kate_nepveu: sleeping cat carved in brown wood (Default)
Kate ([personal profile] kate_nepveu) wrote2014-04-20 11:40 pm
Entry tags:

Hugo nominations: disagreement, pleasure, agnosticism

So the nominations for the Hugo Awards (and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, which is, we must ritually say, Not A Hugo) were announced this weekend, and have already occasioned a fair bit of comment while I was spending quality time with my family. (Here, have some cute kid pics.)

Here are some reactions, and reactions to reactions:

First:

The Novelette Category contains a story by the extremely loathsome Vox Day (a discussion of just one recent-ish example). It turns out that he picked up a recommended slate (blog post through do-not-link) from Larry Correia; File 770 saved me from comparing lists in different browser windows, and points out that 7/12 of that slate made it onto the ballot (in the Best Novel (Correia), Novella, Novellete, Fanzine, and Best Editor Long Form categories. It appears that the slate's suggestion in at least one category, Graphic Story, was not actually eligible.).

It is unclear to me whether some of the people on this slate knew it ahead of time and are happy to be associated with Vox Day. Of the writers, a preliminary Google suggests that Brad Torgerson falls into the latter category, at least, but as Dan Wells does the Writing Excuses podcast with Mary Robinette Kowal (among others), who is anathema to the Vox Day crowd, I suspect he may be an innocent bystander.

Anyway. The real point I wanted to make is this:

John Scalzi, who is (ahem, understatement) no fan of Vox Day himself, is advocating against people refusing to read Vox Day or other works on this slate:

To paraphrase a point I made yesterday on Twitter, how terrible it would be if someone elbowed their way onto the Hugo list to make a political point, and all that happened was that their nominated work was judged solely by its artistic merits.

[ . . . ] If you believe that these fellows pushed their way onto the list to make a political point, nothing will annoy them more than for their work to be considered fairly. It undermines their entire point.

It doesn’t mean you give a work an award, if you find it lacking. But you treat it fairly.

And I disagree with John. Here's why:

Even putting aside things like reading brain—which I'll get to in a minute—it is perfectly moral, or ethical, or taking the high road, or good on whatever axis you want to consider, to refuse to honor the work of someone who has engaged in such hateful and actively threatening behavior as Vox Day. Period.

(ETA: and now the reading brain bit:) There are lots of reasons why people don't read things based on their opinions of the authors. Me, if I know that someone holds views I find morally repugnant, or if I personally dislike them, etc., then I can't keep myself from looking for evidence of those disliked traits in the work, which is unfair to the work, and so I don't even bother. Other people refuse to lend support to live authors, but are okay with dead ones. Other people think the author is dead in the interpretive sense to the extent that they don't care. All of these are valid decisions, because the way people read is so personal and because people make different moral and ethical discussions.

So, no, I feel under no obligation to read Vox Day's work, under the guise of fairness or anything else, and neither should you.

Second:

The Wheel of Time, the fourteen-book epic fantasy series by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson, is nominated for Best Novel in its entirety. Here is where I disagree with some quite good friends, and say that even if this makes sense (and I am not convinced that a fourteen-book series really belongs on a Best Novel category, whether or not that is technically permissible), I didn't nominate it and I'm not voting for it, because frankly I don't think it deserves it. Yes, it more-or-less stuck the landing (ugh, I've still never written up the last volume), but the multiple books of wheel-spinning in the late-middle (I've still never read one of them all the way through; err, also, pun not intended) and the incredibly poor way it handles its gender politics mean that as far as I'm concerned, it would be a nostalgia/tribute vote and not one on its merits.

Third:

There are some really exciting things on the ballot, too. Ancillary Justice is one of the most talked-about novels in my circles this past year, and I look forward to reading it. A blog post about erasure of women from history is nominated for Best Related Work (next year, I nominate medievalpoc for something—Fanzine? Fan Writer?). Sites I read regularly are nominated in Semiprozine and Fanzine (Strange Horizons and The Book Smugglers, respectively). I've been nominating Abigail Nussbaum for Fan Writer for years, and I'm thrilled to see her on the ballot; Liz Bourke and Mark Oshiro also do great work. [*] And the Campbell Award nominees are, as best I can tell, at least 80% non-white-males (and the cover of Max Gladstone's first book, the 20%, looks like this). So that's pretty great.

[*] Though eligibility for Fan Writer, when it comes to paid-for work out on the web for free, is really messed up under the WSFS Constitution (PDF), and badly needs revision. When it's not 11:30 at night I can elaborate, if anyone cares, but really, I'm mostly convinced that it should be changed to "nonfiction writer" instead, as someone-or-other suggested.

Fourth:

All that said, I promised agnosticism, which is this: I genuinely cannot find it in me to care whether the Hugos devolve into, as James Nicoll points out with characteristic brevity and asperity, political parties, or whether prior community norms about politicking prevail, or Vox Day et al. get bored, or whatever. Worst comes to worst, a few years of concerted effort results in actual winners instead of mere nominations for hateful trolls, and a few year after that, booksellers and the like catch up and realize that the Hugo is no longer prestigious, and, well, SFF fandom is big, even the bits of it that self-identify as fandom, and WorldCon and the Hugos are only a small part of that. Maybe Locus stops overweighting subscriber votes and becomes the popular award of record. Maybe the Nebulas experience a surge in prestige. Maybe I hit the lottery and endow a juried award in my honor. Who knows? But the Hugos aren't that big a teapot, at the end of the day, and if people want to self-identify with them and participate in the community that votes on them, great, they should do that, and if people don't, great, they should do that too.

(Note: my availability may be erratic over the next couple of days, so I am screening anon comments in an excess of caution. If you're new here, please review the policy statements in my profile before commenting. Thank you.)

scifantasy: Me. (Default)

[personal profile] scifantasy 2014-04-21 03:54 am (UTC)(link)
Of the writers, a preliminary Google suggests that Brad Torgerson falls into the latter category, at least, but as Dan Wells does the Writing Excuses podcast with Mary Robinette Kowal (among others), who is anathema to the Vox Day crowd, I suspect he may be an innocent bystander.

That tracks with my understanding, yeah.

Regarding aspects your points 2 and 3...well, the WSFS Constitution. There are more than a few places where I feel like letting my Con Law prof at it. (Except that my Con Law prof was an ass.) But then, the amendment process is, while not as messy as it is sometimes held to be, not exactly clean or easy.

And you're right that, the Screaming Weasel Slate aside, there is some really strong and interesting stuff in the nominees.

Side topic: I want to know more about "reading brain"

(Anonymous) 2014-04-21 04:19 am (UTC)(link)
You mention "reading brain" and promise to expound on it later. But either the explanation went over my head, or you never got back to it. I couldn't find an explanation of what it is via googling or urban dictionary. Can you explain what you meant by that? Thanks!
wrdnrd: (eyebrow)

[personal profile] wrdnrd 2014-04-21 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
Your 4th point eloquently states my 1st thought upon hearing about the Hugo nominees yesterday: "I should care about this WHY again??" Actual Hugo nominators/voters represent such a small segment of the SFF reading population that i haven't seen the point of getting excited about the awards for a long time*.

[*] Since my friend Randy won as a fanzine editor, to be exact.
silmaril: (Default)

[personal profile] silmaril 2014-04-21 05:01 am (UTC)(link)
My approach to the, um, controversial nominee will be entirely fair.
1. I'll wait for others whom I know for the package to start reading in that category; quite possibly one of them will be curious enough, or manage to be magnanimous enough to follow Scalzi's advice, or something.
2. If at that point they decide that this is a work worth talking about, that it rocked their socks, that they can't stop talking about it because it stayed with them and in a good way, well, then I'll do what I did for the candidates last year and read it at least until I get bored. (Hugos being fan awards, that was my initial selection criterion last year.)
3. If at that point they instead start talking about it, but in similar terms that they would talk about how badly they burned their hand on the stove, well, then I'll know my reaction would probably be not to have gone past the first few pages _anyway_, and consider the work fairly judged enough for my purposes.
4. If I don't hear about it one way or another, I will charitably assume that others have read it, but it was so unremarkable that it didn't elicit any comment. Since part of the reason I vote for a thing is its memorability, I won't bother to read it, assuming it wasn't memorable.

Himself being himself, I know which outcomes are more likely, or rather, which is vanishingly unlikely. So while I can sympathize with Scalzi's suggestion, I don't think I'm in much danger of killing brain cells in vain.
silmaril: Picture of a perfume bottle with the word "sarcasm" embedded on it (Sarcasm)

[personal profile] silmaril 2014-04-21 05:03 am (UTC)(link)
(And fandom being fandom, there will be at least one "I threw myself on this one so you don't have to" post, This I Foretell.)

(no subject)

[personal profile] silmaril - 2014-04-21 15:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] silmaril - 2014-04-21 15:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] ewanmcnay - 2014-04-21 18:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] theweaselking - 2014-04-21 18:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] nancylebov - 2014-04-21 16:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sovay - 2014-04-22 04:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] xiphias - 2014-04-23 22:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] nancylebov - 2014-04-23 22:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] silmaril - 2014-04-27 03:41 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] theweaselking - 2014-04-21 18:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] theweaselking - 2014-04-21 18:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] theweaselking - 2014-04-21 18:27 (UTC) - Expand
leighdb: (Default)

[personal profile] leighdb 2014-04-21 05:18 am (UTC)(link)
The Wheel of Time, the fourteen-book epic fantasy series by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson, is nominated for Best Novel in its entirety. Here is where I disagree with some quite good friends

*grin*

And your honest opinion is, as always, sincerely valued!

Myself, I endorsed the nomination of the Wheel of Time for a number of reasons, as explained in my post about it, but it can be summed up as the belief that the vast impact and influence of the Wheel of Time on the fantasy genre in general and an entire generation of fantasy writers (many of whom are now winning Hugos of their own) in particular cannot be denied, and it is for that reason more than any other that I think the series deserves to be recognized. But this is perhaps not the way everyone chooses to view what the Hugos are for, and I respect that even while disagreeing with it.
prk: (Default)

[personal profile] prk 2014-04-21 08:57 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, this!

I'm also curious what will be in the voting packet for the WoT.

Prk

(Who nominated the series)

[personal profile] kingrat 2014-04-21 05:20 am (UTC)(link)
The award I pay attention to is the Tiptree. Some other awards seem somewhat prestigious to me (the other Campbell, for instance), though I don't pay attention to them like I do the Tiptree.

And this isn't because I'm a feminist (though I am). It's just that I've found the Tiptree to be a far more reliable indicator of interesting reading than the Hugo. The Hugo lost its luster for me a while ago. I'm glad when stories I like get noticed by the award and am happy for the authors, but I've been wishing for the award's diminishment for some time and for other awards to gain prominence.
eagle: Me at the Adobe in Yachats, Oregon (Default)

[personal profile] eagle 2014-04-21 05:25 am (UTC)(link)
I keep track of how good of a predictor the various awards are for my final book rating, out of my own curiosity. Those statistics are on the web for anyone who's curious. The accuracy is only complete for the Hugo, Nebula, and Locus SF, and those for which I've read a subset of the winners will tend to skew higher since that means I sought the books out for other reasons.

One surprise for me was how good the Mythopoeic Award did in general. It's one of the less-well-known, but it's found some great stuff for me, like Sunshine.

(no subject)

[personal profile] kingrat - 2014-04-21 05:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] eagle - 2014-04-21 05:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] phi - 2014-04-22 13:18 (UTC) - Expand
eagle: Me at the Adobe in Yachats, Oregon (Default)

[personal profile] eagle 2014-04-21 05:20 am (UTC)(link)
The first three best novel nominees all look quite interesting in their own, different ways. I suspect Ancillary Justice will be the one I favor for the win, but I'll at least read those three.

I know a few people who have already read Correia's series and were entirely ignorant of any politics or interactions outside of the book. One said that they were okay for what they were (adventure pulp) but distinctly inferior to his other series and nothing to get that excited about. The other said that they were good fun interrupted every 50 pages by an extended diatribe on how much better the world would be if it were run by Correia's rules, which rather ruined the flow of the story. So I'm not feeling very inspired to give that series a try (particularly since it would be a three-book investment, since I don't believe in judging third books of a series without reading the rest).

I'm with you on Wheel of Time. Just on the practical level, I believe one thing that nominators should take into account is that it should be possible for someone not previously familiar with the work to read it following the announcement of the slate of nominees so that they can judge it against its peers. Nominating a 14-book series of doorstops as a single work fails that criteria hard, even if they were the greatest works of fiction in the history of English. Very, very few readers who have not already read them are going to be willing to read that much between now and the end of voting to weigh them fairly. To me, that argues that this sort of thing simply shouldn't be allowed in the rules, since it doesn't create the sort of fair contest that one would ideally like to have.
hebethen: (Default)

[personal profile] hebethen 2014-04-21 06:12 am (UTC)(link)
When I saw that on the ballot, I was wondering how they were planning to put that in the packet.

(no subject)

[personal profile] feuervogel - 2014-04-21 11:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-04-23 17:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] ewanmcnay - 2014-04-21 18:17 (UTC) - Expand

Voting without reading

(Anonymous) 2014-04-21 04:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Not reading works because you don't support their authors views is fine. Normal, even.

But if you're voting for an award on books that you've not read, are you treating the Hugos as anything other than a popularity contest?

Re: Voting without reading

[personal profile] redbird - 2014-04-22 02:12 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Voting without reading

(Anonymous) - 2014-04-23 21:05 (UTC) - Expand
sartorias: (Default)

[personal profile] sartorias 2014-04-21 04:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks for the kid pix!

(no subject)

[personal profile] sartorias - 2014-04-21 18:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sartorias - 2014-04-21 19:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] sarahtales.livejournal.com - 2014-04-23 11:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-04-23 17:46 (UTC) - Expand

Kudos

(Anonymous) 2014-04-23 03:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I understand Scalzi's position and it makes complete sense, to a reasonable guy like John (although he seems surprisingly ignorant of the privilege he has to be that noble since his group is not the target of Vox et al, even though he personally is.)

But I think you and a couple of others Scalzi has point to for counter opinion are much closer to correct. Particularly Arachne Jericho and Rose Lemberg. You three together offer a much more accurate picture of the best response.

Just having pulled this trick off is a big win for Vox. There can only be 2 outcomes, he wins a Hugo (ugh!) and gloats while the awards value disappears in a cloud of political stench or he loses and can spend the rest of eternity whining about how the award is slanted towards 'those people' thereby creating a political stench where one was not before.

I want to thank you guys for the clarity of thought & congratulate you for opening yourself to the filth that surrounds Vox et al and will probably try to visit itself on you.

Re: Kudos

(Anonymous) - 2014-04-24 01:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Kudos

(Anonymous) - 2014-04-24 10:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Kudos

[personal profile] daveon - 2014-04-24 23:11 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Kudos

(Anonymous) - 2014-04-27 00:31 (UTC) - Expand
babba: (Default)

[personal profile] babba 2014-04-23 03:22 pm (UTC)(link)
If someone does a thing to make a political point it is important to take up the political argument. Particularly, if someone is trying to build a following and control the cultural narrative in a way that has real world consequences.

(no subject)

[personal profile] babba - 2014-04-23 16:25 (UTC) - Expand
damerell: (reading)

[personal profile] damerell 2014-04-23 03:31 pm (UTC)(link)
I just got back from Eastercon. (What I had not realised was that Corriera organised a like ballot-stuffing exercise last year, which seems to have gone largely unnoticed because they didn't pick anyone quite as odious as Day; one or two of them actually won, but Sanderson seems to be a perfectly reasonable writer when he's not pastiching Jordan).

I suspect now fandom at large has noticed it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that people will vote partly on personalities (certainly, I feel this exercise is Not On, although I seriously doubt Corriera was going to be the best of that list anyway); the gag in the con newsletter was about the hitherto overlooked work of No Award and how surely it is time that No Award received a Hugo.

FTAOD, I do think there's a bit of a problem with it being a popularity contest that throws up oddball results (for example, Redshirts is hardly Scalzi at his best or the best of Best Novel last year), but (not to be Captain Obvious) the answer can hardly be to deliberately exacerbate the situation. I suspect the right-wing nutballs think they are bravely exposing a problem that of course we know perfectly well about already.

(no subject)

[personal profile] damerell - 2014-04-24 01:29 (UTC) - Expand

You and John Scalzi between you have changed my mind

(Anonymous) 2014-04-23 07:42 pm (UTC)(link)
I was in the "if it's good writing it doesn't matter" camp before I clicked the links to dissenting opinions Scalzi included in his latest blog post. You (and the three other bloggers he cites) are correct.

Though I initially agreed with Scalzi, in doing so I was operating from cisgendered, heterosexual, white privilege.

Until I read your posts, I didn't get that if it matters to someone who is "othered" in any way in which I am privileged, it is my concern as well.

I'm just sorry it took me so long to see this.

Why this all makes me sad

(Anonymous) 2014-04-23 08:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I have little or no dog in this fight. I had not heard of Vox Day or his real world name until I saw the controversy. Having seen it and read some of the (uhm, how can I put this in a family blog?) resolutely, joyously offensive things he's written, I'm torn between trying to read it, since I am, indeed a cisgendered heterosexual male and curious just how offensive I'll STILL find it, and just skipping it because, hey, life is short. I don't read everything published.

But I'm still depressed by all of this.

I'm a relatively infrequent science fiction reader. I used to be a passionate SFF reader, but I'm just not any more. Part of that is because I am a policy researcher, so I read for a living, and don't enjoy reading near as much when I get home as I did before my eyes were tired all the time. Part is because I find myself drawn to other writing. For whatever reason, I don't read as much SF/F as I used to.

But I've kept an eye on it and found some wonderful writers by using the Hugo nominations as at least useful recommendations from people who read a lot of it. And through the years, I've discovered some writers I like a lot through them. Indeed, too many to list. I started becoming a supporting member of worldcon and voting. I resolved to ALWAYS buy at least one full priced book by any author whose work I was exposed to through the nomination that I then only read through the member packet when they started doing that.

In short, the Hugo nominations have served to teach me about writers of whom I was unaware and to get me to support deserving writers.

And yes, I've had to ignore the Scalzi fan worship. (Don't misunderstand; I discovered him through his Campbell Award, and like his writing. Indeed, his blog brought me here. But his fans are a bit on the singleminded side, and ended up getting him a nomination for a joke story, which I found really disheartening.) Some other favorites have, I think, been nominated for their names and their careers rather than for the individual book that was written. But by and large, I've found it to be a useful way to discover authors, and to read some excellent books, and in general to keep me aware of some of the work in the genre that first sparked my love of reading.

I'm well aware that the Hugo nominating population is not identical to the average reader, even the average reader of SF/F. Clearly, the Hugos are a (for want of a better word) conservative award; as a popular award, they are never going to be, nor are they designed to be, avant garde. And I understand that critics get paid for a reason, and that I might do better paying a bit more attention to critical writing on the genre. But in the end, this has been a pretty good barometer of where the genre is and where it's heading.

In the end, I'm bothered by this for selfish and annoying reasons, and I don't doubt that the more engaged will find me selfish and annoying. But, in the end, the Hugos are the public face of science fiction. Making up that face with clown makeup is a problem. The only thing that bothers me more is the idea that one of these clowns might actually win.

(In deference to the reasonable policy statement, my name is Ron Zucker, and I live in Washington, DC. I prefer not to use a handle. If I'm not willing to attach my name to it, aware that it might come up in a google search, I ought not to say it. At least, that's been my theory since before Google, when it was a finger and a grep, and it's stood me in good stead so far.)

Re: Why this all makes me sad

[personal profile] ewanmcnay - 2014-04-24 18:04 (UTC) - Expand

[personal profile] xiphias 2014-04-23 10:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I think one of your points deserves additional amplification. Larry Correia came up with the "Sad Puppy Hugo Slate" thing himself. And actual authors like Correia and Sarah Hoyt are on it -- people whose politics I disagree with, but who actually know how to write.

And then we've got Theodore Beale. Who's also on it.

And he CAN'T write.

So why was he on the "Sad Puppy Hugo Slate"? Only possible answer is "because of who he is rather than what he wrote." The "Sad Puppy Hugo Slate" is clearly based on the politics of the authors rather than the quality of the writing. With a few exceptions, as you note, but, on the whole, the slate is made up of people who range from conservative to bat$h!+ reactionary.

That means that the "voting based on who someone is rather than what someone wrote" has already happened. Saying that we should judge the work based on its own quality rather than its author means that WE have to, but THEY don't.

That said, in this case, the question is moot. The work sucks, so on its merits, it will rank below "No Award".

Respectfully disagreeing

(Anonymous) 2014-04-24 12:03 am (UTC)(link)
I have to disagree with your assessment about Brad Torgerson (whom I've not met, so I can't speak to his attitude personally, although I've read a lot of his works and, if he has the attitudes which you attribute to him, he doesn't display them in his writing). Torgerson has won the Campbell award, has numerous writing credits in Analog, and is (in my opinion) an excellent writer. I've read The Chaplain's Legacy; it's a great story, and, I feel, worthy of a nomination.

A lot of the comments I've seen (on various sites) about this kerfuffle remind me a lot of a conversation I heard frequently growing up, that went something like this.

My brother: "I don't want to eat that."
My mother: "How do you know? You haven't tried it."
My brother: "I don't like it."
My mother: "You haven't tried it. Try it. You might like it."
My brother: "No, I don't like it!"

This would go on for a while, and eventually, through one form of persuasion or another, my brother would sample the offending food item. Sometimes he didn't like it. Sometimes he did.

My point being, that if you've never read Torgerson or Dan Wells-- full disclosure, he's a semi-distant relative by marriage-- or Larry Correia or any of the others (I assume you've read something of Day's given that you have a link, so I won't speak to him-- someone I've never read), then how do you know you won't like their writing? Torgerson is a great writer, I quite enjoy his work (even if I wanted to throw the book across the room when I was reading one short story of his when he killed off a character), and I think he's well deserving of the nomination, and consideration for an award. Dan Well's writing isn't really my thing, as I'm not a big horror buff, but I tried it before I decided it wasn't my thing.

I think there's wisdom in what Scalzi suggests (and I found your post through his blog) in giving the books on there a read. You don't have to finish the whole thing if it's not your cuppa, but try it before you decide you don't like it.

Re: Respectfully disagreeing

(Anonymous) - 2014-04-24 21:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully disagreeing

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-02 22:32 (UTC) - Expand

Thank You

[personal profile] quickmind 2014-04-24 02:49 am (UTC)(link)
I originally found Scalzi's argument to be logical, but also a bit unsettling. But then again, I was approaching it from a perspective of privilege. After reading the numerous rebuttals, I agree that his point of view fails to consider the bigger issue. In hindsight, it appears to be a somewhat dismissive action, but not toward the writers in question, but to everyone who doesn't share his privilege in being able to "judge the work based solely on merit."

I completely understand the argument of the reading brain not being able to separate the work from the writer. Perhaps its just a failure on my part to assume that the writer can't also separate their own brain from their work. I'm an artist myself and I know that every brush stroke or pencil line is significant. It is purposefully placed to further whatever message I'm trying to convey. I believe the same concept is true with writers. I find it hard to believe that a person's world view won't influence the final work in some way.

I'm very hesitant to go back and read work that I used to enjoy from writers whom I later learned held repugnant views. I'm afraid I would find those views everywhere, even though in my memory, the works seemed to cherish diversity.

Anyways, thank you for your thoughts. They helped crystallize what was unsettling about Scalzi's argument.

[identity profile] kjn.livejournal.com 2014-04-24 08:04 am (UTC)(link)
I managed to finally put something coherent out of this entire mess.

I can understand Scalzi's viewpoint, but also yours. I think both are valid, but neither can be pushed into being made "the rule". I think here leaders (and in this case, both you and Scalzi are leaders) should say "this is what I do, and why", and I think that should be the way forward for the Hugo awards too.

(Anonymous) 2014-04-24 10:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Before you recommend Medieval PoC for anything, you might want to check out this post by a Romani woman (http://big-gadje-world.tumblr.com/post/81426780761/offer-valid-criticisms-of-medievalpoc-lose) who is not impressed with how MPoC whitewashes Romani and Jewish Europeans. As noted, she also has accused Greeks, Italians (http://electricalice.tumblr.com/post/66786796533/its-pretty-sad-that-someone-who-studies-ancient), and other Mediterraneans of being "racist" because they do not identify as PoC.

This Tumblr (http://mpoc-corrections.tumblr.com/) is run by an academic (or academics) who know what they're talking about, unlike MPoC.

Posting anonymously because MPoC, under a different Tumblr account, keeps company with doxxers.

Hugos and the amazing shrinking SciFi section.

(Anonymous) 2014-04-28 09:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Dear Kate,

I've been reading scifi and fantasy since the 1960's. Its pretty much all I read for entertainment.

For the last 20 years at least the scifi/fantasy section of any bookstore I go into has been shrinking precipitously. In Canada, the Chapters/Indigo chain is down to about two double rows including the Star Trek novels, manga etc. Its pitiful.

In view of that serious situation, the current ruckus over the Hugos and the SFWA kicking people out closely resembles a circular firing squad.

Having people proudly proclaiming they will vote on things without having read them is -idiotic-. If you haven't read it, you have no opinion. All you have is an emotional state based on something a third person has said, which is otherwise known as a prejudice. Scalzi is right in saying so, and it doesn't reflect well on the SF community that he has to come out for something so basic and patently obvious.

In addition, I went and read the whole big long thing Larry Correia wrote explaining every tedious detail of his "campaign", such as it was. He wrote some blog posts, and he treated the whole thing as a joke. Sad Puppies? The spokes-manatee? Its a joke. A ham handed, slapstick one at that, deliberately made as silly as possible. Right at the beginning he proclaimed it a joke, and said it was designed to irritate the kind of people who pre-judge artists and art based on political reasoning or just third party rumor. He predicted lots of screaming outrage.

That's not a defense of Mr. Correia, that's a description of what he did.

Behold the result, every single thing the guy said would happen has indeed happened. Some of the behavior from the Charles Stross side of the spectrum has been quite over the top. Language reminiscent of Stalin's purges. Literally, as noted by one guy who did an A/B comparison.

Getting back to the empty book stores, how does this kind of thing help fill a bookstore? You can't eat politics, and Righteous Indignation don't pay the rent.

Sincerely, The Phantom

A simple method for those who can't decide...

[identity profile] dumain.com 2014-05-02 08:46 pm (UTC)(link)

  • Don't vote for anything you haven't read.
  • Make sure you read The Wheel of Time series in its entirety before Vox Day & friends.

If you still have a conflict when the voting closes you have too much time on your hands.