Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Sandy » 13 Apr 2015, 01:33

Jadagul wrote:I think the most clarifying comment I've read is that SF has really split into two genres,one of which we can oversimplify as the "Baen genre." And the Worldcon and Hugos are mostly populated by people from the other genre. (Although this case is a bit weak since Scalzi is a perennial Hugo contender, and while he is definitely a liberal and a social justice person on a personal level, his _books_ are mainly adventure stories).
And this isn't new, especially since the rise of Gardner Dozois, who moved Asimov's down the lit-crit route. It's kind of hilarious given the name of the magazine, but hey.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7173
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Jadagul » 13 Apr 2015, 01:42

On a thankfully non-Hugo non-Sad-Puppy note, this review of Star Wars by Samuel Delaney is utterly glorious. All of it is wonderful. But perhaps the best bit from a dramatic irony perspective:
This is perhaps the place to mention that – to get the film down from two and a quarter hours to a flat two – some sequences have been hacked out: two with young Luke and his friends at the beginning, during which one friend goes off to join the rebel forces, and one at the end where a space pilot tells Luke about his father. In the middle too, we’ve lost a few aliens. I hope Lucas is one of those guys who sends a complete copy of his films to the Paris Cinemathique before the distributors et al start chopping.)

User avatar
Stevo Darkly
Posts: 7242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 19:13

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Stevo Darkly » 13 Apr 2015, 04:55

Eric the .5b wrote:
Jennifer wrote:The Sad and Rabid Puppies, apparently. But, as I said earlier, they're yearning for a lost golden age that never actually existed -- the age where "if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women. Battle-armored interstellar jump troops shooting up alien invaders? Yup. A gritty military SF war story, where the humans defeat the odds and save the Earth. And so on, and so forth."
From what I've read, these guys love them some Heinlein, but back when he was writing Starship Troopers, they'd have been griping about how he was being so "PC" for working in a Filipino protagonist and talking about him getting to vote.
When it comes to what these guys think about Heinlein, I think you're doing a lot more projecting than reading. I've seen no such indication that this reflects the minds of the Sad Puppies types. I've seen some of them complain that when Heinlein got older, he turned from stories about adventure and exploration in outer space to indulgent stories about crusty but wise old Heinlein-resembling men having sex with lots of adoring young women. I've never seen them complain that the great early stories that they love the most were too PC and multi-ethnic.

Quite the reverse. What's cool about Heinlein's use of a Filipino protagonist is that he revealed it at the end. Writing for a 1950s audience of mostly young white males, Heinlein got the reader to care about Johnny/Juan Rico as a person rather than as a Filipino. The story wasn't a PC potboiler about voting rights for oppressed Filipinos, which would have been a much less interesting story unless you have a particular ax to grind there. Or at least it would have narrower appeal, anyway -- and the message would have reached far fewer people.

Heinlein did that a lot: Introduce a character, get you to know and love the character, and then he subtly reveals that the human race is much more diverse than you assumed. Sometimes so subtly that you can miss it. Some people have noticed that the hero of Tunnel in the Sky is a black kid; some haven't.

Less subtly, you get to know that two of the sympathetic characters in I Will Fear No Evil pretty well before it is casually revealed by their conversation that these guys are bisexual. (I think African-American too, but I'm not sure sure.)

What's cool about Heinlein's approach to such matters -- and one reason why his fans admire him -- is that he let the story come first. Along the way, he dropped some points against racism and (sometimes) sexism and sexual orientation. But he make didn't the whole point of the book about how much he cared about gender and racial inclusion.

Brad Torgenson isn't really on my radar, and the way he phrased things doesn't necessarily capture the concern or issue that has drawn my sympathy. This is a wider cultural struggle within science fiction publishing and fandom, and the Hugos are just a small part of it. This whole Sad Puppies vs. SJWs thing that has coalesced around the current Hugos is just one particular expression of it.

The issue at hand isn't necessarily that people are writing different types of stories than they used to during the so-called Golden Age of SF. (By the way, the "dragons as good guys and knights as the bad guys" angle was already covered by Gordon R. Dickson in 1976, when he wrote The Dragon and the George.)

Rather, what has some people riled up is that the focus of science fiction criticism seems to be drifting away from the story, and focusing more on who wrote the story, and what their politics are. I see this especially when I read the stuff I see at, or linked to, the SF Signal site or Tor.com comments section. I love those sites, but I see a growing wave of lefty political correctness.

To be continued next post.
"I don't know if you can call it a stereotype when I was in a room full of people actually doing it." -- Keith S.

User avatar
Stevo Darkly
Posts: 7242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 19:13

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Stevo Darkly » 13 Apr 2015, 05:24

Continued ...

For example, over at the SF Signal site, I see discussions of -- for example -- "best of" SF anthologies and there's almost always a bit of angst if too many of the authors in the collection are male and too few are female. Or too many are white and not enough non-white. Bias is a possibility that should be questioned and challenged, but sometimes it seems to be an obsession. There's a lot of discussion about making sure the future is not just depicted as white and Western -- but if the wrong people write about non-whiteness and non-Westernness in their imaginary futures, they get battered for "appropriation." There's a lot of discussion about whether enough books by lesbians and people of color are on the SF bookshelves at the bookstores.

And these are all good discussions to have sometimes. But sometimes it seems they are the primary topics of discussion. Is this what most discussions of SF should be about? Could we have more discussion of whether the stories in the "best of" anthologies are any good, and what makes them good, and less angst because the anthology has eight stories by men and two stories by women?

Usually I think, "Well, maybe it's just me. Maybe it's pure confirmation bias. I tend to over-notice these discussions because they annoy me and I wish they'd talk about something else."

But then one day I saw a tweet by Jeff Patterson, whom I follow on Twitter. Jeff co-hosts a podcast on SF Signal. And I don't usually see him get riled up about political correctness. I don't think he's a very reactionary guy. But one day even he tweeted -- and I certainly don't have the particular words memorized, but it was something like, "Does it ever seem like SF criticism these days could be focused less on gender politics and culture war and a bit more on, you know, STORY?"

I was a little surprised, because I don't usually hear Jeff complain about stuff like that, but it seems that even he thought things were a little out of whack.

I think that's the issue that has caused the flare up. It's not so much what the stories are being told about, but that story has taken second place to making sure the right kinds of people holding the right kinds of views are doing the writing and publishing.

ADDENDUM: Actually, it's not entirely true that the type of stories being told is not at issue. In general, I think the "pro-story" people would like to see more stories that are optimistic and have a sense of wonder and adventure in a glorious universe, and that's why they look back nostalgically at the Golden Age and the kinds of stories they loved as a kid.

Nowadays, though, it seems like more and more stories are pessimistic stories told in a dystopian setting. But that's also part of the recent emphasis on political axe-grinding. I think people may be writing more dystopian stories because dystopias are a good way to show "how horrible the world would become if the people who hold different political ideas from me should ever gain control of things."
"I don't know if you can call it a stereotype when I was in a room full of people actually doing it." -- Keith S.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24568
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Jennifer » 13 Apr 2015, 07:03

Stevo Darkly wrote: Rather, what has some people riled up is that the focus of science fiction criticism seems to be drifting away from the story, and focusing more on who wrote the story, and what their politics are.
To which they responded by ... promoting an entire slate exclusively based on who wrote the stories and what their politics are.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6785
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by tr0g » 13 Apr 2015, 07:28

Jennifer wrote:
Stevo Darkly wrote: Rather, what has some people riled up is that the focus of science fiction criticism seems to be drifting away from the story, and focusing more on who wrote the story, and what their politics are.
To which they responded by ... promoting an entire slate exclusively based on who wrote the stories and what their politics are.
And in one fell swoop, you've demonstrated you don't know WTF you're talking about. Good job!
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24568
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Jennifer » 13 Apr 2015, 08:00

tr0g wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
Stevo Darkly wrote: Rather, what has some people riled up is that the focus of science fiction criticism seems to be drifting away from the story, and focusing more on who wrote the story, and what their politics are.
To which they responded by ... promoting an entire slate exclusively based on who wrote the stories and what their politics are.
And in one fell swoop, you've demonstrated you don't know WTF you're talking about.
Really? Here's a comment I've cut-n-pasted from the Metafilter discussion on this topic, rather than waste time writing the same thing in my own words:
....As someone who's still relatively new to voting and nominating in the Hugos, for a long time I felt like I wasn't good enough, wasn't knowledgeable enough, to participate in the rarified awards. Then I started participating, thanks to encouragement from bloggers (particularly Scalzi and Nussbaum). And I never once got the impression that I was being told who to vote for. Instead, the message I got was that I really was "fan enough" to participate in the Hugos, and that my tastes and opinions were valid enough that I should make them known.

Before Sad/Rabid Puppy, I never saw a suggestion that I should vote for a work that I hadn't read, or that I didn't legitimately enjoy. But I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the voters for the puppy slates really did read everything they nominated.

For example, Letters from Gardner is nominated for Best Related Work. Thanks to Niall Harrison's statistics, we know that, at a minimum, 206 people nominated that book. Yet there are 0 reviews of it on Amazon.com. None. Nor are there reviews on Amazons .ca, .in, or .co.uk*. So which of these scenarios should I believe?

-- That Letters from Gardner is a Hugo-worthy book that was of high enough quality to be recommended by both Torgersen and Day (it's both a Sad and Rabid Puppy). And, thanks to those men's influence, over 200 people read the book and also felt it Hugo-worthy. Yet throughout most of the English-speaking world, nobody bothered to voice their praise for it on the world's dominant bookseller.
-- That a bunch of people nominated the book without reading it, because they were told to.

Unfortunately, I find scenario 2 more plausible. And that's a key difference between the puppy slates and the recommendations of prior years.
*As of eight days ago, when that comment was posted.

If this is an inaccurate statement, or if there's some third option being overlooked, I'm definitely open to hearing why.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6785
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by tr0g » 13 Apr 2015, 10:59

Jennifer wrote:
tr0g wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
Stevo Darkly wrote: Rather, what has some people riled up is that the focus of science fiction criticism seems to be drifting away from the story, and focusing more on who wrote the story, and what their politics are.
To which they responded by ... promoting an entire slate exclusively based on who wrote the stories and what their politics are.
And in one fell swoop, you've demonstrated you don't know WTF you're talking about.
Really? Here's a comment I've cut-n-pasted from the Metafilter discussion on this topic, rather than waste time writing the same thing in my own words:
....As someone who's still relatively new to voting and nominating in the Hugos, for a long time I felt like I wasn't good enough, wasn't knowledgeable enough, to participate in the rarified awards. Then I started participating, thanks to encouragement from bloggers (particularly Scalzi and Nussbaum). And I never once got the impression that I was being told who to vote for. Instead, the message I got was that I really was "fan enough" to participate in the Hugos, and that my tastes and opinions were valid enough that I should make them known.

Before Sad/Rabid Puppy, I never saw a suggestion that I should vote for a work that I hadn't read, or that I didn't legitimately enjoy. But I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the voters for the puppy slates really did read everything they nominated.

For example, Letters from Gardner is nominated for Best Related Work. Thanks to Niall Harrison's statistics, we know that, at a minimum, 206 people nominated that book. Yet there are 0 reviews of it on Amazon.com. None. Nor are there reviews on Amazons .ca, .in, or .co.uk*. So which of these scenarios should I believe?

-- That Letters from Gardner is a Hugo-worthy book that was of high enough quality to be recommended by both Torgersen and Day (it's both a Sad and Rabid Puppy). And, thanks to those men's influence, over 200 people read the book and also felt it Hugo-worthy. Yet throughout most of the English-speaking world, nobody bothered to voice their praise for it on the world's dominant bookseller.
-- That a bunch of people nominated the book without reading it, because they were told to.

Unfortunately, I find scenario 2 more plausible. And that's a key difference between the puppy slates and the recommendations of prior years.
*As of eight days ago, when that comment was posted.

If this is an inaccurate statement, or if there's some third option being overlooked, I'm definitely open to hearing why.
What an insightful comment. It really addresses the point. Somebody thinks, based on Amazon reviews, that nobody read the work in question. Which has what to do with people being nominated for their political affiliations?

Explain to me, right now, in simple terms what the politics of each member of the Sad Puppies slate is. If you can't, maybe you're assuming things based on what somebody else with an axe to grind is telling you. The people running Sad Puppies said they picked works they thought were deserving of wider exposure. You, and others, are claiming otherwise. Show some proof.

And once again, Vox Day is not Sad Puppies, Vox Day is running a parallel campaign called Rabid Puppies. This is a very simple concept, but it apparently escapes many people.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24568
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Jennifer » 13 Apr 2015, 11:35

tr0g wrote:
What an insightful comment. It really addresses the point. Somebody thinks, based on Amazon reviews, that nobody read the work in question.
Somebody finds it suspicious that a book could be popular enough to get a Huge nomination on its own yet not have a single Amazon review, yes.

And once again, Vox Day is not Sad Puppies, Vox Day is running a parallel campaign called Rabid Puppies. This is a very simple concept, but it apparently escapes many people.
I know, and I myself have been careful to distinguish between the two (though the person I quoted might not have been careful enough). Vox Day did make it onto the nomination lists for at least two Hugos this year, though, so don't be too surprised if his name occasionally comes up in discussions about this year's Hugo brouhaha.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24568
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jennifer » 13 Apr 2015, 11:57

And, for what it's worth: I do agree with some complaints a la "Eh, I don't find various genres of modern science fiction as interesting as I do some of the older stuff." And coming from me that's saying a lot, because I've always preferred what Asimov called "social science fiction" (as opposed to "alien" or "technology" scifi), stories that focus on human societies and how those are likely to change, with any new tech or alien cultures serving merely as background or catalyst, not the focus. In other words, I have close to zero interest in the sort of science fiction stories this year's Head Sad Puppy listed as being the ideal book formulas -- yet even with my strong preference for social scifi I'm still not particularly interested in various new stories exploring, for example, gay and transgender issues. Not opposed to them, just not interested enough to seek them out. Still, I do not get upset upon discovering that Kids Today have different tastes than I do. After all: "Middle-aged malcontent finds various aspects of modern pop culture inferior to the Good Old Days" is not a conspiracy; it's the circle of life.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17629
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by lunchstealer » 13 Apr 2015, 12:50

Aresen wrote:
I tend to agree with Torgenson's POV. I have moved away from Science Fiction and Fantasy as the message has become more important than the speculation. Too much of modern F&SF is involved with writing commentaries on present social conditions rather than telling a good story. So much so that the entire narrative is distorted to make the author's point. Good F&SF tells a story first.
It's not as if that's a new phenomenon. Can't speak to the prevalence then vs now, especially among the Worthies, but case in point:

"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4213
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Painboy » 13 Apr 2015, 14:06

lunchstealer wrote:
Aresen wrote:
I tend to agree with Torgenson's POV. I have moved away from Science Fiction and Fantasy as the message has become more important than the speculation. Too much of modern F&SF is involved with writing commentaries on present social conditions rather than telling a good story. So much so that the entire narrative is distorted to make the author's point. Good F&SF tells a story first.
It's not as if that's a new phenomenon. Can't speak to the prevalence then vs now, especially among the Worthies, but case in point:

Of course it's not a new phenomenon. I think the point is the nominees shouldn't be relegated to only those authors who write diatribes and thinly veiled political lectures on whatever the progressive fad is of the day. Just because you set it on a spaceship doesn't mean it's automatically good science fiction.

It seems pretty obvious that the SPs are just looking to acknowledge people for their story writing ability and not be judged solely on whether the writer's politics are "relevant" to what's hot in progressive circles.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18299
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by dbcooper » 13 Apr 2015, 14:16

Those Star Trek episodes are noteable for being camp "classics" rather than classics.

The Omega Glory is glorious though.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Sandy » 13 Apr 2015, 14:40

Is Yang worship word. You will not speak it.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 14057
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Kolohe » 13 Apr 2015, 15:46

I kinda forgot how American Exceptionalist that scene was, even with a friggin American Flag IN SPACE.

(and really, Kirk, the Declaration is the universal document; the Constitution is a more a mortgage contract than a statement of ideals)

edit: top Youtube comment
WweJth 10 months ago

Spoken like a true Canadian...
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13924
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Apr 2015, 20:26

tr0g wrote:No, the larger complaint that both Jennifer and Eric are willfully missing because of their preconceived notions is that personal politics shouldn't have a damn thing to do with whether or not you did quality work in the past year. Awards shouldn't be handed out based on whether or not you have the appropriate politics.
To echo GRRM's post - so where's the evidence of that actually happening? If throwing in Jim Butcher and a few other "moderates" makes the Puppies slates all about the unbiased quality, why don't Hugo nominations and awards going to a fuckton of people other than "SJWs" do the same for the Hugos?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13924
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Apr 2015, 22:14

Stevo Darkly wrote:
Eric the .5b wrote:From what I've read, these guys love them some Heinlein, but back when he was writing Starship Troopers, they'd have been griping about how he was being so "PC" for working in a Filipino protagonist and talking about him getting to vote.
When it comes to what these guys think about Heinlein, I think you're doing a lot more projecting than reading. I've seen no such indication that this reflects the minds of the Sad Puppies types. I've seen some of them complain that when Heinlein got older, he turned from stories about adventure and exploration in outer space to indulgent stories about crusty but wise old Heinlein-resembling men having sex with lots of adoring young women. I've never seen them complain that the great early stories that they love the most were too PC and multi-ethnic.
I'm not saying they're literally objecting now, I'm saying that guys with their voiced complaints back in the 1950s would have seen a writer making his protagonist Filipino as PC or SJ-y.

I'm entirely aware of what Heinlein was doing in Starship Troopers and his other books - I've done my time in those threads, arguing with people who thought he was a fascist, dating back to the late days of USENET. And while it was seriously cutting-edge stuff back then, and Heinlein deserved kudos for that and for pushing against his publishers on the point, the whole "describe a guy as indistinguishable from a generic Future White American, then mention he's not one" thing has been done. There's more you can say than that (and more Heinlein said in his later works). Even if you're avoiding modern racial politics and the premise is "and in the gleaming militarized space-future, people are really all equal", you can do more to establish that yeah, that really means Filipinos (or Ethiopians or Finns or etc.), not just palette-swapped middle-class Mid-Westerners.
Stevo Darkly wrote:Rather, what has some people riled up is that the focus of science fiction criticism seems to be drifting away from the story, and focusing more on who wrote the story, and what their politics are. I see this especially when I read the stuff I see at, or linked to, the SF Signal site or Tor.com comments section. I love those sites, but I see a growing wave of lefty political correctness.
I hate that I'm condensing your two lengthy posts so much in this reply, incidentally. I appreciate what you wrote.

I argue with liberals and lefties more lately than I used to, so I totally sympathize with a feeling of being overwhelmed by liberal angst. I even recently flatly called out a guy for saying he worries that his work does harm by cultural appropriation, because I pointed out that if he really believed that, he wouldn't be fucking doing it, particularly for the shit money he was making. I'm the last person who thinks the Blue crowd is ever more than crudely stumbling in anything like the right direction.

However, I have to point out that you're talking about forum drama and amateur criticism. These aren't things that are somehow suppressing works by the "wrong people" or keeping them from getting a tin rocket. These aren't things that are distorting the face of science fiction any more than politics ever does.

I mean, Hell, you're around my age. Did you read Analog in the eighties? Do you remember how many dystopias were in those stories, how many religious-right takeovers showed up? (And then during Clinton, the same magazine had wannabe-libertarian Reds doing the same thing with leftism-gone-amok. And then it flipped back with GWB...SF has never been immune to the sports bar.) When I look at the current popular crop of dystopias, it feels pretty standard, particularly for an economic downturn.

(I mean, Hunger Games? When that book first blew up and someone described it to me, I remember thinking that some people had just discovered Standard YA SF Plot #2, where The Future Government Is Awful and Does Horrible Things to Kids. And that's not a new thing, it goes back to the 70s.)

And very pointedly, Stevo? These guys are not you. You worry that liberals have gone up their own asses with valid concerns, they see these concerns as jokes in the first place. I read what these guys say and I don't see reasonable people frustrated with annoying lefties, I see the sort of guys I've never wanted to associate with and always avoided.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24568
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jennifer » 14 Apr 2015, 10:18

Reading the Sad (not Rabid) Puppies' complaints and justifications kept giving me this feeling of quasi-deja-vu -- something rang a vague memory bell, though I couldn't quite pin down what it was -- but suddenly, apropos of nothing, it hit me: the Sad Puppies' whining about how SJWs and lefties are, like, taking over the fandom and destroying science fiction reminds me of those regular Salon.com articles explaining how libertarians have completely taken over America's body politic and are responsible for pretty much every aspect of the modern status quo which a modern lefty Salonista would consider "bad."

What, you want to see some evidence of this libertarian [lefty/SJW] takeover of America [sf fandom]? Then let me repeat my earlier assertion, in a slightly louder tone of voice: They have taken over and ruined everything! Check this pro-libertarian [pro-SJW] comment I found on Awik Dunderrrro's blog [some SJW's Twitter or Tumblr]. Look at this outrageous comment someone posted on a newspaper article discussion thread. What more evidence of a conspiracy could anyone possibly need?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17629
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by lunchstealer » 14 Apr 2015, 12:37

Jennifer wrote:Reading the Sad (not Rabid) Puppies' complaints and justifications kept giving me this feeling of quasi-deja-vu -- something rang a vague memory bell, though I couldn't quite pin down what it was -- but suddenly, apropos of nothing, it hit me: the Sad Puppies' whining about how SJWs and lefties are, like, taking over the fandom and destroying science fiction reminds me of those regular Salon.com articles explaining how libertarians have completely taken over America's body politic and are responsible for pretty much every aspect of the modern status quo which a modern lefty Salonista would consider "bad."

What, you want to see some evidence of this libertarian [lefty/SJW] takeover of America [sf fandom]? Then let me repeat my earlier assertion, in a slightly louder tone of voice: They have taken over and ruined everything! Check this pro-libertarian [pro-SJW] comment I found on Awik Dunderrrro's blog [some SJW's Twitter or Tumblr]. Look at this outrageous comment someone posted on a newspaper article discussion thread. What more evidence of a conspiracy could anyone possibly need?
Don't be silly. All the liberals know that there aren't any libertarians.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/0 ... -box/?_r=0
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19126
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 14 Apr 2015, 13:02

lunchstealer wrote:
Jennifer wrote:Reading the Sad (not Rabid) Puppies' complaints and justifications kept giving me this feeling of quasi-deja-vu -- something rang a vague memory bell, though I couldn't quite pin down what it was -- but suddenly, apropos of nothing, it hit me: the Sad Puppies' whining about how SJWs and lefties are, like, taking over the fandom and destroying science fiction reminds me of those regular Salon.com articles explaining how libertarians have completely taken over America's body politic and are responsible for pretty much every aspect of the modern status quo which a modern lefty Salonista would consider "bad."

What, you want to see some evidence of this libertarian [lefty/SJW] takeover of America [sf fandom]? Then let me repeat my earlier assertion, in a slightly louder tone of voice: They have taken over and ruined everything! Check this pro-libertarian [pro-SJW] comment I found on Awik Dunderrrro's blog [some SJW's Twitter or Tumblr]. Look at this outrageous comment someone posted on a newspaper article discussion thread. What more evidence of a conspiracy could anyone possibly need?
Don't be silly. All the liberals know that there aren't any libertarians.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/0 ... -box/?_r=0
Just because there aren't any libertarians doesn't mean it isn't all their fault.

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16113
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by dhex » 14 Apr 2015, 14:26

"Rand Paul and the Empty Box"

the worst porno.
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24447
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by JasonL » 14 Apr 2015, 14:57

Bwahahaa!

User avatar
Stevo Darkly
Posts: 7242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 19:13

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Stevo Darkly » 14 Apr 2015, 16:09

Jennifer wrote:
Stevo Darkly wrote: Rather, what has some people riled up is that the focus of science fiction criticism seems to be drifting away from the story, and focusing more on who wrote the story, and what their politics are.
To which they responded by ... promoting an entire slate exclusively based on who wrote the stories and what their politics are.
Nooo ... they promoted a slate of stories written by men and women, whites and people of color, of a variety of different politics, because they thought they had written better SF stories than those promoted by people who tended to favor a certain type of lefty politics and who thought too many SF stories are written by straight white men.

And their opponents described this slate of stories written by men and women, whites and people of color, of a variety of different politics, as a slate composed entirely of "straight white conservative men," which is profoundly dishonest. And a variety of people -- including mainstream media, a variety of SF-oriented blogs, and just regular folks and SF fans -- swallowed this lie whole, entire and unquestioningly.

This is where I really started to get interested, and began having some (qualified) sympathies for the Sad Puppies side.

I don't really care much about the Hugo Awards, as such. However, I began to have these impulses to say something because there is some profoundly wrong information on the Internet! I only spoke up here because I saw that the disinformation had spread to here.

Also, for a while now, I've had some wider concerns about the state of SF writing, criticism, publishing and fandom (all of which are somewhat interrelated). And I've started to see some of these concerns voiced by reasonable people I respect (not just some less reasonable people whom I'm a bit wary of, although there are some of those too).

I'm not really so interested in left-vs.-right culture wars these days. I was more into that during the 1980s, but I pretty much got my fill of it then, and eventually came down with a moderate case of Both Houses Plague. However, I would hate to see SF writing, criticism, publishing and fandom turn into the left-liberal loony bin that I seem to see a lot in the field of education.
"I don't know if you can call it a stereotype when I was in a room full of people actually doing it." -- Keith S.

User avatar
Stevo Darkly
Posts: 7242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 19:13

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Stevo Darkly » 14 Apr 2015, 16:22

Eric --

I just wanted to say that read your longish response to my two over-long (and rambling) posts, and I think I actually agree with 95% of what you say.

I just differ a little bit in my reaction to my perceived politicization of SF fandom (and publishing and criticism and writing). Maybe I'm overreacting. Right now more than ever, with the decentralization of the distribution of SF (more stuff published online, often for free; more stuff self-published, although a lot of it is poorly edited crap that's not even proofread well; etc. etc.), there is little cause to worry about some monolithic political viewpoint monopolizing the world of SF.

I'm most just irked by the disinformation, and seeing people spread it uncritically.

And there is a growing lefty knee-jerkiness and PC-ness that increasing affects what I read online, at SF Signal and Tor dot com especially. Mostly, I don't have the energy to fight back against it. I could also simply avoid those websites, but I also like a lot of what I see there too, that I don't want to give up. I guess I'm just reduced to grumbling about it.
"I don't know if you can call it a stereotype when I was in a room full of people actually doing it." -- Keith S.

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Sandy » 14 Apr 2015, 16:30

dhex wrote:"Rand Paul and the Empty Box"

the worst porno.
Step One: Cut a hole in the Empty Box.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests