terrible

“Links: 06/12/15” – June 12

Has there been any more fan writing about this? I’d really like to read more fan perspectives as I work my way through the giant pile of angry thoughts I have about this. I feel like the fan perspective is important, for a lot of reasons: first of all, most of us are doing this because we actually do love the community and most of the people who make up the community. Second, we often have more at risk: fan labor is almost by its very definition free labor, we have smaller platforms, and what happened to Irene Gallo is chilling across multiple axes.

I stand in solidarity with Irene Gallo. I respect the hell out of her and her work and I think she is doing amazing things with art direction. She makes an incredibly difficult job look effortless and easy.  And publicly chastising her for what she said on her personal Facebook page was wrong.


Robert Sharp on Medium – June 12

It is now time for a “personal opinions” icon. Millions of people like Irene Gallo could add the symbol to their personal social media accounts. Ideally, the symbol would link to some standardised “these are my personal views” text that would insure both the individual and their employers from being dragged into something that should not concern them.

What would such an icon look like? That is a challenge for graphic designers. It needs to work at extremely small resolutions. My initial idea was simply a shape with a letter ‘p’ in it, but that does not translate across cultures. Perhaps a speech bubble with a face or head inside?

I urge designers to take up this challenge.


Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library

“The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF, by Ken Burnside” – June 12

This is easily the best of the Best Related Works Hugo nominees. Burnside lays out what thermodynamics really mean for military actions and combat in space, at least if you are writing “hard” sf, intended to be based in scientific reality.


Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library

“Letters From Gardner: A Writer’s Odyssey, by Lou Antonelli” – June 12

The memoir portions are perhaps less fascinating than Antonelli imagines. It’s a bit of a slog to get to the first few little notes from Dozois, which, while obviously highly encouraging to a new writer for whom any personal comment from an editor, especially one as notable as Dozois, are in themselves very ordinary. They just do not have the  thrill for the reader that they would obviously and appropriately have had for Antonelli when he received them. What’s hard to understand here is the lack of the most basic proof-reading and copy-editing. There are errors of tense and number, but always when the error is just one letter, suggesting a typo that a spellchecker wouldn’t catch, and a human eye didn’t catch. There are dropped words that momentarily bounce the reader out of the narrative. And it’s not just one or two instances; it keeps happening. It’s as if Antonelli relied too heavily on his newspaper-honed ability to produce readable copy on short notice, and didn’t think he needed an editor, or even a proofreader. The danger of that is that after you’ve spent too much time with your own prose, you see what you meant to type, not what you really did type. It’s an unwise choice that weakens even the best work. All in all, I can’t see this book being of real interest to anyone except Lou Antonelli’s devoted fans. A “Best Related Work,” it is not.


Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library

“Riding the Red Horse, by Tom Kratman (editor), Vox Day [Theodore Beale] (editor)” – June 12

Unfortunately, it’s a very uneven collection. It includes the very good The Hot Equations, by Ken Burnside, and the very disappointing Turncoat by Steve Rzasa. There is, early on, a casual endorsement of the probable “necessity” of genocide on the grounds that Those People aren’t smart enough to modify their behavior. A point Beale’s fans will have difficulty with is that such inflammatory language makes it less likely that readers will take in the point the author was attempting to make. A better editor would have caught it and told the author to dispense with pointless provocation and just make his point.


Lou J. Berger on Facebook – June 9

As David Gerrold proposed, WorldCon in Spokane this year will be a party, a place to revel in our shared love of Science Fiction, a place to be inclusive and supportive of one another.

Remember, we are ALL Science Fiction!

I’ll be passing these badge ribbons out to whomever asks for one at Sasquan.

We Are ALL Science Fiction ribbon

Lou J. Berger on Facebook – June 11


The hashtag is gaining momentum, and if you agree that Science Fiction has been sundered, but believe we can repair the situation, please consider sharing the hashtag, along with a short paragraph or so of WHY you agree that re-unification of the various factions is vital….

There’s LOTS of room for all of us in the field of Science Fiction. Hijacking ballots, or dismissing milSF as “not real SF” says more about the person stating it than about the field at large.

We are ALL Science Fiction, and we’ve taken this genre from pulp to mainstream.

Let’s put down our scathing vitriol and find a way to support each other.

We are ALL Science Fiction.

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

823 thoughts on “The Hydrophobia That Falls On You From Nowhere 6/12

  1. @ Kurt B.
    “No, it didn’t. It was posted April 13, almost a full month before the Gallo post…”

    I stand corrected on Gallo. It appears that his April 13 tirade is 100% completely the result of the suprisingly similiar media hit job across several publications that dropped just days (a week? earlier), as well as the internet trolling of his wife that was in vogue as when Arthur Chu dehumanized her on GamerGhazi; interestingly enough tweets responding to Chu run from about April 10-13. Forgive me for mistaking dates so I will amend it to __just__ the apparent coordinated media propaganda being waged against him as well as very personal attacks on him using his family. Which is still enough on its own — to be maligned in national newsstand periodicals — for anyone I would think.

    “…but this is standard for you — you seem to want to portray the Puppies as provoked at every turn, but you don’t seem to want to point out that the Puppies were provoking people as well…”

    That may be true. But still, I wonder where we’d all be today as fandom, including the state of the 2015 Hugos, if one author hadn’t called out a another and the fifty or so SFWA voters who voted for him for president in a Continuum keynote speech. In nearly a half-decade’s worth of time of poor interactions amongst the same circles of people. I think the question at this late date of who provoked whom is rather futile to a degree. However, I think that it was pointless to waste words on someone who garnered at most 10% of the vote, utterly losing in a lopsided election. In hindsight, the Streisand Effect latched on to this one.

    “…and that Gallo’s post came after a great deal of demonization of Tor and its staff by the Puppies…”

    By “its staff” we presume you mean their favorite Tories the Nielsen Haydens and Moshe Feder? Well, again, __that’s not without context either. I’m not sure that there were any other staff besides them? Unless you have someone else in mind?

    “Again, you’re asserting something that isn’t true…”

    Not at all. I intended no implication she made the comments while as an officer as you’re suggesting; “…as basis for then…” is right as I understand both her basis, and the sequence. That’s silly. My omission of precise dates is not an attempt to obfuscate; I already linked to a much more comprehensive timeline that included links to her original post, earlier in this very roundup and urged people to go read it.

    Silly But True

  2. Silly But True:

    Anytime anyone points out Brad Torgersen’s racist statements or the fact that he endorses racists, instead of posting an actual response to the very legitimate criticism, he posts photos of his wife and says, “I’m married to a black woman! Therefore, I’m not racist!”

    Which is, of course, not proof of anything, least of all that he’s not racist. There have been plenty of racists who were married to someone whose heritage was the minority they despised (rabid anti-Semite H.P. Lovecraft, who married a Jewish woman, comes to mind), and plenty of sexist and misogynist men who were, nevertheless, married to women.

    Torgersen has chosen repeatedly to use his wife as a shield instead of responding to legitimate criticism. So yes, I feel really sorry for her, being used that way — but her heritage does not give him a Racist Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

    Also, you can quit trying to assign blame to non-Puppies for the articles posted by various online websites. The “writers” on those sites spend most of their working day trawling through other sites looking for news items they haven’t yet covered.

    The fact that all these articles paint a less-than-rosy picture of the Puppies has everything to do with the Puppies’ own actions, and nothing to do with people who aren’t Puppies.

  3. @JJ,
    People keep saying this? Where are some examples of this so called legitimate criticism you speak of? Because all that’s risen out as the far wider-spread norm are the very likes of EW like attacks.

    And I’ll call it as I see it. Being fair to the writers, the fact that all the articles before they had to be corrected, painted a less than rosy picture, was due lazy journalism on their part, poor fact checking on the publisher’s part, and widespread propaganda on the part of anti-puppies. They can be blamed because they were not journalistic endeavors, rather they were the very definition of a messaging hit piece.

    One wonders how someone who initially read EW, or Gallo, and said to themselves “I agree completely!” When those underlying facts had to be corrected because they were slanderously wrong do anything, anything at all, to that initial feeling? I suspect for anti-puppies, the answer is probably not. The more ubiquitous response seems to be upset the initial descriptions which you agreed with were changed to something you don’t.

    Where are some example of Torgersen stating he believes that either his race is superior to another, or other races are inferior to his own, or to another one?

    Silly But True

  4. SbT

    Where are some examples of this so called legitimate criticism you speak of?

    Here’s one.
    Here’s another.
    For more, google “Torgersen affirmative action”. Read some of the articles. Then come back and move the goalposts some more.

  5. Snowcrash,

    Excellent. Those are great examples of the reasonable criticism that _should_ be made. The first link doesn’t reflect poorly on Torgersen much at all. Is Brad Tirgersen’s worst crime then when SP3 launched that his Sad Puppies weren’t lacking diversity, but that they simple might not have been as racially diverse as last year?

    There’s no moving the goal post, but much of what most attacked Torgersen for is presuming that article’s hypothetical worst case as somehow remotely being true. The issue of institutional racial disparity in authorship or characterization in the field of science fiction is interesting but hardly to be blamed on Brad.

    The second is of much different nature than the first: The second is not criticism of Sad Puppies at all. It was one of the few journalism media coverages that dropped early April that was actually simply coverage of the Hugo controversy. I thought at the time, it’s reporting to be very well done. They went to the key sources where they should have, and I think all sides of the controversy were well represented. But again, it wasn’t criticizing Sad Puppies, so not a good example of reasonable criticism. That is, unless the reason for 2nd link is that there is an underlying presumption that journalism media is or should be critical of the Sad Puppies?

    Bravo. Now do you think most of the attacks on Brad have been representative of the former? I don’t think anyone can say that with a straight face. They’ve been lazy dog piling of unfair snipes to a maximum of 140 characters.

    If the first link is the worst of Brad’s offenses, then I’d say there’s no basis for the utterly horrible attacks anti-puppies have put he and his family through.

    Silly but True

  6. If the first link is the worst of Brad’s offenses, then I’d say there’s no basis for the utterly horrible attacks anti-puppies have put he and his family through.

    No non-Puppies have put Brad’s family through anything. Brad did, when he started putting pictures of them up and touting them as his defense against people pointing out that he’s said some fairly racist things. For him to whine that his family has been in the line of fire when he put them there is the height of hypocrisy.

  7. The first link doesn’t reflect poorly on Torgersen much at all. Is Brad Tirgersen’s worst crime then when SP3 launched that his Sad Puppies weren’t lacking diversity, but that they simple might not have been as racially diverse as last year?

    The problem is not that at all. The problem is Torgersen’s quote:

    Along the way we fairly skewered the concept of literary affirmative action — that works and authors should be judged on the basis of author or character demographics and box-checking, not the audience’s enjoyment of the prose…

    In which, yet again, Torgersen says that award winners from previous award winners did so because they were from the right demographic and not because their work was deserving. Torgersen has repeated this claim over and over again, and it has been pointed that it is a claim that is loaded with racist and sexist assumptions. His response has been to say “I can’t be racist, here’s a picture of my wife!”

  8. @Aaron,
    I have to note that Torgersen hasn’t made a racial connection, there. Certainly his specific use of “literary affirmative action” is intended to clarify that it was not what most typical people accept as affirmative action — i.e race-based affirmative action. Although even in principle affirmative action need not be limited to race at all. You say that it’s loaded with racist and sexist assumptions.

    It may be loaded with a bunch of things, but he wasn’t the one who loaded those things. You are. You assume his statement applied on those grounds. I say it might hypothetically apply on those grounds, but certainly his statement isn’t any proof they do.

    Further I think the attacks on his wife are beyond the pale. Criticize Torgersen for what you think is use of his wife, but his wife should not be attacked, dehumanized, as being anything at all other than an innocent bystander. That is a line of attack that I think is pretty horrible, yet has occurred. In short, I think it’s fair to call Torgersen for being something, I never think it’s fair to call Torgersen’s wife (or child) anything — “shield,” to use one unseemly term. Do you see my distinction? Maybe you share it or maybe not. But I don’t accept the attack on such innocents as being remotely legitimate.

    Silly But True

  9. Great sealioning here. An entirely new definition of ‘affirmative action’, and some strenuous strawmanning about BT’s wife. Who has attacked her and how has she been ‘dehumanised’?

  10. Certainly his specific use of “literary affirmative action” is intended to clarify that it was not what most typical people accept as affirmative action — i.e race-based affirmative action.

    When he says “checking off demographic boxes” what do you think he means? Do you have a definition of “demographic boxes” that means something other than race, sex, and sexual orientation?

    Criticize Torgersen for what you think is use of his wife, but his wife should not be attacked, dehumanized, as being anything at all other than an innocent bystander.

    Saying that Torgersen is using her as a shield IS criticizing Torgersen. No one has attacked his wife. The person responsible for her even being in the conversation is Torgersen. No one made him pull out pictures of her and USE her as a shield. You might want to consider the nature of the attitudes of a person who would blatantly use someone he professes to love in that manner.

  11. Aaron,

    I think he means it in the context of and inseparable from his prior term literary affirmative action; it’s an unbroken continuation of the thought.

    He’s not given any indication that it’s race, sex, or sexual orientation. I think he means literary tastes, worldviews, classes of opinions on broad topics, themes and plots and situations within the literature, how pulpy versus how literary (to use their terms), presence of spaceships and battles and laser beams rather than the entirety as exposition or monologue about some social Ill or another. By use of the terms, I think it’s clear he is using normal concepts of affirmative action, demographics, and box-checking to be metaphorical rather than literal model to better understand what he means in his new concept of “literary affirmative action” for those who were unaware of SP’s main grievance of being too literary for their tastes. Literary affirmative action is not (racial) affirmative action, but everyone is familiar with the racial demographics and box checking at play in literal (racial) affirmative action. But that’s the extent, it’s meant as an analogue not the real thing, otherwise there is no need to qualify literary affirmative action versus true affirmative action.
    Also, you are aware there’s other demographics in the demographic universe than race, sex, or sexual orientation right? It’s a fairly wide open universe of possibilities. But you’re the one reading any particular ones into it, at the exclusion of a whole lot more, and I think to the exclusion of what Brad actually wrote.

    Given the diversity of the Sad Puppy slate, sex and race wouldn’t be my first gut reaction to attack them on, and I’m not certain of anyone’s sexual orientation at all. (And as you’ve also enlightened me on the bounds of use of spouses, I would hesitate to use proof of their opposite-gendered spouses as any sort of shield for any presumed heterosexuality on their part at all. 😀 )

    If that’s the basis for the nasty race-based attacks, I’m left with those being a bogus fabrication projected onto what was by any reasonable observation and in fact a racially diverse SP slate.

    Silly But True

  12. Brad has explicitly described AA in terms of the minority status of authors, liar.

  13. I think he means literary tastes, worldviews, classes of opinions on broad topics, themes and plots and situations within the literature,

    Jesus you are a clueless fool. None of those things are “demographic boxes”. That you claim they are marks you as an idiot or a liar. Further, Torgersen has repeatedly talked about such “demographic boxes” in the context of stories written by women, minorities, or gay individuals. Your attempt at dodging and weaving here shows just how intellectually bankrupt the Puppy supporters truly are.

  14. “Affirmative action” is US dog whistle speak for “nonwhites.”

    It is the first thing anyone in the US thinks of when they hear the word.

    Much like “inner city” a decade or three back.

  15. @Aaron,

    It’s clear you’re not interested in presuming other reasons beyond “racist.” You are correct those may not be normal demographic check boxes as part of a literal affirmative action policy. He’s not speaking about that. He’s speaking of literary check boxes in a literary affirmative action presumption. His literal check boxes, if there are any at all would not be race, gender, or sexual identity. They’d be spaceships, aliens and pulp action.

    On example of this, again in one of Torgersen’s formal SP posts is here, in his “Who Gets to be A Real Fan”:

    He talks of race and sex and sexual identity. But not in terms you speak of. There’s no way to twist his words into your terms. His problem is the __pondering__ of all of that. Not that minorities are writing sci fi about minorities. I think Torgersen would be perfectly happy with a nice war tale by Steven Barnes, as an example, were Steven Barnes ever to pen a new sci fi novel.

    Because Steven Barnes wrote the kinds of novels Torgersen wished there was more of.

    Silly But True

  16. It’s clear you’re not interested in presuming other reasons beyond “racist.”

    Oh no, he’s also made it quite clear that he’s casting sexist and homophobic assertions as well.

    He’s not speaking about that.

    He is, in fact. Like last year, when he whined about the fact that all of the 2014 Nebula Award winners were women. Or when he said the only reason The Water That Falls On You From Nowhere could have won is through affirmative action. And so on and so forth. It is clear that you’re willing to excuse his racist, sexist, and homophobic statements by resorting to the stupidest argument possible, which indicates that you are either so dim-witted you buy them, or are a liar and are dim-witted enough that you think you can sell them. Either way, you’re trash who is not worth bothering with any more.

  17. @Silly – “I think he means literary tastes, worldviews, classes of opinions on broad topics, themes and plots and situations within the literature, how pulpy versus how literary (to use their terms), presence of spaceships and battles and laser beams rather than the entirety as exposition or monologue about some social Ill or another.”

    You are welcome to think that, but you know as well as we do that it is flatly untrue. ‘Author demographics’ has nothing to do with laser beams. ‘Demographics can mean other things’ is a nice attempted dodge, but in the context of affirmative action, also obviously untrue.

  18. @Aaron “…casting sexist and homophobic assertions as well.”



  19. @ Aaron Nick M.,

    I asked for examples and you’ve provided some.

    Thank you.

    Silly But True

  20. JJ, given that Mr. Torgersen is a warfare professional, one hopes that the firearm he chooses for metaphorical self-inflicted lower limb ballistic trauma would take magazines.

  21. Hoatzin: given that Mr. Torgersen is a warfare professional, one hopes that the firearm he chooses for metaphorical self-inflicted lower limb ballistic trauma would take magazines.


Comments are closed.