|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find junk like this very, very disappointing; I can't see a downside of having more diverse writers, or more literary writing win awards within the genre. Speaking as a white dude, I always enjoyed fantasy and science fiction for the diversity of the authors, and the literary quality of the writing. Sure, sometimes that was Philip Jose Farmer's hallucinogenic were world poet, but sometimes it was Kindred by Octavia Butler. Then again, if the field is getting diverse enough that the dudes feel a need to DO SOMETHING, that might actually be a net positive, provided they're not successful.
Yeesh, remember when the biggest controversy about the Hugo Awards was how they invented the category of Best Other Format so the prose novels wouldn't have to compete with Watchmen?
Could have sworn it was the Midsummer Night's Eve issue of Sandman that stirred up that drama, but that may have been another award. I can totally see Watchmen causing the same arguments though. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to link John Scalzi's post on the matter.
Could have sworn it was the Midsummer Night's Eve issue of Sandman that stirred up that drama, but that may have been another award. I can totally see Watchmen causing the same arguments though. :)I find junk like this very, very disappointing; I can't see a downside of having more diverse writers, or more literary writing win awards within the genre. Speaking as a white dude, I always enjoyed fantasy and science fiction for the diversity of the authors, and the literary quality of the writing. Sure, sometimes that was Philip Jose Farmer's hallucinogenic were world poet, but sometimes it was Kindred by Octavia Butler. Then again, if the field is getting diverse enough that the dudes feel a need to DO SOMETHING, that might actually be a net positive, provided they're not successful.
Yeesh, remember when the biggest controversy about the Hugo Awards was how they invented the category of Best Other Format so the prose novels wouldn't have to compete with Watchmen?
That was the World Fantasy Award, I think. He won Best Short Story for a comic book, and they, like, immediately changed the charter (or whatever) to make comics ineligible. As far as I know, Gaiman's the only writer to win a prose award for a comic book, flat out. Okay, fine, look, I'm pretty sure Spiegelman won the Pulitzer for Maus for political cartooning, not literature, cause they already had a cartooning category, but honestly, I'd love to be wrong on that one. I think the world would be a better place if the Pulitzers had a comic book award.
. . .
Also, that bit of my quote that says "were world poet," that should read "werewolf porn." Look, I'm not saying it wasn't an educational experience, just maybe you don't want to leave an 11 year old alone with a bookshelf, it'll give 'em ideas! :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could have sworn it was the Midsummer Night's Eve issue of Sandman that stirred up that drama, but that may have been another award. I can totally see Watchmen causing the same arguments though. :)I find junk like this very, very disappointing; I can't see a downside of having more diverse writers, or more literary writing win awards within the genre. Speaking as a white dude, I always enjoyed fantasy and science fiction for the diversity of the authors, and the literary quality of the writing. Sure, sometimes that was Philip Jose Farmer's hallucinogenic were world poet, but sometimes it was Kindred by Octavia Butler. Then again, if the field is getting diverse enough that the dudes feel a need to DO SOMETHING, that might actually be a net positive, provided they're not successful.
Yeesh, remember when the biggest controversy about the Hugo Awards was how they invented the category of Best Other Format so the prose novels wouldn't have to compete with Watchmen?
That was the World Fantasy Award, I think. He won Best Short Story for a comic book, and they, like, immediately changed the charter (or whatever) to make comics ineligible. As far as I know, Gaiman's the only writer to win a prose award for a comic book, flat out. Okay, fine, look, I'm pretty sure Spiegelman won the Pulitzer for Maus for political cartooning, not literature, cause they already had a cartooning category, but honestly, I'd love to be wrong on that one. I think the world would be a better place if the Pulitzers had a comic book award.
. . .
Also, that bit of my quote that says "were world poet," that should read "werewolf porn." Look, I'm not saying it wasn't an educational experience, just maybe you don't want to leave an 11 year old alone with a bookshelf, it'll give 'em ideas! :P
Ah, that was it! Thanks!
And yeah, I was left alone with an Erik van Lustbader book at an early age too. Young!me had mostly associated ninja with turtles up until that fateful point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of which means there wasn't prejudice against female writers in SF. Though I may have been understating "a few decades". Or showing my age.:)
Was there? A few decades ago or less, I mean.
I don't pay much attention to the background stuff but I know most of my favorite authors when I was a kid were women, and they were all best sellers. Ursula Le Guin, Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, Andre Norton, Marion Zimmer-Bradley, and the like.
Yeah, I was interested in the "Wereworld poet" too.
Autocorrect, man, just, autocorrect; what are you gonna do about it?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was interested in the "Wereworld poet" too.Autocorrect, man, just, autocorrect; what are you gonna do about it?
Lament that wild, psychedelic, stream-of-consciousness lyrical journey of a man and his inner biosphere that could have, or perhaps should have, been.
;)
Meh... awards are often populist crap no matter which end of the spectrum it goes.
Also just a minor point...just a few examples Lovecraft was a racist sexist piece of crap human even for his time...it even shows up in his work constantly. Yet that does not change the fact that to some his writing is very highly entertaining. (Not me personally)
Wagner hated Jews...but I love his music.
I don't know anything about the authors mentioned, but because of their personal views no matter how infect their works does not mean that their art has no value.
I think Stephen King told a story where he got o meet a favorite authors of his and realized what a complete a!@#$%%^ the guys was. He even wrote a short story based on it.
I am not defending their views or even their works. But I think people take these awards things way too serious...I mean if I like a book...I could care less if it won award or not.
Well, John, that's the whole issue right there, isn't it? If your book didn't win the Hugo last year, and you think it's a better idea to start a voting campaign than write a new book, that's very indicative of the quality of your writing, wouldn't you say?
Edit: I'm sorry if that came out in an adversarial tone of voice, I'm trying to agree with you. :)
Well, John, that's the whole issue right there, isn't it? If your book didn't win the Hugo last year, and you think it's a better idea to start a voting campaign than write a new book, that's very indicative of the quality of your writing, wouldn't you say?
Edit: I'm sorry if that came out in an adversarial tone of voice, I'm trying to agree with you. :)
Not a issue and completely agree...if a author spends more time trying to win awards by other ways other than writing a good book...that their writing probably is of low quality.
@thejeff: Agree with you 100%...it should be fixed...though personally I just could care less as I don't let my reading be dictated by popular vote...or elitist judges telling me what is good.
@Hrothdane: I completely agree...but I will guarantee that you probably all ready love the works of a a$&hats. Take your favorite author, actor, what have you...now meet them. What do you do if you discover this person is a complete a$&hats? I brought up Wagner before...I know if I met the man in real life I would punch him in face...but his music still is beautiful to me...
Maybe I can explain it better...art is the one thing a person can create that transcend beyond them. Once a writer publishes his book...he does not own it anymore. The reader does. His interpretation of the work will over ride what the author intended all the time.
If Hitler (yes I am going there) painted the most beautiful painting in the world...I think it should win the best painting award.
The Hugo awards sound pretty mess up now...but I think it was probably messed up before this...
Shrug I am probably making a horrid support for my viewpoints here...I'll go sit in the corner because I don't want to seem like I am defending these people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The use of a slate, while not against the rules, is gaming the system and many view it as dishonorable
Use of legitimate tactics is not dishonorable. Nor is it bullying.
but it is the first instance of multiple influential people pushing the same list.
Is it? Or just the first openly visible one? If those who support it are to be believed, this process was already going on behind the scenes, with specific choices picked out ahead of time by those who previously influenced it.
letting their "superior numbers" win the day for them
That's how voting works. No sense getting upset at it when it's working as intended. Unless 'intended' is 'exluding people with those views', in which case it deserves to be distorted as it supports a specific faction.
If they lose despite three years of trying to game the system it proves them the minority. Worldcon profits from the money they paid to vote AND Worst case is next year there are competing slates, basically creating political parties. I think the professional world (minus lunatic fringes) is too big and interconnected for that to happen.
That is the logical conclusion, yes. But it's better to have multiple parties than a single one.
---
My political views are liberal, I believe in true equality among people of all blah blah, the usual thing.
Are there people who say they are against equality? Near as I can tell, there are two groups. The first claims that equality is a measurable state and claim to work toward it. The other group claims that equality is both impossible and those who define it are simply pushing their own agenda.
if the science fiction fandom leans very heavily towards liberalism (which by most accounts it does),
By the account of liberals, yes. I bet the conservatives and the middle group (libertarians?) would say that the fandom leans toward their side.
Some also go farther than that and say that if you go to a panel and see an all white, all male participants, that's an example of racism (to me that seems like more of an example of demographic distribution - for example, about 15% of Americans are black, I would expect that blacks are underrepresented in SF fandom because of social and economic issues that are bigger than the genre, so if about one out of 10 panelists is black, that just means equal treatment).
This, however, is good science and shows an understanding of statistics. However, when someone brings up the question of 'equality', this becomes a sticking point.
Is 'equality' in this instance what you describe? You seem to think so, and I approve of this view.However, some would argue that 'equality' means having an equal number of white and black in the panel.
Even in the same groups, people will argue over this.
Not perfect, of course, but nothing has ever been, and what we have now is way closer than what most of humanity ever had.
This is a healthy view, and important to remember for those arguing over definitions.
---
Despite the Sad Puppies claims, liberal writers have in fact not done anything along these lines.
Not sure I follow. I don't care about the Liberal VS Conservative bit here, and from what I've read, many of them don't either. I care about how those who are under-represented due to not having backing by a major publisher would otherwise get little or no visibility. I may or may not agree with the reasoning of the Sad Puppies, but I do care about the possibility of breaking through that limitation.
Several categories are going to get No Award votes, which means that deserving authors are going to be shut out of this years award with no award given. And some authors/stuff are going to get shut out for getting nominated by Sad Puppies even though they are solid works
Firstly: That's a possibility, but not a certainty. The "No Award" bit was put in there to show the system was being abused. But it still requires a majority to do that. If the opposition is so organized as you claim, it is unlikely that this technique will work.
Secondly: Getting shut out because Sad Puppies nominated them is a TERRIBLE reason to do so, and it's NOT the fault of Sad Puppies, at least not entirely. It's the fault of those willing to make those authors casualties in their war of control.---
I'm on mobile and short for time, but:
If you can't see how VD is as horrible a racist and homophobe as he is a misogynist, you didn't continue reading those entries. They go on for several pages, and are not all inclusive.
Read the first three pages, at least. Again, no major racist, just a minor bigoted comment. Misogynist? Absolutely, already agreed here. Homophobe? Only saw a single comment that could go that way, and it was a really extreme rant about a Magic card, of all things. One of my favorite of the new cards, in fact.
Nifty on the John C Wright links. Don't know him, but will check them out later. If there's anything as crazy as the previous Miso ones, I'll be sure to write back.
As for this not amounting to bullying, that's laughable. That is exactly what we are seeing here. These are people who see others getting some of the pie they once held in entirety and can only see that as themselves as losing ground when they still have the vast majority of media catering to them already.
Aaand then you go back to this...
The only thing laughable is that there is no example here of bullying. NOTHING. If you want to accuse them of bullying, you need to back it up, and saying that they legally used votes to change a system from within is not bullying. To continue to say so, without evidence, is to cheapen the meaning of the word. It's a serious word. Please do not overuse it without grounds until it becomes a silly word.---
From what I've seen, the award in recent years was controlled by a small clique of fans centered around Tor Books and social justice issues. They had a disproportionate influence on the awards just because the voting base was so incredibly small, and people who didn't like it were more likely to just walk away than to recruit others with similar tastes to join in. Until now, anyway.
That seems to be the purpose behind Sad Puppies, yes.
---
I could go on but that's a good enough chunk, I think, to make my point.
Science fiction exists, in part, to explore issues of humanity and social justice. Why shouldn't the awards reflect that?
There's a difference between 'reflecting' and 'being the sole purpose of'. If all the awards go because of those things, and not based on the entirety of sci-fi, then it has been hijacked by a special interest group that desires only to spread their interests.
Perhaps a good solution would be to introduce those categories as awards. Then the 'totality Sci-Fi' people could be happy along with the 'socially-progress-focused Sci-Fi' people too.
---
I don't have much to contribute to this thread, but consider this my reminder to everyone that science fiction was invented by a teenage girl.
As fun as it would be for this to be true, tales of father and sun flying on wax and feather wings, swords that shine like rainbows and cut through mountains, and weapons that can obliterate entire armies in a single shot fired by mortals who challenge the gods fill human history with examples of what we now call "Sci-Fi" long before we had the term for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not about "These people are asshats but they're getting nominated for awards because their books are good anyway."
It's about "These people are asshats and they're hijacking the nomination process to get their books nominated over better ones."
Of course, they see it the other way around, because there's no way people could actually like those books with "intersectional equalitarianism, racial and gender inclusion, literary pyrotechnics, or professional rabbitology."
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah but before than...all it was being nominated were books that reflect a political ideology...leaning left if you will. So was it fair before? Are you going to tell me that because somebody lean right they can't produce a work or art?
Again I really disagree with what is happening now...but was it really fair before hand? Is my question. Is this provoking outrage because it is wrong (which I believe it is) or because people whose viewpoints you disagree with a playing the system as people who you do agree with where doing before?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea why they have 3 people listed at 4. I'd have thought Stephanie Meyer would be number 4, and everyone else moved down, but whatever.
It's because there isn't an accurate count of Michael Crichton and Dean Koontz overall sales for some reason. They have variously been logged as anywhere between 200 million and 300 million in total, due to (if I recall correctly, it's been about a year since I looked this up) debates over which of their books fall into what genre exactly (stuff like "Is the Andromeda Strain sci-fi or thriller?"), among other things contributing to an inaccurate count.
To hell with everything, let's just nominate Picnic on Paradise as the single best science fiction novel ever.
Meh... awards are often populist crap no matter which end of the spectrum it goes.
Yep!
Also just a minor point...just a few examples Lovecraft was a racist sexist piece of crap human even for his time...it even shows up in his work constantly. Yet that does not change the fact that to some his writing is very highly entertaining. (Not me personally)
Wagner hated Jews...but I love his music.
Yep. The lesson here is that the opinions of the person, while important, can be seperated from the merits of the work, and to dismiss the latter because you disagree with the former is not the fault of the other guy.
I think Stephen King told a story where he got o meet a favorite authors of his and realized what a complete a!@#$%%^ the guys was. He even wrote a short story based on it.
This is how I feel about King himself. I love about a third of his works and don't care for the rest. Yet he's said a lot of things I totally disagree with. Doesn't stop the Dark Tower from being one of my favorite series, though.
Perhaps, but awards can make careers. They bring attention, more readers, contracts for more books.
Not always of course and you can make it without them, but they do matter.
It's the hijacking of the awards into an attack on "SJWs" that bothers me, not just the particular works this year.
From their point of view, the "SJW's" did the initial attack, in the form of completely legal voting. Goose, meet gander.
Again, I don't care about their view one way or the other on that aspect, I just prefer seeing those who don't already have well-known careers, attention, and contracts getting the chance to be recognized.It's about "These people are asshats and they're hijacking the nomination process to get their books nominated over better ones."
Are they? What defines those books as 'better', aside from 'some people support those authors instead of the others, because of this other group over here"? Have you read them all and can definitively say the entire slate is worse than the opposition?
Of course, they see it the other way around,
Yes, they have a different opinion than you. That is to be expected if you are against them. Doesn't make them wrong. Also, that "no way anyone could actually like those books" bit? That's a strawman, and is not their reasoning.
The entire quote, which is ACTUALLY from their site and not a personal re-interpretation of it is as follows:
But they are similar because we value excellence in actual science fiction and fantasy, rather than excellence in intersectional equalitarianism, racial and gender inclusion, literary pyrotechnics, or professional rabbitology.
They're implying that Science Fiction is more than just those aspects. And I hate to say it, but they are right. Those aspects are a bonus, not the main focus of Sci-Fi.
...whatever Rabbitology is, of course. I'm as confused about that as you are.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
those who are under-represented due to not having backing by a major publisher would otherwise get little or no visibilityIs this the new version of "It's about ethics in gaming journalism."
Brianna Wu has already made the "Hurr durr this is just an extension of Gamergate" comment on Twitter, no need for you to lower yourself to that level Jeff.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brianna Wu has already made the "Hurr durr this is just an extension of Gamergate" comment on Twitter, no need for you to lower yourself to that level Jeff.those who are under-represented due to not having backing by a major publisher would otherwise get little or no visibilityIs this the new version of "It's about ethics in gaming journalism."
Actually they are factually joined at the hip.
Is this the new version of "It's about ethics in gaming journalism."
I don't know about that, so I can't say one way or the other. Can you clarify with another example? This sounds like some other issue that has been battled over that I was not a part of.
Scalzi did post which of his works were eligible on his blog and opened up a thread for discussion of other nominees, but I don't believe there was a consensus of what to nominate. I've never seen any evidence or even specific accusations about Tor, other that they must have been doing something since they won a lot.
That's cool. Has the opposition attempted to provide any evidence against it, and has anyone else looked?
The other thing is that even last year when the Puppies got some on the final slate, they lost, suggesting that either the voting process is also rigged or that maybe they really aren't that popular.
So did people get this upset then, too? Or only when it works?
Because if the former, they should have done something to fix that, or at the least expected a more coordinated effort. That's on them.If the latter, well, they better do something if they want to keep their control over it.
*Also, could you please not group all your responses. It makes it much more difficult to reply to as specific point.
Uh... I'd love to, but when half a day passes and there's like 20+ replies, my choices are either to clump up the responses all in one or two posts, or spam the board with a separate reply for each and every person I referenced. I favor the former approach, but if you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
---
Also, I did check on the Rabid Puppies list. My estimation for them goes down a little on the 'publisher VS self-published' category, at least when it comes to 'Best Novella'. Unless "Castalia House" is a lesser publisher there (Finland, I believe?), then that seems to go against the 'variety' approach I prefer. The rest of the categories I still stand behind.
I really wish I had not seen Vox's rant of racist crud. I am a white male in the first world, and how do I feel now, like I just took a racist kick to the nuggets. The only thing this fool needs now are panzer tanks and Poland. If anyone listed to this moron they likely have an IQ lower than my shoe size, and my feet are pretty small for a male. This short of thing is exactly why I feel ashamed to be a white man. Oh, and the argument that white people made the continent what it is, yeah we did, we killed most of the population with disease, then beat up the few that lived, yeah, good us, that's a REAL great thing to be proud of. (that was snark for those who were wondering)
Brianna Wu has already made the "Hurr durr this is just an extension of Gamergate" comment on Twitter, no need for you to lower yourself to that level Jeff.those who are under-represented due to not having backing by a major publisher would otherwise get little or no visibilityIs this the new version of "It's about ethics in gaming journalism."Why not? It's the same damn thing.
The same reaction against diversity. The same bashing of "Social Justice Warriors". And apparently the same kind of mealy mouthed: "No, it's not about what we say it's about to drum up support, it's about professional ethics."
In fairness, it's not about threats and doxxing and the other real nastiness.
But at the heart, it's the same backlash.
Gamergate is a cesspool of s&+$ on both sides. You have professional victims like Wu and Sarkeesian on one side, and loathsome a!@@+!*s coming out of your ears on the other.
This is nowhere near that level of f+@&ery.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Read the first three pages, at least. Again, no major racist, just a minor bigoted comment. Misogynist? Absolutely, already agreed here. Homophobe? Only saw a single comment that could go that way, and it was a really extreme rant about a Magic card, of all things. One of my favorite of the new cards, in fact.
Nifty on the John C Wright links. Don't know him, but will check them out later. If there's anything as crazy as the previous Miso ones, I'll be sure to write back.
....sweet Jesus.
If "You have two choices, Americans. Either criminalize their behavior and force them back into the closet or be run out of town yourself. There is no middle ground." and ""All men are created equal" cannot possibly apply in a material sense in any world where all men are not even equally homo sapiens sapiens." qualify as "minor bigoted comment" at most to you, your metric is completely out of whack.
Aaand then you go back to this...
The only thing laughable is that there is no example here of bullying. NOTHING. If you want to accuse them of bullying, you need to back it up, and saying that they legally used votes to change a system from within is not bullying. To continue to say so, without evidence, is to cheapen the meaning of the word. It's a serious word. Please do not overuse it without grounds until it becomes a silly word.
Bullying is exactly what we have here. When you have a bunch of people engaging on forum raid zerg rush tactics on a vulnerable system to push around people less privileged than them all while nominating an organized slate of works they didn't even read? That's bullying.
And legal does not equal "ethically and morally sound".
Dude, seriously? You are playing deliberately obtuse.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Laura Mixon responds to her nomination, pointing out that the SF/F community is stuck fighting a two-front war to remain a decent place to be for all sorts of people.
Requires Hate’s attacks on fellow writers and fans, under the guise of social justice, have been happening under the radar for most people in the SFF community-at-large, but the impacts are far-reaching. The attacks have had a serious and demoralizing impact on a range of people who either are themselves vulnerable or marginalized, or else who read and/or write stories in diverse settings or with characters from diverse communities. In other words, the people harmed have been the very ones we want to nurture, promote, and elevate—and note, who often share the views and are even some of the same people as those under attack by the Sad Puppies.
As a result of Requires Hate’s actions, valuable members of our community have been silenced, harassed, even chased out of the field—people whose voices we need as we respond to campaigns like Sad Puppies. And Requires Hate’s attacks are still ongoing. If we are committed to protecting our community from assault by haters, in other words, Requires Hate’s actions matter just as much as the Sad Puppies’ do. Her situation is just a lot messier than theirs.
With Vox Day and his ilk, it’s not hard for decent, caring people to figure out where they stand. That’s not as true of Requires Hate. For me, her situation is more complicated. It’s awful and icky and sad, and raises all kinds of challenges and questions about how we engage with each other and how social-justice concepts should be applied in the real world.
But as hard as it is for us to wrestle with this—and as unnerving as it is to have this conversation under the gaze of the Sad-Puppies’ militant allies, the GamerHaters, who’ve done horrible things to people in the gaming community who are seeking to expand diversity in their own field—we have an obligation not to avert our collective gaze. People are still being targeted by Requires Hate, and the community is still at risk.
Rochita Loenen-Ruiz deserves a ton of credit too for maintaining amazing grace under fire and providing a safe space for RH's victims.
|
Very much an aside...
It was the same sort of silliness that got Jedism recognised as an official religion in Britain.
Yes, 176,632 people listed Jedi as their religion on the 2011 UK National Census, down from 390,127 in 2001. This, however, did not lead to it being recognised as a religion, any more than it would if they had put "gamer".
We're not quite that stupid over here. Yet...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "You have two choices, Americans. Either criminalize their behavior and force them back into the closet or be run out of town yourself. There is no middle ground." and ""All men are created equal" cannot possibly apply in a material sense in any world where all men are not even equally homo sapiens sapiens." qualify as "minor bigoted comment" at most to you, your metric is completely out of whack.
Hot damn, was that on one of the first three pages? Cause I totally missed it.
Bullying is exactly what we have here. When you have a bunch of people engaging on forum raid zerg rush tactics on a vulnerable system to push around people less privileged than you? That's bullying.
Aaand... back to this. I swear, it's like I totally respect you for one thing, but for another, I just can't see how you can seriously think that way.
Forum raid Zerg tactics? Do you mean LEGALLY VOTING? Because if that's what you are referring to, then IT IS NOT BULLYING. Winning a vote IS NOT BULLYING.
Drop the privilege act, unless you intend to show how they are pushed around. That's another word that will get weakened by incorrect overuse.
Did they threaten anyone's life?
Did they threaten anyone with force or the potential use of force to change their vote or not vote at all?
Did they send hateful E-Mails en masse to accomplish the above goal?
Did they threaten to disclose personal information on the potential voters that disagreed with them in order to make them vote the way the disclosers wanted (or not vote at all)?
Did they use dozens or hundreds of people in a collective effort to DOS or DDOS the opposition's web servers to deny them the ability to communicate?
If so, you might have a case for 'bullying'. But since you mention 'Zerg tactics', you're going to need more than just one or two individual examples, even if you can find them.
Note that talking bad about someone in your personal area or a place where the talked-about person doesn't frequent is not bullying either.
And legal does not equal "ethically and morally sound".
Ah, so by what moral or ethically system are you using? Your own? That must make it really easy to accuse those one disagrees with of being unethical and immoral. As it is, the law is the enforcement of ethics, and morality is a separate case altogether. (EDIT: Note that if one defines Ethics and Morality as being the same, this will obviously make no sense. So, in my personal definition, "Ethics" applies to the society as a whole, "Morality" applies to the individual. Law/Chaos VS Good/Evil, in D&D terms. If this is different from your definition, please state your version so that I can understand it without assuming it is the same as mine and we end up arguing over stupid misunderstandings for no reason.)
Arguably, they thought the side you support was doing something immoral and unethical as well. So they responded. If you'd like to state an objective measurement of the morality, I'd certainly like to see it.Dude, seriously? You are playing deliberately obtuse.
No, I'm using correct wording deliberately. There's nothing obtuse about it. If something doesn't qualify as bullying, then it is not bullying. Even acting in a manner that you find immoral or unethical is not bullying.
---
"opposition"? What opposition? And evidence against what? Can we at least have specific accusations before some undefined group has to prove their innocence?
The Opposition: The people who oppose your views. In this case, Vox, Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, and their supporters.
Against It: Against Tor, the ones they claimed to do this.As for "specific accusations" and "proving innocence", try not to strawman me. ESPECIALLY when I am asking for evidence to prove GUILT, which your own opposition might not have even provided!
On who?
Expected a more coordinated effort in altering the results of the vote on the next year, after the first one where it was ineffective.
Again, you're assuming there's some opposing group that has control over the nominations.
No. I'm assuming that the Puppies are the opposing group, and that they believe that there is a group of others who previously altered the process. This is provably true (that they believe it). I asked you if you've seen them attempt to provide any evidence. Your entire reply, up until this point, was you attempting to deconstruct my argument when I was favoring your side and simply asking if you had seen any attempt by your opponents to address the issue.
Organizing a "leftist" group to make a slate to oppose the "rightist" Puppies defeat the whole point. Better to just kill the awards entirely.
Welp, against you now. That didn't take long.
Yes, let's just scorched earth anything that doesn't go the way we desire. Especially something which arguably grants more visibility and draws more attention to works that might not be noticed.Fact is, the system is changing. If you don't like it, that's fine. If you think it's better to be rid of it, that's your opinion. Me, I'd rather see it survive, whichever 'side' is in control, because more visibility for Sci-Fi is a good thing.
That would be perfectly within the rules of the current system. And a total violation of the intent and of the gentleman's agreement under which it's worked for decades.
The problem with 'Gentleman's Agreements' is that they only really work for the first few generations of 'gentlemen'. Once the rubber hits the road of reality, things will change. Especially when the 'newer generation' of gentlemen on both sides never actually made that agreement in the first place.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Torgersen says we need more "swashbuckling fun."
I'm gonna write a story about the swashbuckling adventures of an asexual bi-romantic Japanese/German woman and her genderqueer pansexual Native American lover. They fight against Nazi u-boats that time-traveled back to the Napoleonic Age and setup a secret underwater cloning base at Trafalgar so they could replace key historical figures with homophobic white-supremacists, altering the course of history.
That sounds like a fun story to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, dunno about Vox or Sad Puppies or anything, but it certainly seems like the Scalzi guy they oppose did the same thing they are accused of, for several years running:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/01/02/the-2014-award-consideration-post/
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/03/the-2013-award-consideration-post/
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/01/03/the-2012-award-pimpage-post/
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/01/03/the-2011-award-pimpage-post/
Etc. Went back to at least 2008 before I stopped.
(Not gonna URL that, just copy and paste into your browser of choice.)
He made a list for his followers to vote on, mostly of his own works in several categories.
Seems the only functional difference between Scalzi and the Puppies is a matter of scale. Well, that and the latter nominate several other authors, instead of just themselves.
first, something that hasn't been mentioned yet...It actually wouldn't take a whole lot of votes to fix the nominations. The short fiction categories generally sometimes need as little as 12 votes to get on the docket. Hence why I am fairly certain NO AWARD will carry the day on those categories...
As far as statements that the the political beliefs of authors shouldn't influence whether you read them or not...yes and no.
For one, a lot of authors do let their politics color their work. A really great author doesn't, but face it...a lot of authors are not that great. Terry Goodkind is the perfect example of this. I dislike the author for his politics, but I loathe the author for how badly they are integrated into all his work. Even outstanding authors like (Hugo award-winning) Dan Simmons sometimes let it sneak in.
Secondly...there is an almost infinite number of horror, fantasy, and science fiction novels and anthologies out there, more than I will ever be able to finish. If someone wants to loudly shout across the internets viewpoints I find disgusting...why should I give them the time of day?
as far as the Sad Puppies, they have never presented ANY evidence that the nominations were rigged in any sort of consistent manner by Scalzi and colleagues. Their evidence seem to solely rest on their observation that work that they don't like wins. Thats it.
Also yes..should the Hugos decline where opposing factions have to put forth their own roster, then yeah cancel the awards. Because at that point it won't be writing ability being judged, it will be idealogical conformity.
Not make vague accusations and send me looking for it.
Good thing I wasn't making accusations then. I was simply asking if you had seen it or not.
I don't want a side to be in control. Or, more accurately, I only see two sides here - the Puppies and the rest of fandom. I want the fans to be in control.
That's fine. About not wanting a side to be in control, anyway.
And it's interesting that your view of "sides" is "the one you don't like" and "everyone else, who is the 'real' fandom". Pretty sure their view is similar, in that there's "the side they don't like" and "everyone else, who is the real fandom they support".
If that means more fans tend to like the more inclusive works, that's not one "side" winning, that's how it's supposed to work.
Actually, that is one "side" winning. It just so happens to be the one you agree with, since you've categorized those who disagree as the Other and everyone else as the Us. What about the fans who don't care whether the stories are 'inclusive works', but just want good Sci-Fi?
Furthermore, if the 'other side' manages to pull the support of more fans, does that not mean that more fans tend to like that work?If there is some cabal of leftist Secret Masters of Fandom, then I want them outed and booted out, even if that means that we'll see less inclusive works winning awards.
That's what the Sad Puppies claim they are doing. At least everyone is in agreement on that point!
Nominate stuff you like. And avoid slates anyone is pushing.
See my previous post in the thread. At least one on the other side is pushing a 'slate', all of his own works, and has been for years. He's not the only one. Slates are everywhere, and this entire event is likely to push that into being the standard in the future. That, or the entire thing will be annihilated. While you favor the latter in that scenario, I'd rather have the former.
---
As far as statements that the the political beliefs of authors shouldn't influence whether you read them or not...yes and no.
For one, a lot of authors do let their politics color their work. A really great author doesn't, but face it...a lot of authors are not that great.
I'd argue that a 'great' author would be able to accurately portray multiple political viewpoints accurately in a story, without mis-representing any of them to push his or her agenda, but yes, what you say is true.
Sad Puppies, they have never presented ANY evidence that the nominations were rigged in any sort of consistent manner by Scalzi and colleagues. Their evidence seem to solely rest on their observation that work that they don't like wins. Thats it.
See the above post. It seems as if the real difference is that the Puppies got together to form a combined list, whereas the originals they oppose each had separate lists they pushed to their fans. The difference is one used a more refined system. Not sure I'd call that 'rigging' it, but I can see as how some would.
Because at that point it won't be writing ability being judged, it will be idealogical conformity.
If the works that are recognized are biased toward a specific subcategory of writing that pushes an agenda, then it seems they already had an idealogical conformity. Alternatively, if they all support a specific publisher, that also is a form of conformity of a more base sort.
|
Brianna Wu has already made the "Hurr durr this is just an extension of Gamergate" comment on Twitter, no need for you to lower yourself to that level Jeff.those who are under-represented due to not having backing by a major publisher would otherwise get little or no visibilityIs this the new version of "It's about ethics in gaming journalism."Why not? It's the same damn thing.
The same reaction against diversity. The same bashing of "Social Justice Warriors". And apparently the same kind of mealy mouthed: "No, it's not about what we say it's about to drum up support, it's about professional ethics."
In fairness, it's not about threats and doxxing and the other real nastiness.
But at the heart, it's the same backlash.
This makes NO sense. Fantasy/sci-fi has ALWAYS been a hotbed of diversity and social subversion - since when have the rednecks invaded? I don't get GamerGate, but I worry about it becoming a spectacularly unjust misunderstanding that makes gaming look like the polar opposite of what it actually is. I do know firsthand that some sociologists/political activists become so saturated by their fight against fascism (which, by all rights, should just plain be OVER - it makes me furious that my generation has to deal with this when we could have been the first to be in the clear - it's like we're being forcibly devolved) that they wind up seeing backwardness and savagery everywhere, even in the places and people who are most innocent and evolved. It's the ultimate tragedy - the bad guys have polluted them so greatly that they can't recognize their successes, and consequently take a collaborative hand in killing the new and better civilization in its fragile sapling stage.
Absolutely. I didn't mean the sides were the "rightists" vs "everyone else who I agree with", but "the people pushing these slates of ideologically acceptable works" vs "fans voting for works they've liked as they've done for decades".
Then I apologize for any misunderstanding or misrepresentation of your point on my part.
I see a huge difference between "Here's everything I've written that's eligible this year. Nominate if you like." and "We need to organize and nominate this list of works in every category so we can keep the SJWs from stealing it again." I just don't think Scalzi's "slate" is even in the same category. And that's not because I agree with him. I've never even read any of his books. I wouldn't have any problem with anyone, even the Puppy people, doing the same thing.
If they'd provide some evidence for those claims of a leftist cabal, rather than just trying a coup using it as an excuse and using much more questionable tactics than anything we know about from what they consider the other side.
Except... that's a mischaracterization of their intent, and I'm not sure if you're deliberately doing so or not. Stopping the "SJW's" is a bonus. Their purpose was to nominate what they believed to be good Sci-Fi instead of just what the supposed "Cabal" was trying to push. After reading through all these posts, I decided to dig through those links more. Many of them are upset at the poor writing and the choice to focus on those 'pet issues' rather than quality Sci-Fi. Their list of authors isn't a list all on one side of the political spectrum, and in some cases they have nominated people they disagree with but have, in their eyes, written good stories.
Go to their sites and look at the measuring of the total votes in various categories, which authors get what, and which publishers always seem to have a majority, if not totality, of winners.
They had multiple goals. Reducing the influence of the "SJW's" was just one of them. They seem rather happy that many of those goals are being met. This is more than just a one-sided opposition of a single group, and to continue to assume that is the only goal is either a willful denial of the complexity of the issue or the inability to focus on more than a single thing at a time.
Now, are some of them (like Vox) in possession of some reprehensible views or seem to take an aggressive stance on the matter? Absolutely. Doesn't refute their point or their reasons for doing what they do in regards to Sci-Fi as a whole.
---
Apparently, in my digging, I've found the reference for your "It's about ethics in gaming journalism" comment. GamerGate?
Another issue to read up on, I suppose.
I'd think there's a pretty obvious difference between campaigning for single books and campaigning for an entire slate.
Doing it as a slate is an attempt to outright shut out all nominees that are not on the slate. There's only 5 nominees, and the slate is an attempt to control all of the spots at once.
(Hell, I am actually surprised that there are categories that SP didn't ID 5 nominees for.)
If anything, I'd expect the Hugos to shift towards multiple competing slates next year, because campaigning for individual books simply won't work in the face of slate-voting.
Vox Day is an actually horrible person, as has been demonstrated upthread.
John C. Wright's just a very disappointing one - what little of his stuff I've read (like Choosers of the Slain) was actually good, and then I check his livejournal and just have to sigh. Especially at seeing him try to defend Gamergate.
Bleh.
Here is why I say this. I don't think asians in general are that much interested in "geek culture." If you have evidence to the contrary, even anecdotal, I'd love to hear it.
What I'm saying is that you think this sort of thing has universal appeal, and all you have to do is build the ballfield and they will come. That everyone thinks exactly as you do, and is exactly the same on the inside, with the same interests.
As...
As someone who considers themselves Asian (though some would undoubtedly disagree, depending on their definition, though if you examine the background, you will see it is definitely part of the Asian Continent), I would absolutely disagree with the idea. Asians are absolutely interested in geek culture, perhaps more so (percentage wise) than the "European Americans" as you would.
I can't speak for all of them by any shot, but I can speak for me.
The Hugo's have NO relevance in the past decade to me, nor my interests. They are some elitest snobfest for those who think they are better then everyone else to hand out awards which no one really cares about anymore because NONE of the books have any relevance to anyone but those who vote for it.
I will say, that the books I've been most interested in the past two years are almost ALL independent books printed via Kindle, Nook, or others, normally by the authors themselves instead of TOR (which has really fallen off my radar as they don't publish the good stuff I enjoy like they used to).
If these new people bring more attention to the independent scheme...more power to them.
However, as for the Asian audience, they have a deep interest in fantasy and Sci-fi and other items. It is NOT NECESSARILY what AMERICANS or EUROPEANS expect or like. Perhaps Asians would be more interested if the novel and other categories included something by ASIANS (as in, from Asia...you know, that place which has Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, a whole slew of Sci Fi shows and cartoons that Americans have never heard of, and a whole continent that out numbers US Americans by several factors). I don't see that many books (actually 0 books) that are by those from Asia. Even the most likely areas, Graphic Novels and such, where Manga has penetrated US markets, there is almost NO representation. Even Graphic Novels are output in greater numbers in Asia than what you see in the US, and only a fraction get to the US or European shores. Still, with what penetration you have into the US, you'd expect at least one or two nominations of such...
The Asian authors are not represented, and the Asian novels, stories, and media regarding Sci-Fi and Fantasy are not represented. Not that it bothers them (they have their own awards and such), but it means that the Asian audience both overseas, and many times in the US, have none of their interests represented nor presented.
There is no vested interest for them in the Hugos.
I've thought about trying to break into the American markets (and I may yet try), but it's a completely different world, with a smaller market than all of Asia. However, you can have a book that's outsold everything printed in English in India or China, and you'll NEVER hear of it in the US or Europe. It's like the fantasy and Sci-Fi worlds are completely separate entities. (Still, I'm starting to work on some things to print in the US again, but I'm not certain I'll be successful, it's very true that it's a White author arena...then again, luckily my name doesn't give away TOO much about my background if I use it in the right way).
However, as far as the Hugo's go...Until your post, I really haven't had much of an interest because there's very little from the Hugo's that have any bearing on my interests (but let me assure you, I am extremely huge into Sci-Fi and Fantasy, just not the ones typically at the Hugos...and that includes the ones THIS year as well after looking at the list).
As for Cons, I have been too a few. Normally, I haven't really been all that impressed and so have saved my money. The ones I've been too I could play at some tables (but to tell the truth, I enjoy the home games with the group at home FAAAAR more than any game at a Con that I've ever played in), and I could listen to some panels (however, 75% of the panelists seem inflated with their own egos half the time to tell the truth. For example, there was a panel of writers, they didn't really discuss HOW to break into the writing field with their specific steps, but instead said generalities which we all knew already and didnt' give anyone any more information). It seemed a waste for me.
It is possible that others of the Asian background have a similar feel. They feel a little isolated, not so much having a ton of fun, and in some ways rather bored. With Cons like that, if others feel like me, it's just not a fun way to spend money.
On the otherhand, I KNOW there are a LOT of Asians that go to Cons in California (not sure about the rest of the West Coast, but California has a good number). Maybe not as high as the European Male audience, but it's still relatively high.
However, to think that Asians don't like Sci-fi or Fantasy...that's just showing ignorance in my opinion.