aka Last and First Puppies
The Ultimate Roundup brings you Benjamin Domenech and Robert Tracinski, Samuel John Klein, T.P. Kroger, Vox Day, Doctor Science, Aidan Moher, Brandon Kempner, Martin Wisse, Laura “Tegan” Gjovaag, David Steffen, Lis Carey and Cryptic Others. (Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editors of the day Bruce Baugh and Milt Stevens.)
https://twitter.com/striderhlc/status/618204911155724288
Benjamin Domenech and Robert Tracinski on The Federalist
“Welcome To Culture War 4.0: The Coming Overreach” – July 6
Culture War 4.0
Today we live in the early stages of that triumph, and as a small number of public intellectuals and media commentators predicted, it is a bloody triumph indeed. Culture War 4.0 brings the Counterculture full circle: now they have become the blue-nosed, Puritanical establishment. Once they began to achieve their goals and saw the culture moving their way, they moved from making a plea for tolerance and freedom to demanding persecution of anyone who dissents against the new orthodoxy in even the smallest way.
Whichever side believes it is winning will tend to overreach, pushing too far, too fast, and alienating the public.
In just the past two years, the Counterculture’s neo-Puritanical reign has made things political that were never thought to be: Shirtstorms and Gamergate, Chik-fil-A and Brandon Eich, Indiana and Sad Puppies, and don’t you dare say Caitlyn Jenner isn’t a hero.
History teaches us two clear lessons about the ebb and flow of the Culture War: first, that whichever side believes it is winning will tend to overreach, pushing too far, too fast, and in the process alienating the public. The second is that the American people tend to oppose whoever they see as the aggressor in the Culture Wars—whoever they see as trying to intrusively impose their values on other people and bullying everyone who disagrees.
Samuel John Klein on The ZehnKatzen Times
“The Sad Puppies May Have A Point” – July 6
One of the most juvenile, at least to me, of the Sad Puppies’ plaints about the trend of modern SF (you can fill in speculative fiction or science fiction, as is your wont) is elaborated by this point made by one of the leading opiners of the movement, Brad Torgerson: ….
And then it occurred to me that one of the cornerstones of this insurgency is apparently the right to judge a book by its cover. This is something that I was told never to do, that it was the sign of shallowness and unwarranted prejudice.
But then, I thought, what if there was a point to made here? Maybe I just work too hard at wanting an experience here. I mean, if I, as a consumer, should want to be guided with pretty shiny images, then who am I to complain? They do me a service, after all, in truth-in-labeling (as a liberal, I’m supposed to like that).
So, truth-in-labeling. Okay. We’ll go with that. I hold in my hand a Berkeley 1981 re-release of one of my favorite novels, written by an acknowledged master of the form, one who went on to create iconic works of SF that inform the genre to this day. But, book-by-its-cover now … okay, I see an organically-formed, liquid, almost-melting edifice on a horizon under a hot yellow sky, and that edifice appears to be a building … after all, there’s something that looks like a tiny figure standing in one of the openings (is it a window). On the whole, it looks like something Frank Gehry came up with in a fever dream.
In the sky, an eye orbits. Setting or rising, I can’t tell, but there it is. to the right of the building, a small thing resembling a misconceived volcano seems to launching a weather balloon, or maybe Rover from The Prisoner. It’s all on a purple plain resembling fused glass, with two rocks resembling rocketships in the foreground, and in the extreme foreground it appears that some poor soul has died, being embedded in the fused glass of the plain.
Needless to say, I expected a tripping-balls adventure about a science-fictional acid trip, but what did I actually get? Some lame story about an alternate past where the Japanese and Germans won WWII and divided up America between them.
Oh, by the way, here’s the book:
And, to fit the Sad Puppy profile of undeserving novels, it won the Hugo.
In 1962.
Clearly, this conspiracy has gone on way longer than any of us imaginers could have possibly imagined.
Wake up, sheeple!
https://twitter.com/tpkroger/status/618196972340674560
Vox Day wrote in an e-mail – July 5
One of your commenters said this:
“Like the persecution they are always whining about, it doesn’t exist. Claiming it does only makes them look foolish.”
You could read the FIVE Guardian pieces libeling me. Or the Entertainment Weekly piece, the Boston Globe piece, the NPR report, or the Popular Science piece. Note that none of them ever interviewed me, even though the Guardian guidelines require a subject to be interviewed if they are identified by name.
Note that three of the individuals on the SFWA Board were actually guilty of the charge that I was falsely accused of. I did NOT attack an SFWA member in an official SFWA forum, in fact, I didn’t even LINK to an attack on an SFWA member in an official SFWA forum. (@sfwaauthors is not the official SFWA Twitter feed, and the feed belongs to Twitter anyhow, not SFWA.) Stephen Gould, among 70 other SFWA members, did.
This is why no one on our side gives even the smallest damn about anything the other side says. We know they are all absolutely and utterly full of shit. And we also know that even when we prove something beyond any shadow of a doubt, they will not change their mind in the slightest, but will promptly move the goalposts.
We will never, ever talk to them. There is no point.
https://twitter.com/SpinsterAndCat/status/618206742074261505
bloggingandcapturing
“Nerd Entitlement or: How to stop hating and accept diversity” – July 6
This phenomenon isn’t limited to gaming. Hell the term GamerGate was first coined by the actor Adam Baldwin, a man whose Twitter feed is a smorgasbord of right-wing rambling that would fit right in at a Rick Santorum dinner party. Then there’s this years Hugo Awards, which has managed to be hijacked by a group right-wing authors and their supporters calling themselves ‘The Sad Puppies’, even managing to raise the ire of George R.R. Martin. Whilst they’ve been around for a couple of years with very little effect, their sudden rise in influence has coincided with the emergence of GamerGate. And then there’s the YouTube channels that have jumped on the crazy train. I remember watching Thunderf00t videos to do with astronomy years ago. Imagine my surprise when swathes of his channel is now dedicated to bashing feminists.
It’s become a lightning rod for those who had their niche, a thing that they could call their own. Now that it’s become more inclusive they’re rallying against feminists, “Social Justice Warriors” and those who think that maybe, just maybe, having more equality is a good thing. Because everything in geek culture in the past was aimed at a smaller market to which they belonged, their sense of entitlement is so that they feel that should continue.
Do I think that the likes of Adam Baldwin gives a toss about video games, aside from being paid to occasionally be in them? No. But it helps to further their agenda and people who see themselves as victims get swept up in it.
Is there a solution to this? Can those of us who, through our fandom, hobbies and interests are inextricably linked to these people, do or say anything to turn people away from such hate? I would like to think yes. We need to support those game developers, film makers and creative types who are helping to diversify geek culture. It’s important to not be afraid to provide constructive criticism when they drop the ball from time to time.
It’s my hope that, given time, opportunists like Baldwin, the misogynists GameGate, the Sad Puppies and countless YouTubers will become increasingly marginalised. With the widespread critical acclaim of the likes of Mad Max: Fury Road and Her Story and the increasing condemnation of shows like Game of Thrones for its treatment of women, I’d like to think that perception is starting to change. Sadly, I feel that for the time being those that shout the loudest will continue to impinge on geek culture.
Doctor Science on Obsidian Wings
“Hugo voting: how, why, for what” – July 6
This is a guide intended for fans from the transformative works/Tumblr ends of fandom who are voting for the Hugo Awards for the first time.
There are two basic principles for Hugo voting:
- You do not have to vote in every category
- When you *do* vote in a category, you have to at least look at all the legitimate nominees. You don’t have to finish them, but you’re honor-bound to at least try…..
Aidan Moher on A Dribble of Ink
Aidan Moher: Well, I wear my Hugo Award on a platinum chain around my neck — Flavor Flav-style — so, that tells you all you need to know about my perspective on awards. If you got ‘em, flaunt ‘em. Life’s too short for humility.
Brandon Kempner on Chaos Horizon
“Inside the Locus Results” – July 6
My copy of Locus Magazine arrived today, and with it some interesting insights on how the Hugo nominees did in those awards. While not a perfect match to the Hugos, the Locus are the closest thing going: a popular vote by SFF “insiders” to determine the best novel of the year…..
You’ll notice that the Top 2 from the SF and the Top 1 from F make up 3/5 of the Hugo Best Novel ballot. Neither the Jim Butcher nor the Kevin J. Anderson made the Top 28 SF novels or the Top 21 fantasy novels. If you were going by Locus vote counts alone, VanderMeer and Gibson would have been next in line for nominations. Since Hugo voters have ignored Gibson since 1994 (seriously, no nominations since 1994), the 5th spot would have been a toss up between Scalzi and Bennett. Given Scalzi’s past Hugo performance, you might lean in that direction, although we’ll find out when the full nomination stats are released.
Martin Wisse on Wis[s]e Words
“Best Novel Hugo vote 2015” – July 6
I don’t have to tell you I won’t be voting for any Puppy candidates, right, so the question becomes which of the three non-Puppy candidates will get my vote. Even diminished, this is a great shortlist:
The Goblin Emperor — Katherine Addison.
The Goblin Emperor at heart is a very traditional power fantasy, about the boy of humble origins who becomes emperor by happenstance and now has to very quickly learn how to survive in a world of political intrigue he’s completely unprepared for, filled with people who either want to manipulate him or replace him with a better figurehead. It’s one of those fantasy scenarios other writers can write multiple trilogies about to get to that point, but Katherine Addison has her goblin hero confirmed as the emperor within five pages, the rest of the novel being about him getting to grips with his new job, woefully inadequate though he feels.
Martin Wisse on Wis[s]e Words
“The Three-Body Problem — Cixin Liu” – July 6
If it hadn’t been for Marko Kloos doing the honourable thing and withdrawing his nomination, The Three-Body Problem wouldn’t be on the ballot for this year’s Best Novel Hugo. And that would’ve been a shame, since The Three-Body Problem is the first translated novel to make the shortlist. The start of a trilogy, it originally came out in China in serialisation in 2006, with the novel version coming out in 2008. The English translation was done by Ken Liu, who has won a Hugo Award himself. The sequels will come out this year and next.
Laura “Tegan” Gjovaag on Bloggity-Blog-Blog-Blog
“Hugo Reading – Related Work” – July 6
[Comments on all five nominees]
This entire category seems like a race to the bottom. “Wisdom” is clearly meant as an insult to anyone who actually cares about the Hugos, and none of the rest are award-worthy, though some are ok or even almost good. I feel like the time I spent reading this category was completely wasted. The only thing to do with this one is vote “No Award” and leave everything off the ballot.
David Steffen on Diabolical Plots
“Hugo Short Story Review: ‘A Single Samurai’ by Steven Diamond” – July 6
“A Single Samurai” by Steven Diamond was first published in The Baen Big Book of Monsters published by Baen Books.
In this story a mountain-sized kaiju has arisen in Japan, rising from beneath the land itself where the landscape had built up around it. The monster is moving across the countryside, crushing everything in its path. A samurai has survived its uprising where so many others haven’t by riding the kaiju as it rose up and climbing up its back even as the soil and trees and rocks shift off the kaiju as it walks. To save Japan he has to finish his climb and find some way to kill the monster.
Familiar Diversions
“Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie” – July 6
Ancillary Justice has been on my TBR for a while, because books with prominent AI characters that aren’t evil are my catnip. Then the whole thing with the Sad Puppies and the Hugo Awards blew up. Ancillary Justice was one of two works that kept coming up again and again as one of the works most hated by the Sad Puppies, so I suppose I should thank them for reminding me I hadn’t read it yet…..
Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library
Groundhog Day meets every high-tech war movie you’ve seen. And, really, too violent for my tastes; I don’t do war movies. My nerves don’t handle the sound and images well. But this, honestly, is very good.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
NelC, I do actually prefer it when people are “generous in going out of their way to interact positively with my non-troll side.”
sez Brian Z on July 17, 2015 at 1:14 am:
I call bullshit. Even if the lying sack of shit sometimes known as “Brian Z” is actually telling the truth here, the lying sack’s track record of rampant, unrepentant deceit makes it clear that this “preference” of its is rarely, if ever, strong enough to overcome its urge to troll.
Brian Z on July 17, 2015 at 1:12 am said:
For Site Selection, yes, especially in the past few years as we have taken up the tradition of adopting the motion “that the Administrator is ordered to destroy the ballots,” the adoption of which is the point where the election results are now final and you can pay all tickets. We can do that because Site Selection remains under the jurisdiction of the Business Meeting. (If you read the rules, you’ll see that the BM retains the final word in case of disputes, ties, or None of the Above winning.)
In 1992 when I ran the “snap NASFiC” election, there was no such tradition, and the BM did not give me any instructions about what do with the ballots in the oddball election there where the bid from New York managed to place fourth in a field of two. I wanted to recount the ballots assuming that the write-in for I-95 had been ruled ineligible (and thus its second preferences would have redistributed after the first round), but I restrained myself and destroyed the ballots on my own initiative. Given the hard feelings on that election, we were better off not knowing whether None of the Above would have won over the Atlanta (Dragon*Con) bid that ended up hosting the 1995 NASFiC.
The Hugo Awards are different from Site Selection. The Business Meeting doesn’t have jurisdition over them. The BM can only ask, it cannot order the Administrator to do anything. (It can of course change the rules by constitutional amendment, but that takes two years.) So it’s unclear to me how many, if any, administrators have retained the data. Mind you, there’s a fairly good chance that even those admins who did retain the data wouldn’t be able to recover it, because the medium of storage is lost or unreadable today.
Camestros said
Oh, I see what you did there. And there. And there. And there. Wait, how many copies did I requ- 100,00?!?! Wait, stop! And there. And there. No, stop! And there. And there. AUGH! And there. And there.
True, comparing the Hugos to US elections wasn’t a strong analogy. (Though ballots are most often destroyed, no?)
No, ballots may EVENTUALLY be destroyed, if you’re talking about state/local elections. But by law, they are retained for a fair number of years. And many states require that recounts be done by hand. Surely you remember that debacle in Florida in 2004 — perhaps the phrase “hanging chad” will refresh your memory?
One of the reasons OVFF keeps the ballots is to show incoming Pegasus award administrators what has happened in the past, and what precedents were set because of it. While tie-breaking has to be done often in the nomination phase, a tie that arises in the results of voting for the awards has been allowed to stand and trophies are issued to both.
Maybe it’s because OVFF has been the subject of study by ethnomusicologists that we have become aware of how valuable our records may be, and so we keep them.
@Lori Coulson:
It certainly seemed like it dragged on until 2004.
Oops — that’s right — 2000. I suspect that I really don’t want to remember the Supreme Court decision that appointed a village idiot to the Presidency.
You and me both. After that fiasco, it was a pleasant surprise to see the Supreme Court get it right on gay marriage.
Sad puppies, sad puppies
Sad puppies aren’t much fun
They don’t come when you call
They only like nutty nuggets at all
Sad puppies aren’t much fun
My puppy’s sighed three time now
He’s still sighing about it all
Sad puppies aren’t much fun, no, no, no
Now sad puppy’s days are through
Noah Ward is coming for you
Sad puppies aren’t much fun
Sad puppies, sad, sad, sad, sad puppies
Sad puppies aren’t much fun
Come on everybody out there, filk along, okay
Sad, sad, sad, sad, puppies
Sad, sad, sad, sad, sad, sad puppies
Sad puppies aren’t much fun
One more time trolling for Brian Z
Sad, sad, sad, sad, sad, sad puppies
Sad puppies aren’t much fun
@David W.:
Sorry, Tom Smith beat you to it…
Oh well, I’ll console myself with some pad thai for dinner then.
Because I am so late I am going to respond a few things here
Dictation software: I know a few writers who need to use it. It is pretty much because of worsening RSI in most cases.
Gender Swapping: One of the places I use gender swapping is in my anime watching. While the guy being the fighting hero is the rule, fortunately a number of people are drawn androgynously enough that they can be either. Case in point – Kazuma from Summer Wars(it helps he is voice acted by a woman in the Japanese sub).†
Monsterous Legion: I really liked this one. I liked the viewpoint being a female character and the focus on the way women and female children are treated, especially low class ones in that society(and of course equivalent economically societies here) Also good was the way the Duchess subplot shows the belief rule set in Small Gods quite nicely.
†Plus Summer Wars has the most kick-ass granny ever and while Natsuki is mostly a typical love interest she does get the penultimate throwdown scene.‡
‡Now excuse me while I go and watch my favourite Summer Wars scenes
Fourth in a field of two? Has this been written up somewhere, for the amusement of late-comers? (I claim no serious or scholarly interest.)
Kevin Standlee, I think you are right that in some cases storage media used in past decades might have become degraded.
Since, in your WSFS capacity, you will be requesting that the 2015 Hugo Administrator release the 2015 ballots for the purpose of testing EPH, will you be calling on Administrators of the past ten years to do the same?
Brian Z: Kevin Standlee has exactly the authority you or I have to ask the Hugo Administrator to do something. Neither he nor the Business Meeting have jurisdiction over the Hugo ballots, that is vested in the Worldcon committee.
Vicki Rosenzweig: In the 1992 NASFiC voting, the New York bid finished fourth behind Atlanta, the I-95 bid, and None of the Above.
The I-95 bid is explained in Fancyclopedia 3:
Mike Glyer: Yes, that was clear, since Kevin initially wrote:
and after you emphasized for him that
he has further clarified
My question for Kevin Standlee is: if he intends as Chair of the Business Meeting to either “ask” the Administrators release the raw voting data, or else “rule” that doing so is not a breach of privacy although “they don’t have to do it,” will he be requesting that the Administrators of the past decade to release this data, and/or ruling that their doing so is not a breach of privacy? Since it isn’t clear to me that such a request, such a ruling, or even simply Kevin Standlee’s personal opinion, regarding the disposition of raw voting data, would apply exclusively to the 2015 voting data.
Brian Z.: Since, in your WSFS capacity, you will be requesting that the 2015 Hugo Administrator release the 2015 ballots for the purpose of testing EPH
Where did Kevin say that?
JJ, he said that the Business Meeting can ask for the data to be released, and that he has already announced that he intends to “rule” that doing so is not a breach of privacy.
I’m also interested in knowing whether Kevin plans to release the raw data from the past Hugo awards he has himself administered.
I thought about responding then remembered that I have a Neal Stephenson book to finish. I haven’t yet finished it, but “Seveneves” is a strong candidate for my nominating ballot for next year.
Soon Lee, OK, let me ask you: if you support releasing the 2015 data, do you also support releasing the data from 2014, 2013 or 2012?
Brian Z: he said that the Business Meeting can ask for the data to be released, and that he has already announced that he intends to “rule” that doing so is not a breach of privacy.
In other words, you’re admitting that he never said what you just claimed he said.
JJ, hmm… maybe I should have said Kevin is “pressuring” the Administrators to release the raw data.
Brian Z: hmm… maybe I should have said Kevin is “pressuring” the Administrators to release the raw data.
As Kevin has not actually said anything to the Hugo Administrators regarding this, let’s call your statement above what it is: an outright lie.
You can say that if you want to, but you’d be flat-out wrong, not to mention personally insulting to Kevin. A) Kevin is not the Business Meeting. B) Ruling that the Hugo Administrators are ALLOWED to release data if they so choose does not mean he’s pressuring them to do so.
You persist in acting like Kevin is some Supreme Divine Emperor whose Word is Law and whose Very Wink is Edict. Here’s a hint: telling the Hugo Administrators that it’s not against the WSFS constitution to do something doesn’t mean that he’ll have them on the rack if they choose not to.
Cally:
You are right that he wouldn’t have them on the rack. As Mike pointed out, the BM wouldn’t even have them on the rack if it formally requests that the raw data be released.
I just hoped for clarification on what Kevin Standlee thinks about the disposition of the raw 2013 or 2014 data, or the data from the last year Kevin was an administrator.
FYI, Kevin wouldn’t be asking anyone to do anything about the ballot data. We, the members, can propose a resolution to be passed by the business meeting to formally ask, if we like. Kevin hasn’t proposed any such resolutions at all. I will be proposing one to ask this year’s Hugo Admins to consider releasing this year’s ballot data. I have no intention of writing a proposal asking anyone else to do so, but there’s nothing stopping any two members from submitting a proposal for more, if that’s what they want to do.
Kilo
Brian Z: “You just hoped” for him to give you information after you, yet again, insult him both personally and in his professional capacity? Do you often find that insulting people by making false statements about them (with the added bonus of not apologizing for those statements when they’re pointed out) inclines them to do you favors?
Cally: I apologize for having implied that Kevin Standlee will be personally requesting the release of the raw 2015 data. It would have been more accurate to say that he has stated above that the request can be made by the BM, that he will be chairing the BM where the request is to be proposed, and that he intends to rule as chair that the request can be honored without violating anyone’s privacy.
My question is: if 2015, why not 2014, 2013, or earlier years?
Brian Z: My question is: if 2015, why not 2014, 2013, or earlier years?
Well, why don’t you go to the Business Meeting yourself and propose that, and see if you can get a majority of attendees to support you? Why expect someone else to do it for you?
Previous years’ data (even if they still exist) is not under the jurisdiction of this year’s Worldcon administrators, so is not pertinent to the discussion. But you are familiar with the Hugo rules so you would already know this. Why are you lying?
I do support the release of appropriately anonymized 2015 data and am one of the signers to the proposal. What are you, Brian, doing to improve the Hugo Awards? Why won’t you support moves to mitigate the effect of bloc-voting?
Under whose jurisdiction would that data be? See:
Furthermore, since people are now freely and openly emailing previous years’ data to each other, who is responsible for securing the previous years’ voting data if it is not destroyed?
Soon Lee, if you are a signer of a proposal to use past nomination data to test EPH, why ask to test it on 2015 but not 2014 or 2013 data?
Brian Z on July 18, 2015 at 7:31 pm said:
No, I do not, in my role as Chair of the Business Meeting, intend to ask the Hugo Administrators to do anything at all.
If any two or more WSFS members introduce a resolution asking the Administrators to release this data, I expect to rule that it’s not a breach of privacy for the Administrators to do so.
I’m not going to request past, present, or future Administrators to do anything at all. If the Business Meeting entertains motions regarding the release of such data, I will rule — and it’s subject to the judgement of the Business Meeting, like all such rulings — that such release isn’t a breach of privacy.
Possibly you’re having difficulty understanding the distinctions I’m making here.
I can’t. I don’t have access to the detail data.
Brian Z on July 18, 2015 at 9:01 pm said:
Except that I’m not doing so. And please bear in mind that I have spoken in person with the person who would actually be doing the release if the Administrators as a group choose to do so. Brian, you’re an anonymous internet troll. The Administrators this year are not a faceless, nameless group of people. They are a group of individual human beings, all of whom I know personally, all of whom I consider friends and colleagues, and several of whom with which I’ve discussed this issue privately. They know my opinion, and they also know that I’m not pressuring them to do anything, especially as I’ve said both in public and in private that it is their decision to do so, and that nobody can compel them to do so under WSFS rules.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Stop trying to sow further uncertainty.
Brian Z on July 18, 2015 at 9:15 pm said:
Brian: My official opinion about the 2015 nominating data applies to any year. In my opinion, the release of anonymized voting data from any year does not represent a breach of the voters’ privacy, and there is nothing in WSFS rules that prohibits an Administrator from releasing that data if they so choose. There is also nothing compelling them to do so, and if they respond to a request from the WSFS Business Meeting (or any other person or group) with a flat-out “No,” that’s their right under WSFS rules.
I cannot release raw nominating data from the 1993, 1994, or 2002 Hugo Awards because I do not have it. If I had it, I would decide whether or not to release it if I got a formal request from anyone after consulting with the other living Administrators from those years. Since I’ve received no request I consider credible and since I don’t think the data exists anymore, the question is moot.
How much more clear can I be about this?
Brian Z on July 18, 2015 at 9:40 pm said:
Because nobody has made such a request. And I have in this message now unequivocally answered your theoretical question. As JJ said, if you are a WSFS member and want to make a similar request of past Administrators, go ahead. If you’re actually planning on doing so, let me know and I’ll craft the wording for your resolution.
Brian Z on July 18, 2015 at 11:19 pm said:
Each year’s Worldcon Committee (and in practice, the Hugo Awards Administration Subcommittee empaneled by most recent Worldcons) is responsible for the Hugo Awards conducted at their Worldcon.
That means that the 2015 Worldcon/HASC is responsible for the 2015 Hugo Awards.
That means that the 2014 Worldcon/HASC is responsible for the 2014 Hugo Awards.
That means that the 2013 Worldcon/HASC is responsible for the 2013 Hugo Awards.
And so forth. Do you really need someone to spell this out further for you?
Kevin, I did say that you would act in your capacity as chair of the meeting only, and I apologize if I hadn’t made that clear enough.
You don’t think that stating in advance your intent to rule that releasing the data is not a violation of privacy constitutes pressuring the Administrators. I might (respectfully) disagree, because I do think it would be a violation of privacy, for the reasons I stated previously.
Thank you for clarifying that your official opinion would apply to data from any past year, and who you think should be responsible for deciding to release each year’s data.
@ others, my question regarding why not ask for 2014, etc., data remains open for anyone who might be sponsoring or voting on this proposal.
So…
Neal Stephenson’s “Seveneves” which I have just finished, goes on my Hugo nominating ballot next year.
TB : Scalzi vis a vis Brian Z : Standlee. Wait for it.
Soon Lee: Neal Stephenson’s “Seveneves” which I have just finished, goes on my Hugo nominating ballot next year.
I was having a hard time getting really sunk into it. I got about 300 pages in (of 850), then ended up diverting to read the last 2 books in Kristine Kathryn Rusch’s excellent Anniversary Day Saga and Karen Memory (which I enjoyed, but doubt will rank in my Top 5 for the year).
I ended up having to return Seveneves to the library; since there’s a waiting list, they wouldn’t let me renew it, so I’ve gotten back in line to check it out again.
I was finding that it was too much sciency details and not enough character development and plot movement to really keep me absorbed. When I get it back, I’ll have to see if that changes.
@Soon Lee “Neal Stephenson’s “Seveneves” which I have just finished, goes on my Hugo nominating ballot next year.”
Huzzah! A post that isn’t connected to a circular argument with a serial liar who is unable or unwilling to write a straightforward question.
So I liked Snowcrash and Diamond Age, also Mogoliad. Does Seveneves read like any of those? Should I read it before or after The Martian?
Maximillian: So I liked Snowcrash and Diamond Age, also Mongoliad. Does Seveneves read like any of those? Should I read it before or after The Martian?
I loved Diamond Age, Cryptonomicon, Anathem, and the 3 books in The Baroque Cycle — but as with all Stephenson books, Seveneves (850 pages) is not a fast and easy read.
Whereas I tore through The Martian (350 pages) in 3 or 4 hours; it’s a fast, fun read (if you like that sort of book), as compared to Stephenson’s books, which require some reader investment and thought.
@JJ,
I don’t read Stephenson for his character development. The plot of Seveneves builds (it was worth the effort) and the sciency bits & ideas are what draw me to his writing. This has it in plenty. Be warned that the last third of the book is different.
@Maxinillian,
Snowcrash, Diamond Age, & Mongoliad are quite different to each other, and Seveneves is different again. It’s got the epic quality of Anathem & plenty of life & death scenarios. The ending is typical Stephenson leaving questions unanswered (though I found it satisfying).
ETA: Stephenson is a very clever writer.
Soon Lee,
Kevin who is chairing the meeting has clarified that as far as he is concerned, you can certainly ask for the 2014 data if you would like to. However, it is up to you, as a signer, whether or not you would like to elaborate on this:
@Brian: I believe Kevin was talking to you when he said you were welcome to do that. I’m sure absolutely anyone could put together such a request, but you’re the only one harping on about it. So why not do it?
@BrianZ my question regarding why not ask for 2014, etc., data remains open
But the main reason why people are asking for the 2015 data is because certain people are saying that modern voting patterns may be different from the old dataset they have, that EPH hasn’t examined a year where a slate (or multiple slates) is in play.
Multiple years of data are not needed to show that EPH works well in the current voting climate just as it did in the thirty+ year old real dataset it has been run on.
If people are not going to be convinced with the results of EPH on an old real dataset, artificial datasets, and the latest real dataset (where multiple slates were in play) then quite frankly they are never going to be convinced and it is a waste of effort on the proponents of EPH to even try.
Seveneves is currently on my Hugo longlist as well, though the only entries on it currently are it, Nemesis Games (maybe), and Uprooted, don’t think I’ve read anything else from this year that’s wow yet.
It’s reallllly good, and I’m currently reading Station Eleven for a different sort of post apocalypse.
The sciencey bits – well, my usual reading of a lot of these types of books are to just speed through the science-y portions, and I pretty much did this for Seveneves. They usually don’t interest me that much.
Hilariously, he’s still so much better at setup and world-building than he is at writing an actual ending, but that’s Stephenson for you.
Oh and my personal Ranking of NS works are as follows:
Cryptonomicon
Snow Crash
Diamond Age
Anathem
***No Award***
REAMDE
Cobweb
***everything else by him***
Brian Z:
Isn’t that sweet. You’re apologizing to me, not to Kevin, and you’re not apologizing for the actual insult at all. You know, where you flat-out accused him of pressuring the Hugo committee. Classy, Brian. Very classy. “Apologizing” to the wrong person for the wrong thing does not an apology make.
@Snowcrash
Ranking NS is a tricky task. On odd-numbered days I might put Anathem higher than you, but I agree that Cryptonomnicon is his #1.
I haven’t got to Seveneves yet though.
I just finished Byrony and Roses by T Kingfisher (Ursula Vernon/RedWombat) and it is very good and unexpected. Highly recommended.
Ultragotha, just read Bryony and Roses myself. Agreed with your assessment. Well done, Ursula!
Aww, thanks guys! (And apologies again, ULTRAGOTHA, for the circular and confusing Twitter conversation the other night!)