We Are Sad Puppies If You Please; We Are Sad Puppies If You Don’t Please 5/23

Posted on by

aka One Hundred Days of Being Stuck in a Crate Just Because You Ate the Goddamn Plum Pudding Again, if you Didn’t Want Me To Eat It You Shouldn’t Have Put it on the Table, Signed, Maggie, Your DOG

There are familiar and new bylines in today’s roundup: Bradley Armstrong, David Gerrold, John C. Wright, Michael Senft, John Ohno, Andrew Hickey, Vox Day, Amanda S. Green, Lis Carey, Elisa Bergslien, Patrick May, Rebekah Golden, Joseph Tomaras, and Spacefaring Kitten. (Credit for the alternate title goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Greg.)

Bradley Armstrong on Screen Burn

“Solitair vs. The Hugos: Introduction” – May 22

I’ve seen Correia and company get a lot of bad press for this latest battle in the American culture war, but after a few arguments online I’m going to cool my jets. At least Sad Puppies is not as disgusting as this other movement from last year I won’t dignify with a name. Correia has been acerbic in arguing his case, but he hasn’t crossed any lines of decency unless you see the slate voting as an immoral-in-spirit rigging of democracy via statistical loophole. He was even harassed and slandered online, which I can’t approve of no matter the cause. I flipped my lid about the epidemic of that same thing springing from that-which-must-not-be-named, and I’m not going to go back on that because it’s happening to someone I disagree with.

Correia has my condolences, but I do still disagree with him on this matter. Matthew David Surridge, in declining his Puppy-backed nomination, wrote the most clear-headed and sensible summary of this whole affair I’ve seen on the internet by a wide margin, and my position mostly reflects his. In short, I see no evidence that there is a conspiracy to culturally control the Hugos, at least not one that is in any way recent, and I like stuff with literary aspirations just as much as modest pulp fare, if not more. I thought that high-brow art was what awards were for, since bestseller lists aren’t going to give the good ones the recognition they deserve. As far as the preachy sermonizing goes, I and everyone else who saw James Cameron’s Avatar knows that pain, but I don’t know what the Puppies’ threshold is for that. Are they objecting more strongly to badly-written garbage, or the presence of progressive stances in fiction?

 

David Gerrold on Facebook – May 23

[A long post that explains what Gerrold told the Wall Street Journal reporter during a 45-minute call, of which he says only three out-of-context sentences were used. The following is a short sample.]

When you get that many nominees dropping out and when you get so many major voices in the field condemning the slate-mongering, this is not just a casual disagreement. It is evidence that there is a widespread perception that the slate-mongering was a miscalculation on the part of Torgersen and Correia — and a deliberate attack on the field by Vox Day. (Vox Day has publicly declared his intentions to destroy the Hugos.)

That’s the situation. And that’s pretty much the gist of what I told the reporter from the Wall Street Journal — okay, in the interests of journalistic integrity, I also let the reporter know that I too share the views of Martin, Willis, Castro, Flint, Scalzi, Kowal, and others — that the slates were a bad idea and that this is the year of the asterisk.

And that brings me, finally (yes, I know you’re exhausted, me too) to the most important point I want to make. I know some of the people who ended up on the slates. They’re good people. They’re the real victims of this mess.

I’ve known Kevin Anderson for a long time and have a lot of affection for him. He’s had an enviable career. He’s a good man. I can’t imagine that Kevin would have been a knowledgeable part of any attempt to rig the Hugo awards. Likewise, I’m pretty sure that Tony Weiskopf and Sheila Gilbert would not have been either. They’ve all been around long enough to know better. They have great reputations, fairly earned by a lifetime of hard work.

Unfortunately, despite the integrity of the nominees, there’s still an asterisk on this year’s awards. It’s not their fault, but there it is.

 

John C. Wright

“No One Cares About Your Hooey” – May 23

….Anyone clicking through the link there will come to this:

  • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
  • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
  • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
  • I believe everything the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church teaches.

So, from your reaction, I take it you did not click through the link….

 

Michael Senft interviews Ann Leckie for The Arizona Republic

“Ann Leckie on ‘Ancillary Justice’ acclaim and breaking the pronoun barrier” – May 21

Q: One common comment about the Imperial Radch books is that you are writing a “genderless” society. That doesn’t seem an accurate interpretation.

A: Yeah, it’s been very interesting to me to see some of the discussion surrounding Radchaai and gender. The assumption, for instance, that the Radchaai must have “eradicated” gender in that society, when that’s really nowhere in the text. Or that, as you say, gender doesn’t exist, or that Breq “doesn’t understand” the concept of gender. Not infrequently someone will comment that it’s really stupid to think that a being as smart as Breq couldn’t get her head around the idea of gender, which is probably true, and that’s not really the problem Breq has, is it.

 

Michael Senft on Relentless Reading

“Ann Leckie on Hugos, pronouns and Genitalia Festivals” – May 23

And in an outtake from the story, she weighed in on the Hugo Awards, offering some advice to readers and members and why we she doesn’t worry about them too much:

“I probably shouldn’t comment on the Hugos this year. Though I will say what I would say any year, and that is that if the Hugos matter to you, you should nominate and vote. Sometimes I hear people comment that they don’t think they’re qualified because they don’t read enough, but I think the Hugos have always been about what the voters love, and if you love something and think it’s worthy of an award, you should be able to nominate it.

Beyond that—well, honestly, I figure I could spend my time worrying about awards, or even more pointlessly worrying about people’s opinions of awards, or even more pointlessly worrying about people’s opinions about who does or doesn’t “deserve” those awards — or I could spend my time writing. And I didn’t get into writing for awards. There are no guaranteed outcomes from anything, much less writing, and if I wanted a sure track to acclaim and fame and fortune I sure as heck wouldn’t have chosen writing to get that. I write because I want to tell stories, anything after that is extra. And fortunately I’ve got plenty of writing to do, and plenty of readers waiting for me to do it.”

 

John Ohno on The First Church of Space Jesus

“Utopianism and sci-fi as machine-lit” – May 13

There are several popular ways to look at science fiction as a genre. I have my own preferences. That said, the major opposing perspective — what I’d term the ‘machine-lit’ school of thought — has its merits, insomuch as it highlights a set of common tendencies in science fiction. I’d like to take this space to highlight the basic premise of machine-lit, the tendencies it breeds, and why I find most machine-lit to be relatively uninteresting.

(The third major perspective, what I call the spaceship-on-the-cover style, I find wholly uninteresting and is the subject of other essays; however, this perspective is becoming historically important lately because of some drama surrounding the Hugo awards being gamed by groups who prefer this style, so it’s worth mentioning in passing.)

 

Andrew Hickey on Sci-Ence! Justice Leak!

“Hugo Blogging: ‘Best’ Short Story” – May 23

….As a result, I do not believe a single story on the ballot is on there legitimately, and so I will be ranking No Award at the top of the list.

I would perhaps have some ethical qualms about this, were any of the nominated stories any good. However, happily, they range from merely not-very-good to outright abysmal. I shall rank the stories below No Award as follows:

Totaled by Kary English. This story is not in any way bad. It’s also, however, not in any way *good*, either. Were it in an anthology I read, I’d read through the story and forget it immediately, maybe remembering “the brain-in-a-jar one” if prodded enough. Perfectly competently put together, but with no new ideas, no interesting characters, and no real reason for existing. Certainly not Hugo-worthy…..

 

Vox Day on Vox Popoli

“Hugo Awards 2015: Best Novel” – May 23

This is how I am voting in the Best Novel category. Of course, I merely offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his 367 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.

  1. The Three-Body Problem
  2. Skin Game
  3. The Goblin Emperor
  4. The Dark Between the Stars
  5. No Award

 

Amanda S. Green on Nocturnal Lives

“A few thoughts” – May 23

I’m busy making my way through the Hugo packet. My goal is to read everything included in it. Once I have, I will vote for those works I feel best deserve the Hugo. So far, only a few things have thrown me out from the beginning because the author forgot that you can get your message across without beating your reader over the head. And, no, not all of them are anti-Puppy supported works. Will I post my ballot? Probably, but only after I vote.

 

Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library

“Cedar Sanderson Hugo Nomination Fanwriting Samples” – May 23

The distinctive feature here is that she congratulates herself on being feminine and a lady, as well as, of course, strong–unlike, we are given to understand, those silly and obnoxious feminists. She demands equality, and likes it when men put her on a pedestal, and doesn’t seem to notice the contradiction. Feminists are women seeking notoriety based solely on their femaleness, and want to grind men under their heels. There’s a long rant about lazy, wish-fulfillment fantasy, which does in fact say some useful and interesting things….

 

Elisa Bergslien on Leopards and Dragons

“My Three Body Problem problem”  – May 22

When I started this book, I was really looking forward to it.  I actually had it in my wish list at Amazon months ago because it sounded so cool. Now that I have finished it, I am really disappointed.  With all the hype about how deep, insightful, and exciting the book is, I have been left wondering if I read the same book. It wasn’t all bad I guess, but for me it definitely didn’t even remotely live up to the hype and I honestly don’t know if I will ever bother to pick up the next book to see what happens with the human race. As it is presented in the book, you kind of have to wonder if anyone is worth saving.

 

RogerBW’s Blog

“The Three Body Problem Liu Cixin” – May 23

This is a perversely fascinating book that gains far more interest from the problems it sets up than from the way it resolves them….

 

Patrick May

“2015 Hugo Award Novelette Category” – May 23

[Ranking is preceded by comments on all of the novelettes.)

My Hugo ballot for this category is:

  1. The Journeyman: In the Stone House
  2. The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale
  3. Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium
  4. Championship B’Tok

I am not including “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” on my ballot.

 

Rebekah Golden

“2015 Hugo Awards Best Professional Artist: Reviewing A Pollack” – May 23

His imagery is clear, epic, sweeping and fun….

 

Rebekah Golden

“2015 Hugo Awards Best TV Show: Reviewing Doctor Who” – May 22

I knew a guy who was a virgin and didn’t know what the big deal about sex was. Then he had sex. Then he wanted to have sex all the time. I’ve watched a few episodes of Doctor Who but I admit while I liked it I didn’t know what the big deal was. Now I know what the big deal is.

 

Joseph Tomaras on A Skinseller’s Workshop

“Novelettes, Novellas and Fan Writers” – May 23

Of the Analog stories, that leaves Rajnar Vajra’s story with the deceptively stupid title “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale”. The title is clearly meant to pander to nostalgia for this-boy’s-life-in-space military SF stories of the so-called “Golden Age,” and insofar as it was selected by both sets of puppies for their slates, it succeeded. The title, however, bears little resemblance to the story itself, which can be read as subverting the tropes in which it superficially seems to glory. There is a valid argument to be had about whether subversion-of-tropes has not itself become a trope in contemporary SF, and a redundant one. I sympathize with that argument, but Vajra’s story is at least a better-than-average exemplar of the type, which held by interest start to finish and left me with a smile on my face. I encourage Hugo voters to read it with an open mind, and those who are not WorldCon members to seek it out.

 

 

John Scalzi on Whatever

“A Brief Note About Me Reviewing the Hugo Nominees” – May 23

I’ve been asked a few times if I plan to write any reviews of the Hugo nominees this year after I’ve read them. The answer: No, I don’t. One, if you look at my general modus operandi around Hugos, I don’t ever really comment on what I think of the merits of the individual nominees* until after the voting window has closed. Two, this year, this policy seems even more advisable as there are excitable people who would point out any reviews on my part as scale-tipping, regardless of what the review said. Three, as a general rule, in public, I try not to say negative things about the work of other writers. I will make exceptions from time to time. But generally, I avoid it….

 

https://twitter.com/voxday/status/602074475337805824

 

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

567 thoughts on “We Are Sad Puppies If You Please; We Are Sad Puppies If You Don’t Please 5/23”

  1. @Cmm:

    TimeGate was neat, as usual, despite a few annoyances like the lack of WiFi in the actual convention area. (In the lobby, yes, in the room, free if you’re a rewards program member, but not in the function space.)

    Katy Manning was positively adorable, and came by the group I was with (8-10 people) in the lobby on her way out today. I collected a few hugs from her during the weekend, along with her autograph on my copy of Frontier in Space. She said she had a wonderful time, so maybe she’ll come back…

    @Brian Z: “For those of you still criticizing my Walton comment, if I could do it over again, I’d shine my snark elsewhere”

    You still don’t seem to understand the criticism. It wasn’t which words you put in her mouth, but that you baselessly accused her of dishonesty in the first place. Instead of doing the bleedin’ research, you ascribed a false motive to her choice of end date, and when caught out, you have yet to simply acknowledge that error and apologize for it.

    You were wrong. Take your medicine and admit your actual mistake like an adult, rather than whining and deflecting like a child. You’re not fooling anyone here, unless you’ve managed to pull the wool over your own eyes. (Which, given the amount of spin you’ve applied, is not utterly out of the question…)

  2. MickyFinn
    A Vorkosigan re-read is a good idea about now. Plan to finish in time for Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen.

  3. @Ultragotha – “A Vorkosigan re-read is a good idea about now. Plan to finish in time for Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen.”

    Soooooo happy! It is hard to think where she can go with another book, but I will admit to being a doubter about the sequel to Curse of Chalion, and of course Paladin proved me wrong.

  4. @Steve Moss: “The central issue so far as SF/F fans should be concerned is whether John C. Wright can write. Whether he approves or disapproves of gays is besides the point.”

    Actually, that’s the central issue as far as the question “Do we vote for this man for a Hugo Award” goes; but that’s not the only question about him in SF, and that is of his own making.

    No one, whether they be John C. Wright, Harlan Ellison, or Steven Schwartz, gets to pontificate about the field without being willing to accept reactions. And those reactions, especially when said pontifications go beyond the field, aren’t restricted to “Oh, I won’t vote for him” or “I don’t intend to go see a panel he’s on.”

    Anyone who calls John C. Wright a friend is going to have a very hard hill to climb if they want my friendship as well — I suspect the reverse is true as well, if not by direct assertion than by simple reaction. And when people like him go beyond that and start bandying about the rhetoric of war and apocalypse? Then my reaction is even less to give him an “oh, just judge the writing” free pass.

    The writing is also overblown, pompous, and filled with messages, for the most part; when it is interesting, said interest is rapidly drowned in his other faults, at least of late.

    As a side note: I notice that you’re presuming here that my only interaction with John C. Wright ever is likely to be through his fiction. That’s simply not true — he’s ventured into political arenas I am involved in, but even more than that, there’s a small (as we’re on different coasts) but non-zero chance I might meet him in person some day. SF/F fandom is not just a collection of people reading books in their homes; it’s also a community, where people meet in groups, interact with each other, etc. I’ve known people on the Puppy side who’ve explicitly said they want to do things like disrupt convention spaces for their own amusement; to me, as a fan who likes going to some conventions, that’s an issue that’s worth raising as part of *fandom*, even if it is not part of the *literature*.

  5. Kurt – If they were awarding excellence every year, that’s a pattern, after all.

    Maybe that’s the pattern. Ancillary Justice won the Hugo, Nebula, Clarke, Locus and BSFA awards. Redshirts won both Locus and Hugo awards. Among Others won the Nebula, Hugo, and British Fantasy award and was nominated for the World Fantasy Award. Blackout/All Clear got the Nebula, Locus and Hugo Awards. The Wind Up Girl won the Hugo, Nebula, Compton Crook Awards and Locus for best first novel (hey maybe first novels are the pattern!). It tied the Hugo award with The City and The City, which won the BFSA, World Fantasy, Locus, and Clarke awards.

    2010 certainly doesn’t seem to have been a bad year. This pattern has obviously spread to other awards, juries and even internationally.

  6. you have yet to simply acknowledge that error and apologize for it.

    Rev. Bob, I’ve apologized and retracted that comment, which was foolish. I do not think Walton stopped by 2000 because she wanted to be tactful about the 2011-14 nominees. Several people have pointed out she wrote about it in 2010, which would be a good reason in and of itself to think that is not the case. By contrasting Walton wanting to be “tactful” with the obvious fact that she is a ruthlessly honest reviewer, I was reaching clumsily for some kind of irony, but I clearly failed to grasp it. It was a dumb comment.

  7. Brian,

    Now you don’t like Kiln People? Wow, it is obvious that in some ways our taste does not mesh at all. I thought Kiln People was a well written breath of fresh air after Brin’s still good but weightier Uplift Storm trilogy.

    You have a modern take on golems, an interesting take on labour relations, franchising and immortality, all dressed up in fun exciting detective thriller.

    Don’t ask me about Existence though, not unless you want me to rant for 4-5 hours.

  10. Well, I think there are enough people signing on for the Bujold Needs More Hugos campaign that someone needs to sew a banner to march under.
    I’ll get the rust off my kit and we’ll put together a shieldwall.

  11. >> The central issue so far as SF/F fans should be concerned is whether John C. Wright can write. Whether he approves or disapproves of gays is besides the point.>>

    Depends on what the point is. These are fairly wide-ranging discussions.

    >> Why is his opposition to homosexual behavior a central issue? >>

    Because he brings it up and he lies about it and he’s particularly hateful and stupid about it. All of these things make it the sort of thing that’s likely to generate discussion.

    >> The question is not whether we don’t sin (we all do and will), but whether we ask for forgiveness and have faith that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. John C. Wright is not perfect. He sins. I sin. You sin. We’re all human; it’s part and parcel of the condition.>>

    There are a lot of us who don’t believe in sin, so for us, the question isn’t whether we ask for forgiveness or have faith in Christ.

    >> For Hugo purposes, however, the question is not whether John C. Wright or Steve Moss or a hypothetical homosexual are sinners (we are) or how we are sinning (only God should judge), but whether he’s a good writer.>>

    While these threads discuss the Hugos, they don’t discuss only the Hugos, nor do they require a Christian perspective on whatever’s being discussed. So telling people what you think the point is or what you declare the question to be is not binding on anyone but you.

    >> I’d like to focus on the stories and the writing, and less on personal failings (real or imagined).>>

    You’re welcome to do that. If other people want to talk about other things, other points, other questions, they can do that too.

  12. >> Kurt: the Socials are much more friendly versions of the Ancillaries? >>

    On the surface, perhaps. But get some liquor into them, and it’s anyone’s game, baby, anyone’s game.

  13. I am hoping Gentleman/Red is really good, not least because I’d love to see her win another Hugo.

    But, given the strength of the field recently, it’ll probably have much good competition.

  14. Bujoldians, if you start making banners, I am going to have to attempt to rally the ranks of the “Banks Deserves A Hugo!” army, and since Bujold has so many, perhaps we should steal* one of hers?

    And be warned, we will all have researched “Raw Spirit” in depth beforehand, making us slightly less pain-sensitive than we might normally be under our banners.

    *A quarter of my ancestry were Scots Borderers — we have a long and noble history of raiding people for things that should belong to us because, well, reasons. 🙂

  15. Maybe that’s the pattern. Ancillary Justice won the Hugo, Nebula, Clarke, Locus and BSFA awards. Redshirts won both Locus and Hugo awards. Among Others won the Nebula, Hugo, and British Fantasy award and was nominated for the World Fantasy Award. Blackout/All Clear got the Nebula, Locus and Hugo Awards. The Wind Up Girl won the Hugo, Nebula, Compton Crook Awards and Locus for best first novel (hey maybe first novels are the pattern!). It tied the Hugo award with The City and The City, which won the BFSA, World Fantasy, Locus, and Clarke awards.

    This brings up a question I had: Have any of the Puppy nominees been nominated, or won, any other awards? From what I can see (wikipedia mainly, sorry ::blush::), the answer seems to be no. So is that an accurate perception? If so, is it that the ELoE who curated the nominees are that out of touch with both fandom in general as well as with critical reception, or does the Cabal (TinC) power stretch that far?

  16. @Brian Z: “Rev. Bob, I’ve apologized and retracted that comment, which was foolish.”

    I disagree that you had done so earlier, but you have certainly done that now (with the remainder of your comment), which is good enough for me.

  18. “Does Banks have a work coming out in 2016?”

    Sadly, no. I was being mostly facetious, and responding to the people who wanted to give Bujold Hugos from past years.

  19. >> The question is not whether we don’t sin (we all do and will), but whether we ask for forgiveness and have faith that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. John C. Wright is not perfect. He sins. I sin. You sin. We’re all human; it’s part and parcel of the condition.>>

    There are a lot of us who don’t believe in sin, so for us, the question isn’t whether we ask for forgiveness or have faith in Christ.

    More to the point, I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s asked for forgiveness for his sins, let alone committed any sort of penance. As he claims to be a faithful Roman Catholic, that’s kind of a big problem. It’s a bigger problem when he doesn’t even realized he’s sinned in the first place, even after people keep pointing it out to him.

  20. snowcrash – If so, is it that the ELoE who curated the nominees are that out of touch with both fandom in general as well as with critical reception, or does the Cabal (TinC) power stretch that far?

    I don’t think they curated outside of looking at what their friends and colleagues were doing, or what was published by their owned publishing house. I mean they nominated one person who had no works out in 2014. I’d go for ignorance of the fact rather than intentional.

    As for the rest, I’m still waiting to hear from Brian what pattern he’s talking about.

  21. 2009:
    Anathem was a subtle, big-idea masterpiece.
    Little Brother was brilliant, and either it or Anathem should have won.
    I love Neil Gaiman, but… The Graveyard Book was good enough to be there, just not enough to win.
    Saturn’s Children is on the face an Heinlein homage — but there are some seriously deep, seriously-cool ideas there.
    Zoe’s Tale managed a near-impossible feat: be a great book while retelling another book’s events without seeming like just a re-hash.
    My verdict: no duds there.

    2010:
    I thought Julian Comstock should have won.
    I thought The City and The City was good, but not good enough to win.
    I’d have told you Steampunk wasn’t my thing, but I enjoyed the hell out of Boneshaker.
    Wake was very good, I read the following 2 in the series even though YA isn’t my thing.
    I’m still baffled about all the love for The Windup Girl; I thought the main character was used in a gratuitous, rather than an enlightening way. Clearly a lot of people disagreed with me.
    My verdict: I found Palimpsest unreadable, and the only one I felt didn’t belong on the ballot.

    2011:
    The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms should have won, for sheer fabulous worldbuilding, character depth, and excellent story.
    I loved Blackout and All Clear, but thought a couple of characters could/should have been better developed.
    Cryoburn got me to read all the Vorkosigan books. I was amazed to find out it wasn’t the best of them. But what makes Bujold so good is that she does something different in every book.
    The Dervish House accomplished the feat of taking me somewhere completely different from where I thought it was going — while being an excellent book in the meantime.
    I hate zombie novels. I loved Feed. That is a major accomplishment.
    My verdict: no duds there.

    2012:
    I thought Embassytown ran circles around The City and The City.
    I loved Leviathan Wakes: the world-bulding and character depth were amazing. It or Embassytown should have won.
    I thought Among Others was really good, but failed to stick its landing.
    A Dance With Dragons and Deadline were very good, but failed to bring anything new to the table.
    My verdict: the last 2 books were probably not ones I’d have put on the ballot.

    2013
    Redshirts, based on its premise, should have been a joke. It was fantastic and deserved the rocket.
    The Throne of the Crescent Moon was a close runner-up.
    2312 was decent but a disappointment in terms of plot and characterization.
    I love Bujold, and I loved Captain Vorpatril’s Alliance, but don’t think it was exceptional.
    Blackout again was good, but failed to bring anything new to the table.
    My verdict: the last 3 books were probably not ones I’d have put on the ballot.

    2014:
    Ancillary Justice had incredible world-building and characterization, and totally deserved its win.
    Neptune’s Brood managed to bring something new to the table despite being a second book.
    The Wheel of Time deserved its nomination as a body of work. Sanderson deserved a Hugo simply for being able to satisfactorily tie up all the loose ends without any of the usual eye-rolling Jordan prose.
    My verdict: Horror’s not my thing, and the Newsflesh Trilogy pretty much tapped me out. I just couldn’t get into Parasite, and wouldn’t have put it on the ballot.
    Warbound was serviceable, but pedestrian, and did not belong on the ballot.

    My verdict: In my judgment, at least 18 of 26 of the Hugo Novel finalists in the last 5 years deserved their nods.

  22. The short answer Brian, is: It is tome so fetid, marsh gas sidles up to it to offer a breath mint.

  24. JJ,

    I join you in your dislike of Palimpset. My review read thusly:

    Modern Lit wannabe with lots of meaningless sex, beautiful but meaningless prose and an obscure meaningless ending. Hated it.

  25. Kurt Busiek: “Social Justice is a party ship a galaxy or two over from the Radch Empire. Social Sword and Social Mercy are its sister ships. The staff on the ships doesn’t recognize gender, just hashtags.”

    snowcrash: “Well, there goes another keyboard.”

    Yeah, no kidding. I didn’t even have the torches and Puppy gargoyles attached yet. I’m sending Mr Busiek an invoice.

  26. Wait. Amanda found some of the Puppy works a turn-off because of unsubtle messaging? But… she’s a Puppy. Hasn’t she already read all the Puppy works? Didn’t all the Puppies do that before they nominated?

    Hmm.

    No, from what I’ve seen, the Puppies didn’t read any of this shit before nominating. They got their marching orders and lockstepped. I’ve found it pretty incredible that the Puppy Owners have howled “read the packet and judge based on merit or you are all BAD PEOPLE,” considering that.

    Not to mention the whole “how dare you review something you actually read” when so many of their supporters are obviously of the “hate first, read never” camp.

  28. JJ – One fun thing is that everyone who would be questioned about it would probably have different answers, like I didn’t think Little Brother should’ve been on there, though I enjoyed the hell out of it. I just thought the plot was a bit too cliche for Doctorow. Then again I would’ve loved to have seen Someone Comes To Town, Someone Leaves Town get more recognition.

    On the flip side I just recently read and loved The Wind Up Girl. Has a slow start but every character has their own individual plot going on at the same time and even when a character bites it they’re still a major player in the story. The whole point of the titular character was the idea that her conflict was one of pre-designed biology versus who she was as a person, a theme woven in and out with characters who were in situations where they were to supposed do what was expected of them but also had their own ideas.

    *SPOILERS* The whole end with her and the scientist talking about how she could become the mother of a whole new type of people (with the prior discussions of chesire cats and humans having the tools and tech to become more than what they were but stubbornly refused) I thought was a great way to end it.

  29. JJ – I think it’s also a great thing that we all have our various likes and dislikes about what was previously nominated. If we put them all side by side I think the only pattern that would emerge is that we’ve got different opinions. So I’m still confused at whatever pattern Brian sees. Hope he clears that up.

  30. Matt Y,

    I felt Wind-Up Girl was let down by some cliched character writing, particularly the US factory owner and his Chinese manager

  31. @JJ

    I agree with everything on your list except Wheel of Time. I decline to endorse cardboard characters and a plot that seemed to ramble off pointlessly in every which direction except forward.

  32. Matt Y: “I think it’s also a great thing that we all have our various likes and dislikes about what was previously nominated. If we put them all side by side I think the only pattern that would emerge is that we’ve got different opinions. So I’m still confused at whatever pattern Brian sees. Hope he clears that up.”

    After reading peoples’ comments on the Hugo nominees from the last 5 years, here and elsewhere, I am utterly convinced that I can very easily dig up a dozen people for every single nominee who would say that it belonged on the ballot. So, despite my own personal opinions, I am convinced that the Hugo process has been working quite well.

  33. If we put them all side by side I think the only pattern that would emerge is that we’ve got different opinions.

    The pattern that would emerge is that the Hugo nominators all have their own opinions. Are they all different? Not necessarily. There are a lot of reasons why they might be the same. In the past there was a smaller pool of regular nominators who knew each other personally and influenced each other. Today a more diverse group seems to have started nominating, but are also influenced by the internet and sites they frequent. That might play a similar function to everybody talking to each other face to face.

  34. Tintinaus,

    I felt Wind-Up Girl was let down by some cliched character writing, particularly the US factory owner and his Chinese manager

    Some expatriate Americans in Thailand are in fact walking cliches. The Chinese manager character was flawed but I felt he made a strong attempt. I found the real problems were with the female protagonist. I almost felt a little sorry for the author having spent a lot of time in that country and not gotten a better understanding of its culture – but still it was interesting and very thought provoking.

  35. @JJ

    “I am utterly convinced that I can very easily dig up a dozen people for every single nominee who would say that it belonged on the ballot. ”

    This is true – except for Wheel of Time which was clearly on the ballot because of the machinations of a corrupt cabal of people who deliberately promote misleading book covers.

    p.s. I am not paranoid.

  36. @MickeyFinn “I’ll get the rust off my kit and we’ll put together a shieldwall.”

    But not a shield wall as in the Vikings TV show, because they have no idea what they are doing.

    But I will join in if we are forming a movement for Bujold Hugos.

  37. @Brian Z: “In the past there was* a smaller pool of regular nominators who knew each other personally* and influenced* each other. Today a more diverse** group seems to have started nominating, but are also influenced by the internet and sites they frequent.”

    * [citation needed for each of these three claims]
    ** [citation needed]

  38. @Steve. Schwartz – Have you ever read ‘The Steel Bonnets’ by McDonald Fraser? The fear that you might have anything to do with that makes me want to either hand you the Hugos and/or call in an airstrike.

    Also, if Banks wanted a Hugo, why did Excession include the subplot about the humans? It ruined an astonishingly good book.

  39. Now, now MaximillIan. The ink is barely dry on the contract. At least wait until it’s been published.

  40. @Ultragotha – I assume(?) we aren’t disagreeing about how wrong I was on the quality of Paladin of Souls, are you talking about Banks? Or Scottish border raiders?

  41. Rev. Bob, citation, citation, citation, citation

    The number of participants has grown from 500 to 2000 and will be much higher next year and includes more supporting members – you don’t need me to cite it for you to go look at the numbers. The fact that this year is more diverse is evident from the surprising results. Whether my disappointment with 2011-14 has anything to do with changes in who was nominating, I don’t know. But my point is that I don’t wish to nominate from my high tower with unshakable faith in my own tastes and preconceptions. I want you to convince me to give Leckie another look (it worked, actually) or tell me I really must go back to the Jemisin. I’d like to be able to convince the denizens of Richmond or Provo to give Peter Watts a try instead of settling on yet another installment of Correia. I see that as a valuable part of the process, which is why my reaction to Kate Paulk’s setting up an SP4 book club is not to totally dismiss it – although I have been, and remain, very critical of what was done this year, and also critical of some of the lead personalities.

  42. @Maximillian

    I now have a disturbing image of a gang of Scottish paladins raiding banks. Which, come to think of it, does sound very SNP.

  43. Brian,

    The problem with your diversity argument is that at best you can say the type of favoured nominee has changed. You may say that usually the Hugos are too loaded with “social commentary” books or whatever but changing that to a field loaded with Puppy Selections does not fix that perceived problem. Both outcomes produce a Hugo selection full of just one type of book.

    The whole problem with a slate of any kind is it locks out all(or most) other comers, resulting in lesser diversity. That is why everyone here is set against slates.

    Please, until you can substantiate that the nominees as originally announced show a greater diversity than most other years, do not cite diversity as a product of what has happened this year. No one here but you believes that, so you will need to do some major convincing for the claim to be accepted.

  44. @SIW – Hurrah! I am responsible for brain pollution!

    Seriously, that is part of what I found fascinating about that book- it isn’t just about borderers raiding north or south, it is about people in the Debatable Lands raiding north, south, east, and west depending on which side of the bed they woke up on. Very complicated history.

  45. Rev Bob: @Brian Z: “In the past there was a smaller pool¹ of regular nominators* who knew each other personally* and influenced* each other. Today a more diverse** group seems to have started nominating, but are also influenced by the internet and sites they frequent.***”

    ¹ [citation accepted]
    * [citation still needed for each of these three claims]
    ** [citation still needed]
    *** [citation still needed]

  46. Tintinaus, diversity is good, but it is a terrible idea for the newly more diverse voters to vote in lockstep. Authors telling their own fans how they should vote for is crass, manipulative and disrespectful to their own readers and everybody else’s readers. I’ve said SP1-2 were nothing more than ridiculous meme generation attempts borne of Correia’s shame that he didn’t think of taping bacon to his cat first. I’ve said SP3 was a stupid idea and Torgersen made a huge miscalculation by introducing a four or five item “slate.” I’ve said that not only was RP manipulative and dishonest, justifying it with the claim that SJWs are manipulative and dishonest and therefore something must be done is absurd.

    I’ve also said that I’m not totally dismissive of Kate Paulk setting up a book discussion group, and that I hope she learns from earlier mistakes.

  48. A Sad Puppy Happened On the Way To The Forum
    The Ballot-Fiddler On The Roof
    Asterisk And The Victor’s Hugo

  50. Oh my, Fiddler on the Roof.

    Would that be “If I were an SJW”? No, I think it must be “If I were a Trufan.”

    Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.

Comments are closed.