No award can take place, but Vox Day has already threatened to do his spiel every year from now on when that happens.
Frankly at this point I don't think any outcome without extenuating circumstances will prevent Mr. Beale from attempting this again every year. He likes to whip everyone else on the Internet into a froth and I can't think of any outcome that he won't spin as a win for his team.
To be fair, these fucking socialist lefitist pinko commiefeminazis have been ruining Science Fiction since 1895.
1818!
Damn you Mary Shelley!
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+6
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
I know I am a terrible person, but I deleted my facebook a couple of days ago and this whole sad puppies mess is giving me my much-needed fix of internet drama, so I could not resist and replied to Torgersen and his buddies again:
Dear Mr. Torgersen,
thank you for your thoughtful response. I am beginning to understand why you would need to manipulate the Hugos to see someone you like win an award.
Dear other puppies sad & rabid,
First of all, it was interesting that so many of you straight away assumed I was female. Is it because an opinion like mine could only come from a woman? Or is it because you never heard of a male librarian?
Sorry to disappoint, I am male, I am white and I am straight(though I am sure lots of you will have some colourful things to say about that).
Second, as I pointed out before, I do not pick authors based on their politics(or religion). As I look at my bookshelf right now I see lots of Gene Wolfe, Dan Simmons, Joe Abercrombie, Heinlein, Bradbury, Dick, Neal Stephenson, Frank Herbert, Steven Brust, Lois MacMaster Bujold, Iain Banks, K.J. Parker, Stephen King, H.P. Lovecraft, Terry Pratchett, Scott Lynch, Neil Gaiman and many others. Are they all „liberal fascists“ like me?
I even own, read and enjoyed the complete Cerebus by that „evil old misogynist“ Dave Sim.
For you and your kind the political allegiance of an author seems to be far more important than for me. I thought „Ancillary Justice“, which seems to get more than one of you frothing at the mouth, was a very well written and entertaining book. I did however NOT read it as an evil genderbender manifesto.
I also read and really enjoyed some books by Orson Scott Card. Do I think that some of his personal views are embarassing and narrowminded? Yes I do! I do not try to make sure he will never get any awards for his writing or call him names on the internet though.
Love lots of books by Dan Simmons. Think his politics are craycray. Still would not protest against him getting an award, if he wrote something as good as „Drood“ again.
I find it rather telling, that „your side“ and people like Mr. Wright and Mr. Beale use an extremely aggressive rethoric and dismiss any view that would contradict their own as completely wrong/insane/fascist, etc. while none of the authors on the „other side“ of this argument show such a complete lack of common curtesy, manners and empathy.
Isn't the attempt to threaten, silence or shout down any opposing view a sign of a totalitarian state or facism?
As a native German with an interest in history I know a thing or two about fascism and it is pretty clear to me which side looks like the Nazis(since Larry Correia brought this comparison up, might as well use it)to an outside observer(hint: it's the side with the guy that calls black people half-savages and has some interesting theories about women and rape).
Why is it that your side is always on the attack, always lashing out, always using the most abusive and insulting terms, trying to verbally turn your opponents into something less than human?
I think I know. It is because you have already lost and you know it. Your time is over. Noone owes you anything. And like a very annoying child that has come to realize it is not the center of the universe you throw your little temper tantrums.
You keep talking about a culture war. But what culture are you even talking about? What kind of literature are you even talking about, when you mention literature? If you are only happy with books that offer you pure escapism, do not challenge your beliefs, don't make you uncomfortable at times, don't feature too many minorities and/or women, are not too confusing or hard to read for you, then maybe you need to create your own award.
The „Most fun book that did not upset me“ Award or MOFUBODINOUP can be yours!
And then Larry might be able to take one home one day and doesn't have to cry anymore.
I know I am a terrible person, but I deleted my facebook a couple of days ago and this whole sad puppies mess is giving me my much-needed fix of internet drama, so I could not resist and replied to Torgersen and his buddies again:
Dear Mr. Torgersen,
thank you for your thoughtful response. I am beginning to understand why you would need to manipulate the Hugos to see someone you like win an award.
Dear other puppies sad & rabid,
First of all, it was interesting that so many of you straight away assumed I was female. Is it because an opinion like mine could only come from a woman? Or is it because you never heard of a male librarian?
Sorry to disappoint, I am male, I am white and I am straight(though I am sure lots of you will have some colourful things to say about that).
Second, as I pointed out before, I do not pick authors based on their politics(or religion). As I look at my bookshelf right now I see lots of Gene Wolfe, Dan Simmons, Joe Abercrombie, Heinlein, Bradbury, Dick, Neal Stephenson, Frank Herbert, Steven Brust, Lois MacMaster Bujold, Iain Banks, K.J. Parker, Stephen King, H.P. Lovecraft, Terry Pratchett, Scott Lynch, Neil Gaiman and many others. Are they all „liberal fascists“ like me?
I even own, read and enjoyed the complete Cerebus by that „evil old misogynist“ Dave Sim.
For you and your kind the political allegiance of an author seems to be far more important than for me. I thought „Ancillary Justice“, which seems to get more than one of you frothing at the mouth, was a very well written and entertaining book. I did however NOT read it as an evil genderbender manifesto.
I also read and really enjoyed some books by Orson Scott Card. Do I think that some of his personal views are embarassing and narrowminded? Yes I do! I do not try to make sure he will never get any awards for his writing or call him names on the internet though.
Love lots of books by Dan Simmons. Think his politics are craycray. Still would not protest against him getting an award, if he wrote something as good as „Drood“ again.
I find it rather telling, that „your side“ and people like Mr. Wright and Mr. Beale use an extremely aggressive rethoric and dismiss any view that would contradict their own as completely wrong/insane/fascist, etc. while none of the authors on the „other side“ of this argument show such a complete lack of common curtesy, manners and empathy.
Isn't the attempt to threaten, silence or shout down any opposing view a sign of a totalitarian state or facism?
As a native German with an interest in history I know a thing or two about fascism and it is pretty clear to me which side looks like the Nazis(since Larry Correia brought this comparison up, might as well use it)to an outside observer(hint: it's the side with the guy that calls black people half-savages and has some interesting theories about women and rape).
Why is it that your side is always on the attack, always lashing out, always using the most abusive and insulting terms, trying to verbally turn your opponents into something less than human?
I think I know. It is because you have already lost and you know it. Your time is over. Noone owes you anything. And like a very annoying child that has come to realize it is not the center of the universe you throw your little temper tantrums.
You keep talking about a culture war. But what culture are you even talking about? What kind of literature are you even talking about, when you mention literature? If you are only happy with books that offer you pure escapism, do not challenge your beliefs, don't make you uncomfortable at times, don't feature too many minorities and/or women, are not too confusing or hard to read for you, then maybe you need to create your own award.
The „Most fun book that did not upset me“ Award or MOFUBODINOUP can be yours!
And then Larry might be able to take one home one day and doesn't have to cry anymore.
I am ashamed that the list of authors on your shelf does not include Jim Butcher.
I know I am a terrible person, but I deleted my facebook a couple of days ago and this whole sad puppies mess is giving me my much-needed fix of internet drama, so I could not resist and replied to Torgersen and his buddies again:
Dear Mr. Torgersen,
thank you for your thoughtful response. I am beginning to understand why you would need to manipulate the Hugos to see someone you like win an award.
Dear other puppies sad & rabid,
First of all, it was interesting that so many of you straight away assumed I was female. Is it because an opinion like mine could only come from a woman? Or is it because you never heard of a male librarian?
Sorry to disappoint, I am male, I am white and I am straight(though I am sure lots of you will have some colourful things to say about that).
Second, as I pointed out before, I do not pick authors based on their politics(or religion). As I look at my bookshelf right now I see lots of Gene Wolfe, Dan Simmons, Joe Abercrombie, Heinlein, Bradbury, Dick, Neal Stephenson, Frank Herbert, Steven Brust, Lois MacMaster Bujold, Iain Banks, K.J. Parker, Stephen King, H.P. Lovecraft, Terry Pratchett, Scott Lynch, Neil Gaiman and many others. Are they all „liberal fascists“ like me?
I even own, read and enjoyed the complete Cerebus by that „evil old misogynist“ Dave Sim.
For you and your kind the political allegiance of an author seems to be far more important than for me. I thought „Ancillary Justice“, which seems to get more than one of you frothing at the mouth, was a very well written and entertaining book. I did however NOT read it as an evil genderbender manifesto.
I also read and really enjoyed some books by Orson Scott Card. Do I think that some of his personal views are embarassing and narrowminded? Yes I do! I do not try to make sure he will never get any awards for his writing or call him names on the internet though.
Love lots of books by Dan Simmons. Think his politics are craycray. Still would not protest against him getting an award, if he wrote something as good as „Drood“ again.
I find it rather telling, that „your side“ and people like Mr. Wright and Mr. Beale use an extremely aggressive rethoric and dismiss any view that would contradict their own as completely wrong/insane/fascist, etc. while none of the authors on the „other side“ of this argument show such a complete lack of common curtesy, manners and empathy.
Isn't the attempt to threaten, silence or shout down any opposing view a sign of a totalitarian state or facism?
As a native German with an interest in history I know a thing or two about fascism and it is pretty clear to me which side looks like the Nazis(since Larry Correia brought this comparison up, might as well use it)to an outside observer(hint: it's the side with the guy that calls black people half-savages and has some interesting theories about women and rape).
Why is it that your side is always on the attack, always lashing out, always using the most abusive and insulting terms, trying to verbally turn your opponents into something less than human?
I think I know. It is because you have already lost and you know it. Your time is over. Noone owes you anything. And like a very annoying child that has come to realize it is not the center of the universe you throw your little temper tantrums.
You keep talking about a culture war. But what culture are you even talking about? What kind of literature are you even talking about, when you mention literature? If you are only happy with books that offer you pure escapism, do not challenge your beliefs, don't make you uncomfortable at times, don't feature too many minorities and/or women, are not too confusing or hard to read for you, then maybe you need to create your own award.
The „Most fun book that did not upset me“ Award or MOFUBODINOUP can be yours!
And then Larry might be able to take one home one day and doesn't have to cry anymore.
I am ashamed that the list of authors on your shelf does not include Jim Butcher.
Butcher is not for me, but one of my best friends, who is the nicest guy I know, loves his books, so I will never say anything bad against Butcher(at least not when my friend is around).
0
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
Can I say that Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie is an awesome book and anybody that likes SF should run(not walk) to their bookstore to buy it.
When I first saw it in my SF bookstore, it was the cover that made me pick it up. I was just casually browsing and I hadn't seen that book before. I pawed trough it and after a few pages I was hooked. I didn't have the money to buy it, but come payday I did and put in the front of my reading list(meaning I started reading it at once).
Thing was that I only became aware of the book after it was published, like around march of 2014, but I was halfway through it when I heard it was nominated for a Hugo. My first reaction was: "and its going to win". Part of me even though she might get a Nebula award too.
I found it a bit thrilling to be reading it as a result. It was like having a secret that nobody knew about. I would go: "You should read Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie, its really good". When she did her clean sweep of awards, my friends where duly impressed with my good taste and foresight, but it was pure luck of liking the cover.
Not that I will ever tell any of my friends that. As far as they know I am golden.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+9
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Because that's the only way I can see a good ending coming from this.
Yeah, but Vox has promised that if any of the puppie's catagories get no-awarded, he'll make sure that catagory gets 'no-awarded' for every year from now to eternity.
Because, it's about diversity and making sure the deliberately over-looked and under-represented authors get the recognition they deserve, you see.
Also, in terms of someone, somewhere taking silly potshots, I wonder now if anything is going to happen to the G.I. Joe comic character based off of Larry Corriera? :P
Ancillary Justice, with its use of female pronouns for everybody regardless of their biological gender, is at first glance the kind of book that amateurs go "I could write that", without realizing that
A: Its so much more then that. The gender pronoun issue is only the surface of its story about identity and social stratification. Only seeing that is only seeing 10% of the story.
and
B: Why didn't you? If Ann Leckie's way of telling the story is such a easy trick, why haven't you used it? If its just literary flim flamery, why are you still writing in the same way 99.9% of all writers write gender? Why are you not experimenting?
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
That is one of the dumber complaints from the puppies that Scifi now is dealing with parallels to current political events when it totes never did that before... ignoring the history of scifi entirely. Like they point out the whiz bang of star trek and forget Uhurra, the first interracial kiss on television and the black white people.
Star Trek's claim to fame is being about trying to make the world a better place. TOS was filled with that.
I think at least Vox Day is totally fine with just destroying the Hugos. He has stated several times by now that he has no claim in the SF/F community.
And Torgersen and Correia distance themselves by saying "we are not Vox Day, but freedom of speech arrglllbarrgll" which is not a very convincing way to go about it.
They know he's poison but are too stubborn to disassociate with him because reasons. Which is hella stupid.
Harry Dresden on
0
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
That is one of the dumber complaints from the puppies that Scifi now is dealing with parallels to current political events when it totes never did that before... ignoring the history of scifi entirely. Like they point out the whiz bang of star trek and forget Uhurra, the first interracial kiss on television and the black white people.
Star Trek's claim to fame is being about trying to make the world a better place. TOS was filled with that.
It amazing how they overlook what Trek is about.
You have to admit, it's REALLY easy to miss the message when it's presented that subtly.
+12
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The thing that annoys me most is that it should be "Vox Dei".
B: Why didn't you? If Ann Leckie's way of telling the story is such a easy trick, why haven't you used it? If its just literary flim flamery, why are you still writing in the same way 99.9% of all writers write gender? Why are you not experimenting?
Eh, that's nothing new. Back in the day, just about everyone was a man. And it's still uncommon in some places to see two named female characters have a conversation about something other than a man.
/troll
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Ancillary Justice, with its use of female pronouns for everybody regardless of their biological gender, is at first glance the kind of book that amateurs go "I could write that", without realizing that
A: Its so much more then that. The gender pronoun issue is only the surface of its story about identity and social stratification. Only seeing that is only seeing 10% of the story.
and
B: Why didn't you? If Ann Leckie's way of telling the story is such a easy trick, why haven't you used it? If its just literary flim flamery, why are you still writing in the same way 99.9% of all writers write gender? Why are you not experimenting?
The fact that female pronouns as default is like, groundbreaking and exceptional in the Ancillary books is something that both excites and saddens me
The thing that annoys me most is that it should be "Vox Dei".
One of my single favorite reviews of last year's Hugo nominees included three of the legion examples of Mr. Beale's egregious Latin grammatical errors with paragraph breakdowns of the inaccuracies. It was enjoyable.
Ancillary Justice, with its use of female pronouns for everybody regardless of their biological gender, is at first glance the kind of book that amateurs go "I could write that", without realizing that
A: Its so much more then that. The gender pronoun issue is only the surface of its story about identity and social stratification. Only seeing that is only seeing 10% of the story.
and
B: Why didn't you? If Ann Leckie's way of telling the story is such a easy trick, why haven't you used it? If its just literary flim flamery, why are you still writing in the same way 99.9% of all writers write gender? Why are you not experimenting?
The fact that female pronouns as default is like, groundbreaking and exceptional in the Ancillary books is something that both excites and saddens me
Well it confuses people. How am I supposed to emphasize with a character that does not have a penis?
0
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
The Sad Puppies are simply the creep of right-wing media into new arenas. Just as they invented the War on Christmas they have invented the War on Sci Fi. The idea that SJWs hold sway over the Hugos is a right-wing conspiracy theory. Goerge R.R. Martin and Matthew David Surridge pretty well demolished that claim. But since Larry Correia tapped into the conservative inclination towards conspiracy theories he's got enough people involved to screw up the nominations for the time being. Since fandom tends to be a pretty resilient and long-lived the Sad Puppies they won't last forever but they can screw things up for a few years until either the rules change or they get bored with being unable to change the actual community.
There's a lot of interesting stuff here. In particular it exhaustively details a number of suspicions I had about the motivations of the people putting together the puppies nominations (namely that a lot of it is motivated by a conflation of quality and commercial success; a perception that the Hugos exist for the purpose, essentially, of advertising; and that it involves a particular parochial US-centric view of what science fiction is).
Really what I find most annoying about this is that now when I see "Hugo award winner" it'll prompt me to wonder if it's a real Hugo or a puppies Hugo, whether they end up getting any of their nominations awarded.
The funny thing is, Flint's essay above, while critical of the puppies, says the exact same shit. It's the same problems he just seems to better understand what he's complaining about. Though, of course, he's still wrong.
This quote of Flint's basically sums up what I'm talking about:
What it all comes down to, being objective about it, is that every year a few hundred people—Worldcon attendees, in the case of the Hugo; SFWA members in the case of the Nebula—hand out awards not for what authors are actually doing but for what those few hundred people think authors ought to be doing.
Uh yeah Flint, that's the point of an award in many ways. It's not about what sells, it's about what's good.
It's based around your pretty standard cluster of "those damn elites (probably left wing) are looking down on us" thing.
It'd be a shame if this meant the Hugo nomination system changed purely to stop assholes from fucking it up, but if the alternative is going through this shit every year or just not having them I'll take a reorganisation on every time. I guess nothing will be decided about the awards until after they've happened and the results are known.
Ideally, all the SP nominees finish last and the Sad Puppies go home and cry themselves to sleep before vowing to become better people. But that's unlikely. At least the last part.
I just don't see anyway they could do it without changing what the Hugos are on a basic level. For better or worse its one of the few awards ordinary people can vote on. And if it's easy for people to vote it's going to be easy to have people try to manipulate the vote. It's hardly new back in the day the Scientologists for Hubbard nominated for a bunch of things by buying up votes in bulk.
There's no perfect solution, but there's several simple ways to mitigate the issue.
The main one being bandied about is having more nominee slots then one person can nominate. Basically, you can nominate 4 books but there are 6 total nominees. This means that a slate vote can't dominate a category as it did this year. Not without massive amounts of organization anyway.
+1
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
This is a comment Torgersen made a couple of minutes ago:
A physician may apologize to the patient for causing pain, while performing a necessary — if uncomfortable — procedure. I knew SP3 was going to cause certain individuals to become upset. I didn’t anticipate that some of them would use the larger media to launch some slander attacks, and for those specific people, I am not apologizing to them. They are worse than anything SP3 has done, because they have made it about the politics of personal destruction, and personal destruction was never an objective of Sad Puppies 3.
But I do apologize to the people who aren’t necessarily partisan, but who have been upset by this anyway. Certainly Connie Willis’s comments make it clear (to me) that Connie doesn’t necessarily understand what’s going on, has had the “facts” communicated to her by people who are partisan, and who are also happily using Connie as an emotional chess piece in the partisan conflict. I don’t blame Connie. I feel bad that she’s unhappy. But I don’t blame her. And it sucks that we’ve reached this point.
But like I told George R. R. Martin, despite the fact Sad Puppies blew the lid off the rotten contents of the dutch oven, we (Sad Puppies) did not create it. The dutch oven has been stewing for decades. The green rooms and private author-editor parties have been stewing with it. Everyone agreed that the awards had “problems” and almost everyone agreed that there didn’t seem to be any way of addressing these problems which weren’t also problematic.
Larry and I simply concluded that complaining about a problem — while doing nothing — wasn’t a principled position. Having identified the thing, we determined to do something about the thing.
Which, again, takes me back to the analogy of the physician and the patient. We want to heal the Hugos. It hurts right now. For some people, unbearably so. Hopefully all the attention and controversy and conversation will get people involved, the democracy will become “awake” and alive, the quiet exclusion — from Fandom toward fans — will end, and this award will mean something again.
Poor Connie is too stupid to see what is really happening! SP3 just wants to heal the Hugos and make it all better!
I actually still had a little respect for Torgersen before that comment. Certainly, he was less abrasive than Beale or Correia, and I think that he believes what he's saying about secret conspiracies and affirmative action voting. But he doesn't think that Connie Willis is capable of coming to her own beliefs and opinions about what's happening with the Hugo awards this year. Connie Willis, winner of eleven Hugos and seven Nebulas, who writes extensively researched history, who is by virtually all accounts one of the sharpest and wittiest writers in SFF. Torgersen thinks that the wee ladybrain of the multiple-time Hugo award emcee and presenter has been mislead, and the poor lass needs to have someone non-partisan explain why the Puppies are needed.
And now, I've lost pretty much what smidgen of respect I had for Torgersen.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Off the topic of the Puppies themselves, this whole thing has made me aware of something that I think actually is somewhat of a problem with the Hugos: three awards for short fiction, but only one novel award.
I think that given how the genre has changed since about 1990 or so, the Best Novel category should be split. Putting the split at 100,000 words puts short novels and most YA fiction in one category, and the big doorstopper epics in another. Short Novel and Long Novel categories would allow for more recognition of deserving works.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
So, I am reading Martin Weir's The Martian - one of the most talked about novels of the year. It's fucking awesome. In a sane year, it would be a race between this and the Ancilliary Justice sequel.
That's what this bullshit has accomplished. Its ensured that one of the best SF novels in years didn't even get nominated.
So, I am reading Martin Weir's The Martian - one of the most talked about novels of the year. It's fucking awesome. In a sane year, it would be a race between this and the Ancilliary Justice sequel.
That's what this bullshit has accomplished. Its ensured that one of the best SF novels in years didn't even get nominated.
It was self-published in 2011. It would not be eligible, for the same reason one of John C. Wright's short stories was disqualified.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I was going to say... it is a fun novel, but it would not have been eligible, since it was self-published on his website over the course of a year or two.
There was actually a lot of handwringing about exactly this (The Martian) a couple of months back... but there were lots of other books which were missing from the top 5 as well.
(Three-Body Problem, for one... so I'm glad that it was 6th place in the running and while I'm sad for Marko Kloos, I feel confident he'll have plenty more opportunities.)
I like the Short Novel/Long Novel idea, wonder if we'll see some rumblings in that direction after the WSFS convene
That would also help to prevent the genre-segregation I think they're trying to bypass by having one category (and not "best Fantasy thing" and "best SF thing" and so on.)
Off the topic of the Puppies themselves, this whole thing has made me aware of something that I think actually is somewhat of a problem with the Hugos: three awards for short fiction, but only one novel award.
I think that given how the genre has changed since about 1990 or so, the Best Novel category should be split. Putting the split at 100,000 words puts short novels and most YA fiction in one category, and the big doorstopper epics in another. Short Novel and Long Novel categories would allow for more recognition of deserving works.
Yeah, the actual problems with the Hugos are things like "the awards are a relic of a completely different time when sci-fi short fiction was the big thing and haven't changed a bit since then".
I like the Short Novel/Long Novel idea, wonder if we'll see some rumblings in that direction after the WSFS convene
That would also help to prevent the genre-segregation I think they're trying to bypass by having one category (and not "best Fantasy thing" and "best SF thing" and so on.)
Yep. Splitting things into best fantasy novel/best SF novel just doesn't work in my opinion. Too many books straddle the line. Or exist comfortably on both sides of the line. But there's already precedent for splitting things by length. In practice, I think that it would lead to some degree of genre segregation, with fantasy tending to fall into the long novel category and science fiction and YA works falling into the short novel category. But there would definitely be heavy overlap, and when someone wants to write the signature epic 800 page hard science fiction novel of '20s, it'd be in the long novel category.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Posts
Frankly at this point I don't think any outcome without extenuating circumstances will prevent Mr. Beale from attempting this again every year. He likes to whip everyone else on the Internet into a froth and I can't think of any outcome that he won't spin as a win for his team.
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
1818!
Damn you Mary Shelley!
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I am ashamed that the list of authors on your shelf does not include Jim Butcher.
Butcher is not for me, but one of my best friends, who is the nicest guy I know, loves his books, so I will never say anything bad against Butcher(at least not when my friend is around).
I agree, but this is an ongoing discussion between me and my man Brad T. I won't post any further developments in the future.
When I first saw it in my SF bookstore, it was the cover that made me pick it up. I was just casually browsing and I hadn't seen that book before. I pawed trough it and after a few pages I was hooked. I didn't have the money to buy it, but come payday I did and put in the front of my reading list(meaning I started reading it at once).
Thing was that I only became aware of the book after it was published, like around march of 2014, but I was halfway through it when I heard it was nominated for a Hugo. My first reaction was: "and its going to win". Part of me even though she might get a Nebula award too.
I found it a bit thrilling to be reading it as a result. It was like having a secret that nobody knew about. I would go: "You should read Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie, its really good". When she did her clean sweep of awards, my friends where duly impressed with my good taste and foresight, but it was pure luck of liking the cover.
Not that I will ever tell any of my friends that. As far as they know I am golden.
Yeah, but Vox has promised that if any of the puppie's catagories get no-awarded, he'll make sure that catagory gets 'no-awarded' for every year from now to eternity.
Because, it's about diversity and making sure the deliberately over-looked and under-represented authors get the recognition they deserve, you see.
Also, in terms of someone, somewhere taking silly potshots, I wonder now if anything is going to happen to the G.I. Joe comic character based off of Larry Corriera? :P
A: Its so much more then that. The gender pronoun issue is only the surface of its story about identity and social stratification. Only seeing that is only seeing 10% of the story.
and
B: Why didn't you? If Ann Leckie's way of telling the story is such a easy trick, why haven't you used it? If its just literary flim flamery, why are you still writing in the same way 99.9% of all writers write gender? Why are you not experimenting?
Star Trek's claim to fame is being about trying to make the world a better place. TOS was filled with that.
It amazing how they overlook what Trek is about.
They know he's poison but are too stubborn to disassociate with him because reasons. Which is hella stupid.
Eh, that's nothing new. Back in the day, just about everyone was a man. And it's still uncommon in some places to see two named female characters have a conversation about something other than a man.
/troll
The fact that female pronouns as default is like, groundbreaking and exceptional in the Ancillary books is something that both excites and saddens me
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
One of my single favorite reviews of last year's Hugo nominees included three of the legion examples of Mr. Beale's egregious Latin grammatical errors with paragraph breakdowns of the inaccuracies. It was enjoyable.
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Well it confuses people. How am I supposed to emphasize with a character that does not have a penis?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
The funny thing is, Flint's essay above, while critical of the puppies, says the exact same shit. It's the same problems he just seems to better understand what he's complaining about. Though, of course, he's still wrong.
This quote of Flint's basically sums up what I'm talking about:
Uh yeah Flint, that's the point of an award in many ways. It's not about what sells, it's about what's good.
It's based around your pretty standard cluster of "those damn elites (probably left wing) are looking down on us" thing.
There's no perfect solution, but there's several simple ways to mitigate the issue.
The main one being bandied about is having more nominee slots then one person can nominate. Basically, you can nominate 4 books but there are 6 total nominees. This means that a slate vote can't dominate a category as it did this year. Not without massive amounts of organization anyway.
Thanks, this picture made my day and now I can go to bed a little less angry.
The rationale behind Sad Puppies 3, per Brad Torgerson:
On the Hugos being affirmative action for SFF: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/announcing-sad-puppies-3/
On no longer being able to judge SFF books by their covers: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/sad-puppies-3-the-unraveling-of-an-unreliable-field/
Background:
Io9’s commentary and description of the situation: http://io9.com/the-hugo-awards-were-always-political-now-theyre-only-1695721604
Slate’s commentary and description of the situation: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/04/08/_2015_hugo_awards_how_the_sad_and_rabid_puppies_took_over_the_sci_fi_nominations.html
The Atlantic’s commentary and description of the situation (note: by multiple Hugo award winner Kameron Hurley): http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/the-culture-wars-come-to-sci-fi/390012/
A data analysis of recent Hugos: http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/04/14/sad-puppy-data-analysis/
Matthew Foster on the Sad/Rabid Puppies: http://fosteronfilm.com/thoughts/the-hugos-minor-disappointment-and-the-sad-puppies.htm
Breitbart's commentary and description of the situation (pro-Puppy): http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/04/hugo-awards-nominations-swept-by-anti-sjw-anti-authoritarian-authors/
On the cultural proxy war:
Arthur Chu on Salon about the cultural proxy war: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/sci_fis_right_wing_backlash_never_doubt_that_a_small_group_of_deranged_trolls_can_ruin_anything_even_the_hugo_awards/
Bigthink on the Hugos being part of a cultural proxy war: http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-current-hugo-awards-controversy-is-a-cultural-proxy-war
On Gamergate cross-pollination: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016194.html#016194
Gawker on Gamergate involvement: http://gawker.com/how-gamergate-radicals-seized-sci-fis-most-prestigious-1696731611
On the side of the “SMOFs”:
One of the earliest calls for the use of No Award: http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2015/04/ill-casting-final-hugo-vote/
George R. R. Martin’s initial blog post on the matter: http://grrm.livejournal.com/417521.html
John Scalzi’s post on his initial reactions to the Hugos and intent to vote No Award: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/04/a-note-about-the-hugo-nominations-this-year/
John Scalzi’s post on human shields and poster boys: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/07/human-shields-cabals-and-poster-boys/
Philip Sandifer calls the Puppies neofascists: http://www.philipsandifer.com/2015/04/the-day-fandom-ended.html
Matthew Surridge on declining a Hugo nomination: http://www.blackgate.com/2015/04/04/a-detailed-explanation/
Connie Willis on declining to be a presenter at the Hugos: http://azsf.net/cwblog/?p=116
J. Michael Straczynzki on cancelling the Hugos: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=963692290332301&id=139652459402959
David Gerrold's response to the Puppies: https://www.facebook.com/david.gerrold/posts/10205360779551319?pnref=story
On the side of the Puppies:
Brad Torgersen’s blog: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/
Larry Correia’s blog: http://monsterhunternation.com/
John C. Wright’s blog: http://www.scifiwright.com/
Theodore Beale’s (Vox Day) blog: http://voxday.blogspot.ca/
Larry Correia’s post denying responsibility for the Rabid Puppies: http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/16/im-not-vox-day/
Brad Torgersen’s post about guilt-by-association regarding Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/we-are-not-rabid/
Brad Torgersen's response to the potential use of No Award: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/sp3-solomon/
Larry Correia's response to George R.R. Martin: http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/09/a-response-to-george-r-r-martin-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/#comments
Examples of the type of things that writers involved in the Puppy slate have said that are making people upset:
John C. Wright, on the Legend of Korra: http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/12/the-perversion-of-a-legend/
John C. Wright, on perverse homosex on the Sci-Fi channel: http://s32.photobucket.com/user/starkeymonster/media-full//johncwright_gaypanic.jpg.html
Theodore Beale on NK Jemisin being a half-savage, not fully human, not fully civilized: http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2013/06/a-black-female-fantasist.html
Theodore Beale questioning why women are allowed to vote: http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2005/08/why-dont-women-have-to-vote.html
…You know what? Theodore Beale’s (Vox Day) whole blog: http://voxday.blogspot.ca/
Additional links of interest:
Wikipedia page on the Hugos, containing links to pages with award winner history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award
The Hugo Awards official site: http://www.thehugoawards.org/
Online registration form to register to vote on the Hugos ($40 American for a supporting membership that will allow a person to vote/nominate, and in some cases to receive copies of the nominated works for review): https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php
On Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet withdrawing their Hugo nominations:
http://io9.com/two-authors-withdraw-their-work-from-the-hugo-awards-1698053027
TorInAction subreddit (largely pro-Puppies): http://www.reddit.com/r/TorInAction
Alinsky’s rules for radicals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
A note on Alinsky’s rules for radicals: the Puppies claim that the SMOFs are acting according to the Alinsky “playbook”; it has also been suggested that the entire Puppies platform is itself a textbook perfect use of the playbook.
I actually still had a little respect for Torgersen before that comment. Certainly, he was less abrasive than Beale or Correia, and I think that he believes what he's saying about secret conspiracies and affirmative action voting. But he doesn't think that Connie Willis is capable of coming to her own beliefs and opinions about what's happening with the Hugo awards this year. Connie Willis, winner of eleven Hugos and seven Nebulas, who writes extensively researched history, who is by virtually all accounts one of the sharpest and wittiest writers in SFF. Torgersen thinks that the wee ladybrain of the multiple-time Hugo award emcee and presenter has been mislead, and the poor lass needs to have someone non-partisan explain why the Puppies are needed.
And now, I've lost pretty much what smidgen of respect I had for Torgersen.
what a sack of crap. his whole post is implying by a brilliant world-knowned writer is too dumb to understand the situation.
Well, I mean, she is a lady. You know how flighty they are.
Like wow, what a dick.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Off the topic of the Puppies themselves, this whole thing has made me aware of something that I think actually is somewhat of a problem with the Hugos: three awards for short fiction, but only one novel award.
I think that given how the genre has changed since about 1990 or so, the Best Novel category should be split. Putting the split at 100,000 words puts short novels and most YA fiction in one category, and the big doorstopper epics in another. Short Novel and Long Novel categories would allow for more recognition of deserving works.
That's what this bullshit has accomplished. Its ensured that one of the best SF novels in years didn't even get nominated.
It was self-published in 2011. It would not be eligible, for the same reason one of John C. Wright's short stories was disqualified.
(Three-Body Problem, for one... so I'm glad that it was 6th place in the running and while I'm sad for Marko Kloos, I feel confident he'll have plenty more opportunities.)
I like the Short Novel/Long Novel idea, wonder if we'll see some rumblings in that direction after the WSFS convene
That would also help to prevent the genre-segregation I think they're trying to bypass by having one category (and not "best Fantasy thing" and "best SF thing" and so on.)
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Yeah, the actual problems with the Hugos are things like "the awards are a relic of a completely different time when sci-fi short fiction was the big thing and haven't changed a bit since then".
Yep. Splitting things into best fantasy novel/best SF novel just doesn't work in my opinion. Too many books straddle the line. Or exist comfortably on both sides of the line. But there's already precedent for splitting things by length. In practice, I think that it would lead to some degree of genre segregation, with fantasy tending to fall into the long novel category and science fiction and YA works falling into the short novel category. But there would definitely be heavy overlap, and when someone wants to write the signature epic 800 page hard science fiction novel of '20s, it'd be in the long novel category.