The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[soulsinging]

I think this may be true for a lot of readers. Although as far as romance goes, the men who thought that way would be quite wrong, since the vast majority of heroes in romance novels are alpha males ... actually some of those heroes make real-life alpha males look like sissies by comparison.

That was actually my initial thought... I always steered clear because I got the impression the genre was heavy on women swooning for ultra macho bad boys that only show their soft side to the right woman. So I guess for the same reason I avoid military SF?

Maybe I'm onto something here... maybe the SP's should join with Harlequin to put on the "Back to the 50's" Awards...

 

[J-Sun]

I think this may be true for a lot of readers. Although as far as romance goes, the men who thought that way would be quite wrong, since the vast majority of heroes in romance novels are alpha males ... actually some of those heroes make real-life alpha males look like sissies by comparison.

Trying to avoid some of my previous clumsiness, I'm not directing this at you or asking you to defend anything but it's just that your words triggered rambling thoughts of my own.

And that is: this is stuff (mostly) written by women for (mostly) women and it's okay. But if SF (speaking exclusive of fantasy if I need to) is (mostly) written by men for (mostly) men and features an alpha male or a less-than-alpha female this is bayud. This hearkens back to the shirtless dudes on the covers of romance novels which many say is a tiny minority but thereby admit exist. But when a chainmail bra makes an appearance on an SFF cover, it's totally evil and calls for the expulsion of a couple of writers and the resignation of the (female) editor?

And some might say that black people can use certain words that others can't but we're talking about women portraying men and men portraying men (and each portraying women) and women can do either however they want and men can't. So I don't see this exception applying and I find it very hard to come up with the rationales here.

Like I say, you're free to respond or not as you choose, Teresa - I'm not looking for anything one way or the other but just "thinking out loud". I'm using your words here but, again, it's just for example. Just imagine a male writer talking about his alpha males making others look like sissies. (And maybe his submissive women looking hot in chainmail - even though most chainmail women are alpha women.) Why, he'd be villified like... like... John Norman!

(Disclaimer: never read him but I know he's bayud.)

I am hoping to find at least one short fiction nominee which doesn't feel like I've read it virtually the same story 30 times before. So far no luck. I tried another one of them today - The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale by Rajnar Vajra. Mildly entertaining stuff, but there wasn't even an attempt of anything new.

BTW, I left out something regarding this, again not taking issue with you, David, but I hear it all over all the time. And so it's just a general point I wanted to make:

I haven't read it but I gather there's no way Scalzi can be said to have broken any ground with Redshirts. It's like a novelization of Galaxyquest which is a parody/homage of Star Trek, right? And (on things I have read) anyone who thinks Rajaniemi isn't writing plain ol' 30-year-old cyberpunk or that Leckie isn't writing 50-year-old New Wave stuff hasn't read enough cyberpunk and New Wave. And there's nothing especially wrong with this, except when this fact is ignored. There's nothing new under the sun and it's a genre besides. That means the stuff is of a(n incrementally ever-changing, but recognizable) type. You try to make it fresh, you try to add new scientific ideas, but you're going to be having your future, your robots, your spaceships, your dystopian ruler, your whatever - the question isn't so much whether it's new as whether it simply feels more fresh vs. more stale.

And back on the Vajra - I don't like it, but it's specifically not "new" by design - the whole point of it is to be retro and to criticize it for that alone isn't really enough. And there's nothing wrong when it's The Difference Engine, apparently, but only when it's the Gernsback Continuum. (Steampunk vs. (pre- and) Golden Age in case my Gibson references aren't clear.)

And moving on to a more general topic - the SFWA Nebula is the writer's writer award. There are a plethora of juried awards for the artsy stuff. While we should never celebrate sheer garbage in any award, the Hugo awards are supposed to be the popular awards. There's nothing wrong with giving fantastic enjoyment to thousands and millions of readers over decades. The idea that a guy who sells a million books that bring joy to so many and leads them on to read Joe or Josephine Artist's latest go at an sfnal Dosotoevsky should not also be celebrated (beyond being able to look at his bank account) is kind of sad to me. (Not sad puppy sad, just sad. ) If a work is reasonably literate and lots of people like it, why not give the author a pat on the back? There are plenty of awards of all kinds for all kinds of work. Why not one for fan favorite like, I dunno, a Hugo?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

And that is: this is stuff (mostly) written by women for (mostly) women and it's okay.

Actually, I think the more extreme examples are unhealthy, because they set up impossible expectations in the women, who end up dissatisfied in their own relationships because their boyfriends and husbands appear inadequate by comparison. (Or maybe women read them because they are already dissatisfied, they get some of what is missing in their own lives vicariously through the books, and reading a Harlequin historical is cheaper than divorce.)

Novels with the alpha-alpha-alpha males also further the idea that "bad boys" make good husbands. Rakes, adulterers, men who are reckless with their own safety and of those around them -- all are just waiting for the right women to come along and then they will change their ways and become exemplary spouses. For anyone who buys it to it, it's a dangerous delusion. Although most readers, I hope, are too smart for that; they know it's a fantasy.

This is not, of course, the only type of hero you find it a romance novel. Some of them are quite decent men; some are not magnificent physical specimens; some are intelligent and sensitive.

But I guess the big question is, are men (in the aggregate) harmed by the stereotypes in romance novels, in the same way that women are harmed by stereotypical females in other types of books? Do the stereotypes in romance novels actually reinforce harmful beliefs that real people really have about the roles of men in society? I don't know the answer, but I suspect not. I don't think anyone takes them seriously enough. I believe that people do take other types of genre fiction a lot more seriously, and what people read there is assimilated in ways that reinforce ideas that are still pervasive in our society, sometimes in ways that are so insidious that those who buy into them don't always realize it until they are called on it -- and not always even then.

But hey, if more men want to start going out and reading more romance novels, buying them, writing them, talking about them, and complaining about what they find there, more power to them. Somehow I doubt this is going to happen, though, because it would begin with reading the books and -- what is more -- admitting to it. I can't imagine men in any great numbers doing that. (I do know several men who do read romance novels, and are willing to talk about it, but they tend to gravitate toward the books that are less racy, more witty, and/or more about the complexities of human relationships.)

 

[Toby Frost]

EDIT: I've just re-read this and it was largely off-topic, so I've cut it down a lot. It's essentially a "Why I don't read romance" rather than "Should we reform the Hugos". Perhaps we should have a new thread about romance. Mods?

anyhow, the reason why I wouldn't read romance and certain other books is because I would expect to be required to engage with a fantasy that I don't share. I can't feel the things that I'm being asked to feel. I haven't had a particularly hard life, I've not been persecuted, but to me "alpha-male" is generally code for "arrogant bully", and I can't feel much for characters like that except dislike. Now, there are alpha-male types that are interesting to read about, but not from the perspective of romance.

At that point, I feel that the author is catering to people who share those fantasies, and not to the general reader who wants to read a story without coming at it from a certain angle.

I should add that this isn't literally a sexual thing. I can't get with those books that fawn on East-end gangsters, for instance. It's not so much a matter of morality, just that I don't have the buttons that the book is trying to press.

 

[MWagner]

I think relationship fantasies aimed at men would have to be dramatically different from those aimed at women (and I'm making assumptions about a hetero audience here). There is no female analog to the brooding, haughty, even cruel character type of Heathcliff/Darcy/Mr. Rochester. There doesn't seem to be an appetite for reformed bad girls, or high-status and aloof women. No Miss Big. More often, the object of men's desires is the opposite - naive, fresh, virginal. That speaks to some pretty fundamental differences in male and female reproductive strategies. I don't even know how much of a story arc you could tease out of male desire. The rescue fantasy? It's already incorporated into male-oriented genres, along with other stuff men often want in their stories, like fighting and revenge.

 

[Ursa major]

I can't say that the prospect of reading about a naïf holds much attraction for me (just as a character who always knows the correct thing to do risks boring me). I suppose it's better than simply being dim -- a definite turn off for me -- but not by much. (Sorry for being intelligentist. )

I can accept ignorant characters, in the sense that they're encountering a completely new situation, but I expect them to be intelligent enough to learn fast.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Romance. The opposite number of the reformed alpha-bully guy is the girl who's simultaneously the virginal schoolmarm (to everyone else) and the high priced hooker (just for you).

Men and romance novels. Yeah, guys read them. In my experience they tend towards the romantic comedy stuff and steer away from the more explicitly graphic sex scenes. I've tried a few myself and the sex didn't bother me per se (I gladly read erotica from time to time), but it seems so awkwardly done in the romance novels I've tried. Too many bad euphemisms and too much purple-veined prose.

Competence vs incompetence. This is the difference between drama and comedy. The vastly intelligent character who is almost never out of his depth and who might not know everything but can learn quickly is your typical action, adventure, or SFF hero. Whereas the average or clearly stupid character who is almost always in way over his head and who definitely doesn't know sh*t (or better yet thinks he's all that but isn't) is your typical comedy hero.

 

[Dave]

the reason why I wouldn't read romance and certain other books is because I would expect to be required to engage with a fantasy that I don't share. I can't feel the things that I'm being asked to feel. I haven't had a particularly hard life, I've not been persecuted, but to me "alpha-male" is generally code for "arrogant bully", and I can't feel much for characters like that except dislike. Now, there are alpha-male types that are interesting to read about, but not from the perspective of romance.

Interesting. So, you don't see Captain Isambard Smith as an alpha male? I grant you that he is a kind of reluctant alpha male hero, but I have no doubt that Suruk the Slayer definitely sees him in that way. And there is certainly romance with Rhianna Mitchell, again granted that he is a reluctant romantic hero, and that Rhianna would wear the trousers if she wasn't already wearing hippy dresses, ponchos and harem pants. I am joking though, the comedy there come from the breaking of established stereotypes.

 

[Ursa major]

Whereas the average or clearly stupid character who is almost always in way over his head and who definitely doesn't know sh*t (or better yet thinks he's all that but isn't) is your typical comedy hero.

Surely the nature of the comedy hero depends on the type of comedy. (Not all comedy is closely related to The Three Stooges.)

 

[Toby Frost]

That is an interesting point! I think Smith is rather too mild for it. He lacks the charisma/arrogance for serious womanising (women seem to make him nervous and confused as much as anything). He seems a bit too decent for that. I suppose the closest thing is probably Captain Fitzroy, who being female probably doesn't count. I think Suruk sees Smith as another Suruk - although he is prepared to overlook the yucky fact that Smith has a sex drive. I did actually deliberately make Smith rather ineffectual in most things apart from violence, just because I didn't want an obvious "hero" character.

Well, we started off talking about winning the Hugo Award, and now we're discussing things I wrote. We are now definitely off topic.

 

[soulsinging]

But I guess the big question is, are men (in the aggregate) harmed by the stereotypes in romance novels, in the same way that women are harmed by stereotypical females in other types of books? Do the stereotypes in romance novels actually reinforce harmful beliefs that real people really have about the roles of men in society? I don't know the answer, but I suspect not. I don't think anyone takes them seriously enough. I believe that people do take other types of genre fiction a lot more seriously, and what people read there is assimilated in ways that reinforce ideas that are still pervasive in our society, sometimes in ways that are so insidious that those who buy into them don't always realize it until they are called on it -- and not always even then.

I very much think men are hurt by this, though probably more so women really. I have a few good female friends that have had trouble maintaining relationships with decent guys because most decent guys aren't as exciting as a romance novel hero or rom com star (we tend to have budgets and all that prevent us from providing spontaneous helicopter rides), so they change guys like they change shirts out of boredom. It does tend to suck for the guys, but we usually learn not to chase those girls pretty quick so it probably winds up hurting women more. The flipside is women who stick with jerks thinking he will change. To be honest, I doubt this is tied to romance novels and has more to do with psychology, and I guess if you're an abusive guy that works out pretty well for you?

I think there is a corresponding female type, I'm thinking of Jenny from Forrest Gump or Xander-Buffy, the girl that's wild and untameable and unachievable. I think the reason guys don't really want to read this though, is that it's tough to hold the fantasy since gender norms expect men to be the pursuer. It's one thing to hold onto the fantasy of "changing" the wild one if you're generally the one being approached and selecting. When you're a guy and you generally are the one pursuing, once you've had your heart ripped out by a girl like that, you really don't want to relive it and you tend to rule the type/fantasy out because it's such hard work convincing ANY girl to even have a drink, you don't want to waste that effort on someone that'll gut you

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Surely the nature of the comedy hero depends on the type of comedy. (Not all comedy is closely related to The Three Stooges.)

No, not all comedy is slapstick, but many comedy heroes are incompetent. You either have an ordinary character in extraordinary circumstances, or an extraordinary character in ordinary circumstances. Or you have comic opposites, such as Wooster and Jeeves, where the competent character has to put up with or manage the incompetent character. Movies: Ghostbusters, Galaxy Quest, Caddyshack, Anchorman, 40-Year-Old Virgin, Get Him to the Greek, Hangover, Life of Brian, Shaun of the Dead, National Lampoon's Vacation, Big Lebowski. TV: Father Ted, Parks and Recs, the Office, 30 Rock, Third Rock from the Sun, Scrubs, Red Dwarf. Novels: Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Lucky Jim, Pet Peeve, Colour of Magic, Another Fine Myth, Mogworld, Auntie Mame, Expecting Someone Taller, Three Men in a Boat, Bloodsucking Fiends, Colour of Magic, The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse, Redshirts, Indecent Exposure.

 

[Ursa major]

If you want to list comedies aimed at very wide audiences, then of course there are going to be a lot of incompetents, not to say idiots (in some cases), taking the main role. It can work, even for me, but the risk is that they become the comedy equivalents of those female characters in adventure films there only to have nice hair and walk blindly into danger ready to scream their heads off, i.e. intensely irritating. (This is true of the leads in quite a few of the works you've listed, at least for me.)

However, even looking at shows with very large audiences, the hero can be the one manipulating the (perhaps incompetent) people around him/her: Sgt Bilko, Samantha Stephens and Norman Stanley Fletcher (Porridge) immediately spring to mind. (I'd mention Hogan of Hogan's Heroes, but I'm not sure how really successful that show was.)

I still don't think MC incompetency/idiocy is typical of all types of comedy, not given the range that covers, and the fact that subtle humour is often injected into things that are not necessarily thought of as out-and-out comedies (but which can be funnier than self-described comedies). Besides, misunderstandings and ignorance form the basis of a lot humour; being ignorant, or being misled, is not the same as being incompetent or an idiot (not unless it's persistent**).


** - Long running series often don't like to change a successful formula, thus forcing characters who are merely (seemingly temporarily) ignorant to become long-term fools.

 

[J-Sun]

But I guess the big question is, are men (in the aggregate) harmed by the stereotypes in romance novels, in the same way that women are harmed by stereotypical females in other types of books?

Perhaps we should have a new thread about romance. Mods?

Teresa, you raise many interesting points - that was a thoughtful and interesting post. I was just aiming to actually pull it back from romance to SF by taking the "women can write about alpha males and/or submissive women or weak males and dominant women but many people seem to espouse the general view that male writers, especially SF writers, can only write about mediocre men and all women must command starships" angle. "What about the SF", IOW. I think the romance thread would have legs () but IMO it is sliding a bit off-topic. But it ain't my thread.

(I'd mention Hogan of Hogan's Heroes, but I'm not sure how really successful that show was.)

And yet another off-topic. Bueller? Anyone? Bueller? Yeah, Hogan's Heroes was pretty successful (in the sense that I think most people know it and it was on for a few years with decent ratings and is much syndicated and so on, at least). Ferris Bueller is a really strong example of a comic lead character who's the opposite of incompetent. And there are a lot of "dramedies" where the leads aren't incompetent but are very funny.

But help me out - why are we talking about incompetent comedy? Just a natural free-association from Worldcon?

 

[Ursa major]

Don't ask me: I was only responding to an overambitious assertion.

I can't speak for Worldcons, never having attended one, but all the cons I've attended -- two Eastercons, three Bristolcons and a BFS con (in 2002) -- have had a strong vein of humour** running through them.


** - Seanan McGuire - mentioned by GRRM under her "Mira Grant" pseudonym in one of his kerfuffle posts -- was one of the Guests of Honour at this years Eastercon. I knew little or nothing about her work, but thought I'd attend. What I got was an hour of comedy -- driven by questions from the audience (there wasn't anyone interviewing her) -- that would put many well known comedians to shame. During that hour, she was informative and did not baulk at dealing with some contentious (to SPs and RPs) subjects. If she tires of writing books, she's definitely got another string to her bow. (Oh, and she wasn't the incompetent hero/heroine at the centre of her anecdotes and tales.)

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

We're still talking about comedies because Ursa seems to think the word 'typical' means 'all' and 'incompetent' means 'stupid' or 'idiot'. They don't, and that's not how I was using them, but that doesn't seem to matter.

 

[Ursa major]

Typical: adj.

1. Capturing the overall sense of a thing.
2. Characteristically representing something by form, group, idea or type.
3. Normal, average; to be expected.

So the incompetent person as a comedy hero is not "typical", but merely "often present", and often very irritating and not at all funny (which rather undermines their position as a comedy hero).

Setting aside that I used both 'incompetent' and 'idiot' in my responses (so I do know the difference), I would argue that the behaviour of someone who is generally incompetent (perhaps over many seasons/sequels and in the face of plenty of evidence that they are indeed incompetent) becomes indistinguishable from that of an idiot if they keep finding themselves in positions where they require, but lack, a certain competence. (If I couldn't fly a plane, I would describe myself as an idiot if I kept making my way into the otherwise unoccupied cockpits of planes expected to take off at any moment and try to get them into the air.)

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Typical: adj.

1. Capturing the overall sense of a thing.
2. Characteristically representing something by form, group, idea or type.
3. Normal, average; to be expected.

So the incompetent person as a comedy hero is not "typical", but merely "often present"...

Hey, lookit that. Considering 'typical' 'normal' and 'average' can all be synonymous with some form of 'often present' I think we can chalk this part up to 'overly pedantic' and let it die.

...and often very irritating and not at all funny (which rather undermines their position as a comedy hero).

The definition of 'comedy' doesn't include you personally finding it funny, so you not thinking something is funny has no impact on whether a given piece is defined as a comedy or not. Just in case you go Googling for more definitions, the key part here is the 'intent' of the creator(s), not how it's received by the audience.

Setting aside that I used both 'incompetent' and 'idiot' in my responses (so I do know the difference), I would argue that the behaviour of someone who is generally incompetent (perhaps over many seasons/sequels and in the face of plenty of evidence that they are indeed incompetent) becomes indistinguishable from that of an idiot if they keep finding themselves in positions where they require, but lack, a certain competence. (If I couldn't fly a plane, I would describe myself as an idiot if I kept making my way into the otherwise unoccupied cockpits of planes expected to take off at any moment and try to get them into the air.)

Considering your response indicated you thought only of the Three Stooge, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Since this seems to be the thing to do:

incompetent: not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.

So, people can have many positions along the in/competent divide. Competent underwater basket-weaver, incompetent office temp. Competent man servant, incompetent supreme being. I would agree that someone who's 'generally incompetent', as in they're incompetent about everything all the time and never learn anything ever (switch that 'something' above 'anything'), is in fact indistinguishable from an idiot, but thankfully that's not what I was talking about.

#

In an attempt to get back on topic, here's an updated list of GRRM's posts on the Puppygate:

1. Puppygate.
2. Me and the Hugos.
3. Tone.
4. Blogging for Rockets.
5. Where's the Beef?
6. Stay on Topic!
7. What Now?
8. Hatespeech.
9. Reading for Rockets.
10. A Reply to Larry Correia.

That last one is an in-depth response. There's a lot of interesting stuff there. If you read nothing else by Martin on this topic, take the time for this one.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Don't ask me: I was only responding to an overambitious assertion.

I can't speak for Worldcons, never having attended one, but all the cons I've attended -- two Eastercons, three Bristolcons and a BFS con (in 2002) -- have had a strong vein of humour** running through them.


** - Seanan McGuire - mentioned by GRRM under her "Mira Grant" pseudonym in one of his kerfuffle posts -- was one of the Guests of Honour at this years Eastercon. I knew little or nothing about her work, but thought I'd attend. What I got was an hour of comedy -- driven by questions from the audience (there wasn't anyone interviewing her) -- that would put many well known comedians to shame. During that hour, she was informative and did not baulk at dealing with some contentious (to SPs and RPs) subjects. If she tires of writing books, she's definitely got another string to her bow. (Oh, and she wasn't the incompetent hero/heroine at the centre of her anecdotes and tales.)

Interesting that you bring McGuire up, as she's one of the most successful authors in recent years at garnering Hugo nominations. I've long argued that this is because her writing fits the stylistic profile of what WorldCon voters prefer at the moment--stuff that's lighthearted but has a layer of depth, and which adopts an irreverent tone and features snarky/witty dialogue. Scalzi also fits this profile.

 

[Toby Frost]

I wondered why so many SFF bloggers read like they're auditioning for a part in Buffy. Now it makes sense.

(Edit: I didn't mean that sarcastically.)