The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Bick]

Yes, but this decade there is apparent parity in nominees according to the quoted statistics so the fact that more women are writing good work is reflected in the stats it seems.

 

[J-Sun]

If that doesn't scream nutter from nutter-land, I can find more than a few VD quotes about Nora Jemisin and his notions of racial purity and science that I'm sure would shed some light on these folks.

because of course it couldn't be possibly that the authors actually earned their awards (actually quoted above)

You are completely misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what Torgersen said and then doing something very unjust beyond that. Torgersen said that the Hugo awards had been being given out as affirmative action awards. 1: that does not say that a given award may not be earned. 2: it is manifestly true that some, including apparently yourself, do see it as just that, since - regardless of quality - if it goes to underrepresented subgroups, that's a Good Thing. 3: even if you disagree with it (and it would be very reasonable to do so) there's nothing remotely "nutter from nutter-land" about it.

Since you seem to have some idea that it might not be "nutter from nutter-land" enough, after all, you then proceed to tar Torgersen with the VD brush and talk about "these folks" as though everyone who disagrees with you is not only a "nutter from nutter-land" but the same kind. That's "categorism" - a form of bigotry that is akin to racism if race rather than "opinions about Hugos" were under discussion.

There's also quite a few rants and raves from John C. Wright (someone you've probably never heard of

I wish you'd quit saying that. I have never read him but I would hope most SF fans have heard of him - he has been, e.g., selected by that Nazi stormtrooper Gardner Dozois for the Year's Best Science Fiction (in a volume I have but still need to read) and has received favorable reviews from many sources because these people are, y'know, evaluating stuff as literature rather than giving some political test. It's also an odd way to discredit someone. Suppose there's this minority writer "you've probably never heard of"? Does that make that author a devalued nutter?

 

[Brian G Turner]

It just shows that it's all about context and perspective.

I found that the morality of the radical left is entirely personal in its interpretation and implementation.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

You are completely misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what Torgersen said and then doing something very unjust beyond that. Torgersen said that the Hugo awards had been being given out as affirmative action awards. 1: that does not say that a given award may not be earned. 2: it is manifestly true that some, including apparently yourself, do see it as just that, since - regardless of quality - if it goes to underrepresented subgroups, that's a Good Thing. 3: even if you disagree with it (and it would be very reasonable to do so) there's nothing remotely "nutter from nutter-land" about it.

When someone claims that something was given to someone else because of affirmative action, the only way to read that without the clear connotation of it being undeserved is to willfully bury your head in the sand. It's a rather common thing to hear. "How'd that guy get a job?" "Affirmative action." "Why can't I get a job?" "Affirmative action." It's white racist speak for "they're a whiny minority and got something they didn't deserve". It's a fairly ubiquitous use, honestly. It's so common that one could argue that saying it's not meant that way is akin to saying any long standing racial slur doesn't actually have racist connotations. You can try to argue that all you like, but the way those words--and this phrase--are actually used, they're starkly racist.

Since you seem to have some idea that it might not be "nutter from nutter-land" enough, after all, you then proceed to tar Torgersen with the VD brush and talk about "these folks" as though everyone who disagrees with you is not only a "nutter from nutter-land" but the same kind. That's "categorism" - a form of bigotry that is akin to racism if race rather than "opinions about Hugos" were under discussion.

It's not that we disagree that makes them nutters, it's the racist, homophobic, sexist views some of them actually hold and loudly and frequently espouse that make them nutters. If you hate a segment of the population based on what genitalia they have, you're a nutter (ignore the pun). If you hate a segment of the population based on the level of melanin in their skin, you're a nutter. If you hate a segment of the population based on who they love (since there's always someone: living, same species, consensual), you're a nutter. It's not hard really. Don't hate people and don't step on their necks based on your bullsh**.

For example, John C. Wright calling for the deaths of the creators of Legend of Korra for the audacity to include same-sex couples in the cartoon. VD is infamous for his views on race, going so far as to call Africans less than human and Nora Jemisin uncivilised because she's of African descent. Torgersen claiming that the Hugos are affirmative action awards. I know some may want to think it's purely a magical coincidence that a whole bunch of right-wing nuts banded together and rigged the Hugos. It's not. At all.

I wish you'd quit saying that. I have never read him but I would hope most SF fans have heard of him - he has been, e.g., selected by that Nazi stormtrooper Gardner Dozois for the Year's Best Science Fiction (in a volume I have but still need to read) and has received favorable reviews from many sources because these people are, y'know, evaluating stuff as literature rather than giving some political test. It's also an odd way to discredit someone. Suppose there's this minority writer "you've probably never heard of"? Does that make that author a devalued nutter?

Funny how "evaluating stuff as literature" doesn't enter into the picture until now. Of course the non-white, non-male writers' work was all based on affirmative action and therefore an evaluation of the person rather than the work, and magically most of the authors on the Sad Sac Slate are all right-wingers (again, mystically, somehow that's not a political test at all... heavens no), but when questioned about the political test many of the Sad Sac authors passed to get onto the ticket in the first place... now... now it's time to bring up the quality of their work as what's important. If the quality of the writing is all that matters we wouldn't be having this conversation. The best these trolls have come up with was that classic schoolyard whinge of, "Well, they were doing it too." No, they really weren't. It's an ideological agenda that's pushing back against what they perceived as another ideological agenda. And as typical for the nuts, they're chasing bogeymen.

I had never heard of John C. Wright (or honestly most of these people) before spotting his name in relation to this slate voting Puppies thing. I consider myself fairly well-read, so just put the line in. The quality of his writing has nothing to do with whether I've heard of him or not, nor apparently of his inclusion on the Sad Sac ballot. But trying to read his published work is a bit of a chore. So if we're actually talking about an award based on merit for good writing, there's nothing I can see in the linked books that I sampled to warrant his inclusion. Those novellas could be the most brilliant pieces of short SF fiction in the history of mankind. But somehow I doubt that he magically happened to write and publish three of the most brilliant pieces of short SF fiction in the same year. It's doubtful, at best, that he's a writer of that caliber, and unfortunately, there's quite a few other writers who probably deserved the nod more than him based on the quality of their writing, but we'll never know because JCW is a right-wing nutter who is friends with a few other right-wing nutters who're out to prove a point and crash the party. Great. Good for them. Well done bit of trolling. Now we just need to fix the system so this idiocy doesn't happen again.

 

[Bick]

It's really simple. If your argument is that diversity is good, you're right. If your argument is that diversity is bad, you're wrong. I don't give a dog's desiccated arsehole who says it. Any argument for less diversity is wrong and bad. Any argument for more diversity is right and good... Anyone arguing for less diversity is simply wrong. We need more diversity, not less.

This is rather muddled thinking and reads like a knee-jerk reaction to me. What do you mean by diversity? Diversity in the standards or criteria by which writing awards are given out? No, pretty sure you don't mean that. Diversity in the number of awards given out? No, I suspect you not talking about that either. Diversity in the sex, race or sexual preference of authors who are given awards? Well, you perhaps mean that. It might seem like a nice idea to you (it doesn't to me), but shouldn't awards be given on merit regardless of all of those defining characteristics? I think what you may mean is that books should be easily and widely available by a diverse range of humans of all shades and types. Yes, quite right, few would disagree. But they are already of course. So unless you want to skew awards in some particular way by making sure they are distributed with what you regard as perfect "fairness" across all groups in society as opposed to whoever wrote the best SF, then the mustering call for "diversity" seems a bit needless. I'm not saying diversity is "bad" (and I'm not sure who has), but I am saying that awards winners may be a diverse mix one year or they may not, and I personally couldn't care less if its a year represented by a diverse group or a non-diverse group, so long as the best work is nominated and/or awarded. After all, books are not entirely defined by the authors sexuality, race, etc. You could get a "diverse" group nominated in one year, but if they all wrote military SF with a female protagonist, how diverse would it be? I'd rather the diversity, if we have to ensure its there, is in the fiction not necessarily reside with the author.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I found that the morality of the radical left is entirely personal in its interpretation and implementation.

Yeah, it's definitely more personal and individualistic than receiving it as holy writ or wisdom from on high. Which is probably why stuff like this can happen. The radical right basically marches in lock step (so damned tempting, sigh) whilst the left basically does their own thing. The left does agree on a lot of broad strokes, so things do get done... occasionally, but the right. Damn, those guys are organized and rabid. That Arthur Chu article I linked above does a lot better job explaining the hows and whys.

 

[J-Sun]

I fell behind and am just getting to this and, in doing that, I'm behind on another but maybe I'll get caught up someday.

(And the idea that the Hugos are "too literary??" The last time a novel written for a primarily literary fiction audience won was in 2008 (The Yiddish Policemen's Union). Before that it was...never.)

I think there are two different definitions of "literary" here. You're using it in the "stuff the New Yorker would call literary" sense (Chabon) while I think the people using it here are referring to the Analog vs. F&SF/Baen vs. Orbit/Joe Reader vs. SF-establishment-critic sense. I agree it makes no sense in the first definition and I can certainly see why people would dread it if it weren't true in the second definition but it's also certainly a valid description.

It kind of goes along with what you say in your blog post. I'm not accusing you of this but just saying an antagonist could read it this way: you say "frankly, the Hugos have never felt less meaningful to me than they do now" and then that you favor "the Locus Awards, which asks voters to nominate from a curated longlist". One could say it sounds like "I liked the Hugos when my kind of things were winning but now they're not so I'm taking my marbles and going home. The Locus list is curated by a relatively (relatively) homogenous group of "lit SF critic types" and that's the only award that has meaning now. Cuz it'll pick the Correct Winners." I mean, I know you're just saying "The Hugos are more about politics and negativity than fiction and celebration and the Locus is more sober and calm and all" but the Locus thing doesn't really address the divide.

And besides, all S/RP may accomplish, in the long-run, is to bring that "PC left" rival slate into existence. Then we're left with the same--highly irritating--"culture war" being fought by the good soldiers of justice and everything holy while those of us who haven't already abandoned ship get apathetic and stop caring.

I totally see your extrapolation and dread that but, as I say, I actually like this year's novel slate (in "judging a book by its cover" terms, rather than in actual content - it looks like a diverse slate of highbrow/middlebrow fun/serious (and, yeah, male/female, etc.) books. So there's a different extrapolation that's unlikely but possible - if the Right Slate and Left Slate could collide and get 2/5 or 3/5 of every category each, I think that'd be a blast. If the Right item and the Left item could win a semi-equal percent of the time, that would be entertaining. I mean, this is stupid on one level, because the "Left/Right" thing should irrelevant, but I just mean it would be cool if SF would embrace its highbrow and lowbrow and its this and that. If there was a sense of genuine difference in the works of fiction under consideration on the final ballot instead of them mostly being mostly kind of the same semi-artsy somewhat staid respectable things.

Re: your criteria for voting - I don't agree with #1, even, though #2 is obviously the whole point. For instance, as I say, I've never read Wright and find much of his "non-fiction" to be repellent but to quote the aforementioned right-winger Dozois (who's a major contributor to the Locus curated list), Wright had attracted some attention but "it wasn't until he published the Golden Age trilogy...novels that earned critical raves across the board, that he was recognized as a major new talent in SF." If I had a Hugo packet, I'd sure as hell give at least some of his stuff a try to satisfy my own curiosity.

On the other hand, one of your nominees for the Campbell award is ESR (Eric S. Raymond) who's well-known in open source software as a programmer (and the kind of libertarian gun "nut" who sends certain liberals running screaming) whose sole listing in the ISFDB is a pair of publications in a single book from Castalia House which seems to be VD's personal imprint. Now, I haven't read these works and Raymond's a pretty smart guy with a pretty good way with words and a long-standing love of SF so I don't doubt he could have written something genuinely good (or something genuinely dreadful) but he seems to be tarred with the SP/RP brush if you're using that.

 

[Nerds_feather]

J-Sun,

As far as Wright goes, my understanding is that he's a decent enough writer, but that, in his public persona, he's extreme in his homophobia and extremely eager in his liberal-baiting. (I've also heard that, in private, he is a very nice person--this, incidentally, from a mutual friend who is also a committed liberal.)

The homophobia would be enough, in and of itself, for me to scrap his collection of essays (several of which are explicitly homophobic) from Best Related Work, but I might consider his fiction outside of that. (I try to separate author from text and text from author, though sometimes it's hard to do that. But ideally I would.)

However, since he's one of the main ideologues of RP, he's automatically out as far as I'm concerned. As is everything published by VD's imprint. Eric Raymond might be a decent enough guy (don't know him, but I try to assume the best of people, and I can be friendly with people who are very different from me, politically speaking), but anything directly associated with S/RP organizers, activists or ideologues will get no consideration from me, and the imprint counts as association. (If something else of his were to be nominated, though, I'd consider it with an open mind.)

Now, I've tried to define "organizers, activists or ideologues" narrowly. I don't count someone who has defended S/RP in the course of public conversation as fitting--one would have to be involved in the process of crafting S/RP or going out and shilling for S/RP.

 

[soulsinging]

More often than not, when people with privilege perceive the Others as getting some equality, they assume it's due to special treatment or somehow that the process is rigged, which gets us the magical paradox that is the Privileged But Persecuted phenomenon. This is also why so many Christians in America think their religion is under attack and there's so much backlash there. It's literally unthinkable that the person in any way deserves the rights the PBP has enjoyed for much of history, or the awards that have historically gone so overwhelmingly to whites or men. In reality, it's just their privilege slipping. But they perceive it as them "losing what's rightfully theirs" and "special treatment" of others, when it's really things becoming more equal and just.

The arc of history bends towards justice. After 60 some years of mostly whites and males and straights winning awards, new generations of writers and fans have grown up with more open minds and started awarding Hugos to non-whites, women, and LGBT folks. Which apparently for the Puppies was just too much...

I'm really not sure what you want from us? As you point out, things are moving in the right direction and people from all backgrounds are starting to win, so what exactly is the problem? A few nutty old white guys freaked out and gamed one award ceremony (which they will likely never pull off again), but you yourself point out these guys are all on the wrong side of history and this is the last gasp of a dying movement. That's why nobody here is too bent out of shape about it... a few loons rigged one award show... so what? There are REAL problems facing REAL people all over the world and I just can't lose my **** and take to marching in the streets just because the sci-fi awards were a little reactionary this year. It sounds like you want us all to grab our pitchforks and go find these guys, or you're daring someone to shrug it off so you can rant at them for being racist. The bottom line is most of us aren't all that upset or concerned about the Hugo kerfuffle, and it's not because we're all homophobes that support racism and sexism, it's because we have a little of the "experience" you extolled and can tell the desperate act of a losing side when we see it. Screaming that the sky is falling only gives these nutters more press and lets them cling to relevance a little bit longer than they otherwise would.

 

[J-Sun]

I don't necessarily agree with soulsinging's characterization of it all but I heartily agree with the general import of it, so I'll try to slide off this part of the subject but figure it's only fair to reply to your (Fishbowl Helmet's) replies one more time.

When someone claims that something was given to someone else because of affirmative action, the only way to read that without the clear connotation of it being undeserved is to willfully bury your head in the sand.

I can't seem to articulate the logical terminology so I'll have to be sort of metaphorical here, but there's two ends of the stick to take here. If Torgersen says "Worldcon and fandom alike have tended to use the Hugos as an affirmative action award: giving Hugos because a writer or artist is (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) or because a given work features (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) characters" you need to first note that he says "tended" where you say he said "he claims the Hugos are nothing but an affirmative action award, here" which I note says "nothing but". So you've strongly misrepresented what he said from the start. Second, he describes the use of the awards. It actually says nothing about the award recipient or their quality. Let's say a work by "minority" is great and is a hair above or below or indistinguishable in quality from a work by "majority". This in no way disparages the "minority" work or the "minority" author. It says the "minority" is more likely to get the award because the award is being used as a tally in a social measure rather than a simple award for fiction. As I said earlier, this is debatable but reasonable people can agree and disagree on the proposition reasonably.

It's so common that one could argue that saying it's not meant that way is akin to saying any long standing racial slur doesn't actually have racist connotations. You can try to argue that all you like, but the way those words--and this phrase--are actually used, they're starkly racist.

But here we have the essence and why this post is in vain. You declare yourself that language will mean what you say it means, that you know what is in people's hearts, and that if the words don't confirm what you impute, you'll impute it regardless. So reason is no defense against your righteous wrath.

If you hate a segment of the population based on what genitalia they have, you're a nutter (ignore the pun)

Tone break because I can't help it - but it's such a good pun! That should be passed around and gain common currency.

If you hate a segment of the population based on the level of melanin in their skin, you're a nutter. If you hate a segment of the population based on who they love (since there's always someone: living, same species, consensual), you're a nutter. It's not hard really. Don't hate people and don't step on their necks based on your bullsh**.

Re: the righteous wrath - I'm not really picking up on an absence of hate here. You need to master the knack of sadly shaking your head at the poor benighted fools whom you will try to enlighten out of compassion for them.

Funny how "evaluating stuff as literature" doesn't enter into the picture until now.

Now you're either mischaracterizing me or, as others have mentioned, talking to people who aren't here and tilting at windmills.

most of the authors on the Sad Sac Slate are all right-wingers (again, mystically, somehow that's not a political test at all

Again, I'll point to the word "most". No, "most" wouldn't seem to indicate a political test. There's no doubt the slate is far right of a usual awards slate lately but there's also no doubt some works were not put on there solely on a political test. I'm sure the righteous will know what was in their hearts and say they put those token liberal works on their precisely to refute the point and that may be so but, still, there are works and authors who don't pass a right-wing political test.

It's doubtful, at best, that he's a writer of that caliber

As I say, I haven't read him. Using a fallacious appeal to authority , I'll say you'll have to take that up with Dozois and those other "across the board" critics.

As is everything published by VD's imprint. Eric Raymond might be a decent enough guy (don't know him, but I try to assume the best of people, and I can be friendly with people who are very different from me, politically speaking), but anything directly associated with S/RP organizers, activists or ideologues will get no consideration from me, and the imprint counts as association.

Yeah, that's actually what I meant - you had ESR listed as eligible for your consideration and I was saying he probably shouldn't be by your criteria. I disagree with the criteria, but I understand them and it's entirely up to you.

 

[J-Sun]

works on their

That's supposed to be "there", of course, but Shield came on and I didn't have time to proofread. Commercials are probably over now, too, so bye!

 

[Bick]

I'm really not sure what you want from us? As you point out, things are moving in the right direction and people from all backgrounds are starting to win, so what exactly is the problem?

I have a fair bit of sympathy for this way of thinking. Bit of a storm/teacup scenario too. And as Toby points out, what's the point/value in the awards anyway? I don't pay them much mind to be honest. I guess they help sell books to those who don't know one author from another, browsing in bookstores.

A few nutty old white guys ... a few loons rigged one award show... only gives these nutters more press...

But I'm not sure I agree with this language. I've read Brad Torgersen's blog and I don't have the impression he's a nutter or a loon. He wanted to counter the increasingly politicised, right-on, affirmative action he thought was undermining the awards by suggesting some names of authors' works people might want to vote for based on merit, not because they were a particular minority. Some of the people he recommended were women, and some were non-white, details which seem to have been overlooked. He's also unlikely to meet your cliched idea of a far-right neo-nazi extremist as he's been married to a black woman for 21 years. Personally, I was pleased to see some stories from Analog actually get a mention in the nominations for a change - it's content has been more or less ignored for years.

It sounds like you want us all to grab our pitchforks and go find these guys, or you're daring someone to shrug it off so you can rant at them for being racist.

Well, I'm leaving the pitchforks for others as you might imagine, so... shrug.

 

[soulsinging]

But I'm not sure I agree with this language. I've read Brad Torgersen's blog and I don't have the impression he's a nutter or a loon. He wanted to counter the increasingly politicised, right-on, affirmative action he thought was undermining the awards by suggesting some names of authors' works people might want to vote for based on merit, not because they were a particular minority.

Whether he is or not, some of those SP folks (one guy was basically using old eugenics arguments) most definitely fit the descriptors I used and it is to them that I was referring. As to his affirmative action argument, it's a stupid one. My suspicion is he's annoyed that the sort of vaguely right-wing sci-fi he's invested in is becoming unfashionable, and in an effort to boost sales and PR, he pushed a button that he knew would 1) get his target audience fired up and ready to "support" the cause and 2) so thoroughly annoy the zeitgeist he feels has unfairly maligned him that they will be compelled to blog and post about it incessantly and thus do him some PR favors. I doubt he gives a damn who gets nominated or wins Hugos as long as he and his crew are making money.

 

[Bick]

Whether he is or not, some of those SP folks (one guy was basically using old eugenics arguments) most definitely fit the descriptors I used and it is to them that I was referring. As to his affirmative action argument, it's a stupid one. My suspicion is he's annoyed that the sort of vaguely right-wing sci-fi he's invested in is becoming unfashionable, and in an effort to boost sales and PR, he pushed a button that he knew would 1) get his target audience fired up and ready to "support" the cause and 2) so thoroughly annoy the zeitgeist he feels has unfairly maligned him that they will be compelled to blog and post about it incessantly and thus do him some PR favors. I doubt he gives a damn who gets nominated or wins Hugos as long as he and his crew are making money.

Well, of course, you may be completely correct in that supposition (we cannot possibly know) but I think its an extremely cynical viewpoint and I think you're probably wrong. Incidentally, why is his affirmative action argument "a stupid one"? I suspect what you mean is, "I don't agree with it".

 

[J-Sun]

My suspicion is he's annoyed that the sort of vaguely right-wing sci-fi he's invested in is becoming unfashionable, and in an effort to boost sales and PR, he pushed a button

As you can see from his accolades in a mere four years of active publishing (all but the latest two coming from before the SP thing) and the fact that he's just sold a novel that Paul di Filippo reviewed favorably (di Filippo being another of those of the radical right-wing cabal) I doubt he's too worried about his prospects for future success. As I've noted elsewhere, I worry that this may actually hurt his rep by people writing him off by association and hearsay (not that we've seen any of that happening anywhere). As far as whether he gives a damn about the Hugos, read what he has to say himself in a reasonably brief post. Besides which, he didn't start this - this isn't his grand master plan for publicity - to have his character arguably slandered in mainstream media so that he has to defend himself against all that liberal love he's receiving from non-haters. He's just picking up the torch from Correia and taking a more moderate approach.

Incidentally, this sort of thing is pretty common and just blows my mind: "Note with a sigh the requisite references to Romans, sports, and men." OMFG! He said sports and Romans! (What have the Romans done for us?) Invalid, invalid! (But does he like gladiator movies, Tommy?)

So now it's not just racist comments and whatnot but referencing sports makes you an evil person.

BTW, on the earlier stuff regarding "affirmative action" being a code for racism - what are we supposed to do when the person speaking against affirmative action is from a minority group? Are they racist, too, using code through which people can see into their hearts? And are they worse than people who like sports?

 

[David Selig]

As I've noted elsewhere, I worry that this may actually hurt his rep by people writing him off by association and hearsay (not that we've seen any of that happening anywhere)

Personally I am writing him off because with each new post he makes he reveals himself to be a total hack. Not that I suspect it from suspect it from sampling his work before.

He thinks the Hugo are too literary and elitist and anything more complicated than a KJA novel or an Avengers movie is too snobbish and elitist for him. And he's the guy in charge of the Puppies slate this year which for me is worse than any political stuff. I've tried to read some of the ballot he's suggested and everything is completely lacking in even the most basic ambition or complexity in literary terms. Simple straightforward stuff for people who don't want to be challenged at all while reading and for whom Kevin J. Anderson is, I quote, a "titan of the field" and an award which was won recently by such totally literary and ultra complex works like Redshirts, Among Others and Blackout/All Clear is too elitist.

He's also a mediocre writer at best. That nominated novellete of his last year where the brave marines defeated the evil Commies in space was an embarrassing cliche and stylistically mediocre.

 

[soulsinging]

Well, of course, you may be completely correct in that supposition (we cannot possibly know) but I think its an extremely cynical viewpoint and I think you're probably wrong. Incidentally, why is his affirmative action argument "a stupid one"? I suspect what you mean is, "I don't agree with it".

Because it's self-defeating and hypocritical. He complains that the award slate is too focused on PC-diversity, then he consciously selects an equally diverse slate of nominees specifically in order to avoid any accusations of being racist... aka, he did exactly what he's claiming the Hugo's shouldn't do: selecting nominees based on political and not literary reasons (which is why he makes such a big deal about his slate is not racist and is just as diverse). It means either he is so stupid as to not see the hypocritical absurdity, or his whining has nothing to do with PC/affirmative action and everything to do with him just liking a different style of book than the Hugo's have liked lately and him wanting to take his ball and go home. Either way, it's a completely worthless and petty argument.

It's not a matter of whether or not I agree with it, it's a matter of... what the heck is his point? THEIR diverse nominees were obviously only chosen for PC-reasons, but HIS diverse nominees were clearly chosen solely based on merit? Please. It's asinine, and that's why I take the cynical view... seems to me he's just trying to get some press and was just bitter that his preferred authors weren't getting the attention to which he felt they were entitled.

Look, I'm not buying this whole "great white conspiracy" nonsense, but that doesn't make these knuckleheads right. If you believe he only did this because he cares SO MUCH about the integrity of the Hugo's and it has nothing to do with his political or sales agenda, then I have a beautiful piece of beach front property I'd love to sell you in Iowa.

 

[soulsinging]

As you can see from his accolades in a mere four years of active publishing (all but the latest two coming from before the SP thing) and the fact that he's just sold a novel that Paul di Filippo reviewed favorably (di Filippo being another of those of the radical right-wing cabal) I doubt he's too worried about his prospects for future success. As I've noted elsewhere, I worry that this may actually hurt his rep by people writing him off by association and hearsay (not that we've seen any of that happening anywhere). As far as whether he gives a damn about the Hugos, read what he has to say himself in a reasonably brief post. Besides which, he didn't start this - this isn't his grand master plan for publicity - to have his character arguably slandered in mainstream media so that he has to defend himself against all that liberal love he's receiving from non-haters. He's just picking up the torch from Correia and taking a more moderate approach.

Don't know or care who those reviewers are, but I think if you ask ANYONE that writes or publishes, there's no such thing as feeling certain of future success. Any press is good press, and good reviews don't necessarily equal good sales. I'm not saying the guy can't write or couldn't hack it on his own, I'm saying he loves his genre, his genre is getting unfashionable, and he's trying to make sure it stays relevant enough to keep selling. He says himself in that post that the Hugos matter far less to him than an actual publishing deal, and that this is basically all about him feeling his friends, like Rodney Dangerfield, don't get no respect. His whole post is littered with the double speak I mentioned... the awards aren't a big deal, but everyone I like HAS to be recognized at them for them to have legitimacy. The best part is their argument is predicated on the notion that some PC-loving elite has rigged the process... despite the fact that the process is entirely driven by readers and members, as he and his pals so ably exploited. Those PC-folks don't have much of a conspiracy going if all it took was a few military sci-fi guys stuffing the ballot to topple their conspiracy.

He's being slandered because he's being a whiner. It's like me when I was 15 complaining that grunge rock never got nominated for Grammies. You're supposed to get over that sort of thing when you're not a teenager anymore.

I'm not saying you're racist if you debate affirmative action, I'm saying that if you invoke affirmative action, you make it a debate about race, not about various sub genres of SF. We can debate the ins and outs of affirmative action for days, but I will say your link does nothing to disprove my point... it emphasizes the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a discussion about affirmative action that is not focused on race. It is always a racial issue. Whether it comes from a minority or SF writer... it's still a debate on the value of affirmative action in combatting racism, and NOT an analogy that can be effectively adapted to call people to the banners of fighting the oppression of those poor SF writers. If he didn't want to get sucked into a debate on race, quotas, etc, he should have used a better term than one loaded with connotations of race and Jim Crow. And to reiterate a previous point I made, if affirmative action is so offensive to him, then why is his slate so consciously and diversely-PC? If it's not about race, then it was a terrible idea to invoke affirmative action, because you don't invoke affirmative action in the context of too much "lit SF" and not enough "military SF."

As to the sports thing, I can address it but my time is limited, I doubt anyone here really cares, and I have the distinct feeling you're setting me up with a tangential strawman argument by making ME defend people that think sports are evil, something I've never even touched on, let alone espoused. I didn't bring up sports, he brought up affirmative action. One is thus fair game for this debate, the other a sign of someone lost in their argument and trying to find something incendiary to distract from it. I don't hate military SF, sports, or the people that enjoy them. I do hate people that are acting like whiny little children because their BFF's aren't winning all the awards they think they should. I also think the people outraged about the ballot stuffing are equally whiny.

*EDIT* The bottom line is I don't really know or care if this particular guy is racist (though I have to say I'm curious why you seem so invested in defending his reputation, and his alone), but he aligned himself with some racist elements and used some of their racist language in an effort to advance some sort of agenda, which appears to be related to the financial and critical success of his sub-genre. It seems like now even he is beginning to think he backed the wrong horse, given his (and your) attempts to delicately distance himself from the truly lunatic fringe now that their support seems to be doing him more harm than good.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Personally I am writing him off because with each new post he makes he reveals himself to be a total hack. Not that I suspect it from suspect it from sampling his work before.

He thinks the Hugo are too literary and elitist and anything more complicated than a KJA novel or an Avengers movie is too snobbish and elitist for him. And he's the guy in charge of the Puppies slate this year which for me is worse than any political stuff. I've tried to read some of the ballot he's suggested and everything is completely lacking in even the most basic ambition or complexity in literary terms. Simple straightforward stuff for people who don't want to be challenged at all while reading and for whom Kevin J. Anderson is, I quote, a "titan of the field" and an award which was won recently by such totally literary and ultra complex works like Redshirts, Among Others and Blackout/All Clear is too elitist.

He's also a mediocre writer at best. That nominated novellete of his last year where the brave marines defeated the evil Commies in space was an embarrassing cliche and stylistically mediocre.

This is so spot on. Calling Redshirts or Among Others "too literary" is so ridiculous it's almost funny.

 

[David Selig]

I would be shocked if anything on the Puppies ballot is remotely ambitious in literary terms given the views of Correai and Torgersen on what's pretentious and elitist. They probably would consider Redshirts too meta and too complicated. never mind that it's written at a 5th grade reading level at most.

This is purely hypothetical, of course, because it's like not like they would ever read the work of that commie SJW Scalzi.