quote:In recent months the community of science fiction readers and writers has been embroiled in an escalating war of words over the genre's political soul, catalysed by the nominations for this year's Hugo awards. Allegations of bloc-voting arose as a slate of little-known writers appeared among the nominees, after a concerted campaign by a small group of writers to get the books on the ballot.
A startling conspiracy theory was at the heart of the campaign. It alleged that a powerful clique of liberal writers and editors had taken control of science fiction, and worse, were politicising a genre that should exist purely for entertainment. They were filling the genre with heavy-handed "message fiction" and excluding conservatively minded writers. So conservatively-minded fans should vote for those writers to redress the imbalance.
After following the links a little ways, my sense is that this battle is being waged between #CancelColbert-style Social Justice Warriors and some lowbrow hacks who happen to be conservative (and one of whom, Vox Day, actually seems to be a hardcore racist and sexist).
Neither group represents the best work that exists in the field (by which I mean the Michael Swanwick/Dan Simmons/CJ Cherryh/old-school OSC/Octavia Butler/Gene Wolfe types). So I'm tempted to say a pox on both their houses.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
2 of the writers mentioned have put out responses:
Wright's is quite hilarious.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Intentionally or unintentionally hilarious? I usually can't bear to read John C Wright's blog posts. He's such a pretentious ponce.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What I read of Wright's was pretty funny. But it did keep going long past my attention span. Correia's was less comprehensible. I get the impression this is kind of a tempest in a teapot. I've always thought of the science fiction community as a little larger and more varied than this, rather than as a small town where everybody can't stand everybody.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, I thought Wright's style was amusing at first but daaaaammmnn he kept going. (I'm entirely new to his writing I think.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Yeah, I thought Wright's style was amusing at first but daaaaammmnn he kept going. (I'm entirely new to his writing I think.)
This. I did like the captions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If he's one of the people criticizing left-wing "message fiction," that's rich. The Golden Age is a nice epic SF trilogy, but the preachiness is non-stop.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I haven't been following this and some of those links read like complete nonsense but it did lead me to read a bit about Vox Day (who I had never heard of before) and wow. If only half of what I read is true, how the hell did he get a nomination? Either he is crazy but also a pretty damn good writer or there is definitely some politics involved. I might have to pirate one of his books just to see what all the fuss is about.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Vox Day is poison. I've never read his fiction.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Larry Correia isn't small time. He's incredibly successful, has a huge, active, and vocal fan base, and a prolific social media presence.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Vox Day is poison. I've never read his fiction.
That thread reminds me of how awesome dkw is.
Posted by dansigal (Member # 12661) on :
There's no real battle here. Correia and his "sad puppy" ridiculousness are fighting back against what they perceive to be a "liberal bias" in the industry. But it's all nonsense. There's no bias, there's just writers using science fiction and fantasy to explore topics that are important to them, a.k.a., what science fiction and fantasy has always done.
It's nothing new in the Hugos for authors to campaign. It's also nothing new for authors to say, here is what I'm voting for, you should too because it's good work. But, from my understanding, what happened here is that Correia put out a group of writers and their work, the whole "sad puppy" thing, and said, let's get everyone to vote for this block of work, not because the work was particularly good or the writers deserved it, but because they are more conservative writers, so it'll fight back against the liberal bias, take back the industry kinda thing.
So that's how someone like Day, who is quite literally the worst type of human being there is, gets nominated. As for Correia, he comes off as a bit of a douche on his online blog, but he's a solid writer. I don't know if he would have gotten nominated without his "sad puppy" campaign, but self promotion is a legitimate part of the Hugos.
I'm a Hugo voter this year, I am going to try my best to read everything in all the categories and vote based on the quality of the work, even Day.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
if these nerds are going to fight, why don't they fight about star wars instead, like me
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Larry Correia isn't small time. He's incredibly successful, has a huge, active, and vocal fan base, and a prolific social media presence.
You're right, he's hardly a "little known writer." That said, he's also not the type one would expect to find on the Hugo ballot. He writes fantasy, and it's not exactly the most high-concept stuff.
I'm actually more upset about the Wheel of Time being on there, though, since it's derivative badly-written garbage.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:There's no real battle here. Correia and his "sad puppy" ridiculousness are fighting back against what they perceive to be a "liberal bias" in the industry. But it's all nonsense. There's no bias, there's just writers using science fiction and fantasy to explore topics that are important to them, a.k.a., what science fiction and fantasy has always done.
But it does seem like there's a segment (NK Jemisin is a good example) who want to attack the kind of work that other people do on political grounds. And not just right-wing work, but left-leaning work that they think exhibits signs of privilege. Whether they exert a political influence on the awards is something I don't know, but I would say that the awards have consistently gone to some pretty high-quality work in the recent past.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Correia is just pushing for publicity. Everything he does is a media stunt to appeal to his "Fox News" base, as if he's lobbying for office. Have you ever seen his blog? He's just trying to be outlandish as possible and hope that media outlets pick up on it.
It's just branding. But it's sad that he has to make a mockery out of the Hugos just to try and get his name out there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There's no real battle here
Screaming people on opposing sides of Nerddom disagree with you.
quote:Correia and his "sad puppy" ridiculousness are fighting back against what they perceive to be a "liberal bias" in the industry. But it's all nonsense. There's no bias, there's just writers using science fiction and fantasy to explore topics that are important to them...
Emphasis mine.
I don't think that's solely what Correia is going after. It's certainly part of his issue-- preachy writers are obnoxious, after all-- but his wider message is directed to industry and to fandom. Both of whom seem suddenly hyper-conscious about artists' politcal affiliations rather than the story being told.
quote:He's also not the type one would expect to find on the Hugo ballot. He writes fantasy and it's not exactly the most high-concept stuff.
I haven't read but maybe a quarter of his first book. It wasn't my kind of book. I haven't read anything of his fiction since.
The Hugo rules don't say much about what kind of literature is to be expected on the list. Why shouldn't a low-brow fantasy romp be on the Hugo? Or a surrealist work? Or magical realism, or mundane SF, or...anything? Whatever gets readers excited enough to shell out $40 for a vote is fine with me.
quote:Correia is just pushing for publicity...
I try not to ascribe motive to folks I don't know personally. Soft-censorship of non-liberal authorial voices has been a hot-button issue for him for some time. I don't see any indication that his objections are anything but sincere.
I'm fairly certain he doesn't need the publicity.
I admit that I respect how much power he's put into the discussion. By that, I mean he took an group of folks who were completely uninterested in the conversation, and convinced them to invest (literally invest). That's extraordinary.
While I don't care for his stumping, I am absolutely tickled by Correia's very successful subversion of the Hugos.
quote:...it's sad that he has to make a mockery out of the Hugos just to try and get his name out there.
Eh. I don't think the Hugos are this great, sacred thing. I don't think most of the people who read SF/F care about the Hugos. So I don't put a lot of value in the idea that the Hugos are an untouchable, significant, holy relic that must only be revered.
If you're referencing his promoting himself for Hugo nomination, I'll just note that self-promotion is a fairly standard practice amongst writers, and that lots of us have done it, especially in context of a Hugo nom. (John Scalzi is famous for his self-promotion, for example.)
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
So ... yeah.
Writing Excuses had a podcast a few weeks ago, talking about how writers should stay out of politics and such. They mentioned that being inflammatory can hurt your fanbase, your reputation, etc. They also discussed the Hugo awards and how Scalzi IS pretty much the only person who can get away with stumping for the thing.
But we see this in every media industry....
Larry (like OSC) has some passionate beliefs. He likes arguing them vocally. Maybe that's all it is. But he's actively tousling with the media. He's posting every news article that mentions him, on both Facebook and his blog. He's being purposefully controversial and he's using some pretty strong language against anyone who disagrees with him.
I listened to him speak once. He said that he knows his audience is a bunch of gun nuts, and that he caters to his them. He's giving them the kind of persona that they can faun over, whether it's genuine or engineered. Regardless of motivation, he IS shamelessly self-promoting. He recently referred to one of his articles on gun control as "the most read article ever" on the subject.
Maybe it's just who he is. Maybe it's a calculated attempt to gain media coverage. Or maybe he just enjoys playing to a room and figures any press is good press.
<shrug>
There are a lot of authors who paint a certain impression on people. He has a public character and he's sticking to his "guns". As long as he knows it'll gain him critics, and it may hurt his chances at awards in the future, there's not really anything wrong with that.
In my humble opinion, however, he's rather making a mockery of the award. And he's doing it to self-promote. It's not some holy thing, no, but he's mocking the whole dang industry just to promote himself.
I guess you do what you can to make money. :/
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The Hugo rules don't say much about what kind of literature is to be expected on the list. Why shouldn't a low-brow fantasy romp be on the Hugo? Or a surrealist work? Or magical realism, or mundane SF, or...anything? Whatever gets readers excited enough to shell out $40 for a vote is fine with me.
I mean, the Pulitzer rules don't say anything about what kind of book is supposed to win either. But if Twilight won a Pulitzer, that would be a joke.
It's too bad the Hugo rules, unlike the Pulitzer rules for example, allow authors to game the system so effectively through self-promotion. $40 votes are not a good way to hand out awards, that's the sad truth.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I feel the same about Scalzi, by the way. The only book of his I've read (Old Man's War) was hack work, plain and simple. Unless he's gotten a lot better in a million ways since writing that book, the fact that he has a Hugo is a big joke.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I listened to him speak once. He said that he knows his audience is a bunch of gun nuts, and that he caters to his them.
this is literally all i know about whoever you're talking about and i will already put odds that he is not a gun nut himself at 0.0000000000000001%
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I feel the same about Scalzi, by the way. The only book of his I've read (Old Man's War) was hack work, plain and simple. Unless he's gotten a lot better in a million ways since writing that book, the fact that he has a Hugo is a big joke.
I've read a fair bit of Scalzi's work, and yeah- I find him to be a low B-lister.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I have always thought of the Hugo as a fan voting award. It doesn't seem like it's meant to reward serious or important or great work - it's meant to reward popular work...isn't it?
Edited to remove annoying quotation marks.
[ June 03, 2014, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
From the way it gets plastered all over any book that has won it, my impression is that it is the foremost award in sci-fi. There are others, but they don't seem to matter as much as the Hugo.
I'm glad there are others who aren't all that about Scalzi. I've always found his books pretty unreadable.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, I think it's meant to be a big deal, and I can understand being annoyed when work of questionable quality wins it. I think a lot of stuff that wins a Hugo would never be in the running for a Nebula.
I just think that when your mechanism for identifying the best work is to allow people to vote for it (with a low bar for being part of the group), it's not very surprising when some of it isn't up to certain standards - a lot of readers/voters aren't, either.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
True. That said, however, I've generally enjoyed the Hugo award winners much more than the average work. The crowd tends to pick the works that succeed in some major way, even if they aren't the best from more expert perspectives. I agree it's a flawed process, but it still seems to find most of the gems.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I am much more a fan of Scalzi the blogger and twitterer than I am of Scalzi the writer, although i did like "Red Shirts."
Vox Day is strongly hostile to feminism, often skirts close to racist beliefs, is openly scornful of any male who is either not an alpha or striving to be one, and reads basically like a YouTube commentor who got his own blog. He was kicked out of the SFWA after he used an official SFWA Twitter account to spout some abuse, such as calling an African-American writer a "half-savage."
Since his enbouncening, a campaign kicked up among his followers to get him a Hugo.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Chris-
To be clear, he was kicked out of SFWA for using the SFWA twitter account (to which all members of SFWA have access) to promotie his blog. In the blog post he promoted on the twitter feed, he criticizied NK Jemisin in racially insensitive terms.
(Jemisin and others had been decrying Day's run for SFWA president rather publicly.)
quote:Writing Excuses had a podcast a few weeks ago, talking about how writers should stay out of politics and such. They mentioned that being inflammatory can hurt your fanbase, your reputation, etc. They also discussed the Hugo awards and how Scalzi IS pretty much the only person who can get away with stumping for the thing.
Actually, the advice from Writing Excuses is to be conscious of the ramifications of your political activity. They didn't say don't be political.
Correia has apparently done all right even being as outspoken as he is.
quote:Larry (like OSC) has some passionate beliefs. He likes arguing them vocally. Maybe that's all it is. But he's actively tousling with the media. He's posting every news article that mentions him, on both Facebook and his blog. He's being purposefully controversial and he's using some pretty strong language against anyone who disagrees with him.
I'm not a fan of his style. I've told him so. He has, I believe, rational reasons that have nothing to do with grandstanding, for taking an aggressive stance on the issues he's concerned with.
I don't agree with his reasoning, but he seems honest.
I don't have a big problem with his...tousling the media. I'd call it engaging the discussion. Since the discussion is largely about him, what do you expect? OSC is about the only writer I know who can be textually abused throughout the media sphere and not acknowledge his detractors (much). He has a lot more practice than most, to be sure.
quote:In my humble opinion, however, he's rather making a mockery of the award. And he's doing it to self-promote. It's not some holy thing, no, but he's mocking the whole dang industry just to promote himself.
I don't see it. From my perspective, the bit with the Hugo is a legimately staged protest that has very effectively reached the targeted audience of both fans and industry wonks.
The determining factor of whether his protest has been effective will be what happens next year.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Is he trying to get the Hugo award process changed so it's not just a popularity contest among whoever registers to vote? I would be all in favor of that.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:The Hugo rules don't say much about what kind of literature is to be expected on the list. Why shouldn't a low-brow fantasy romp be on the Hugo? Or a surrealist work? Or magical realism, or mundane SF, or...anything? Whatever gets readers excited enough to shell out $40 for a vote is fine with me.
I mean, the Pulitzer rules don't say anything about what kind of book is supposed to win either. But if Twilight won a Pulitzer, that would be a joke.
It's too bad the Hugo rules, unlike the Pulitzer rules for example, allow authors to game the system so effectively through self-promotion. $40 votes are not a good way to hand out awards, that's the sad truth.
With respect to Twilight, it wasn't really my thing (I feel like I gave the first book a fair chance), but someone seriously should make an award for the most enjoyable books of the year. Give it to Twilight, the DaVinci Code, the Night Circus, Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, Game of Thrones, Divergent, Stephen King's latest brick, Nora Roberts or whatever. Forget fancy world-building or massive plot holes (oh, hi there Divergent). I want the book that has you on your seat until it's over.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Is he trying to get the Hugo award process changed so it's not just a popularity contest among whoever registers to vote? I would be all in favor of that.
It's implicitly a popularity contest, yes. So are the Nebulas, for that matter, just with a much more restrictive voting bloc.
From a certain perspective, any award assigned by vote is going to be some kind of popularity contest.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm just trying to figure out what it would take for his protest to be successful.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:With respect to Twilight, it wasn't really my thing (I feel like I gave the first book a fair chance), but someone seriously should make an award for the most enjoyable books of the year. Give it to Twilight, the DaVinci Code, the Night Circus, Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, Game of Thrones, Divergent, Stephen King's latest brick, Nora Roberts or whatever. Forget fancy world-building or massive plot holes (oh, hi there Divergent). I want the book that has you on your seat until it's over. [/QB]
Something like the MTV movie awards for books. I wonder if maybe Goodreads readers choice awards could function as such?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, these sci fi SJWs are really getting ridiculous. Apparently Mary Robinette Kowal was prodded to rewrite a story she'd already published because it betrayed colonialist assumptions (sounds like she was receptive, but the fact that this happened at all is kind of nuts).
His English was perfect, only the rolled R and lilt betraying his origins.
What was happening here was that the sentence on the page displayed my default setting American English is “correct,” and then went on to say that any other accent is a betrayal of the right way to talk. It’s not. I know better and it wasn’t even what I meant, but it is what I wrote.
Christ. That isn't even the right semantic reading of the sentence... the thing being betrayed is "his origins", not "English" or "the right way to talk."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Keep in mind that post is a year old.
I have no problem with Mary going back and editing her own stuff so that she feels more comfortable with it. 'Weaving Dreams' was kind of an odd case-- she revised it POST-publication. The editor was amenable to her changes, and there was no great outcry from the audience as far as I know.
While I am not a general fan of the idea of editing a story right after it's published I can sympathize with Mary's intentions.
That said, I am absolutely opposed to applying the logic she uses to justify changing others' work. If an editor were to propose the same changes to one of my pieces, I don't think I'd be quite as eager to publish with them.
The same post you linked seems to imply Mary isn't quite so sure that her edits are the right thing to do, either-- note how she bounces back and forth as comments to her blog roll in.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
For the sake of clarity, the editor of Apex (where Mary published 'Weaving Dreams') did NOT suggest the changes. The impetus to change the piece was spurred by a tweet from Lavie Tidhar, a reader (and variously successful writer). Mary took the changes up herself.
Which I don't mind.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Right, what I have a problem with is Tidhar's shaming behavior. It's not his job to morally fine-tune everybody else's work to make sure it accords with Correct Thought.
Makes me sad, he's a pretty good writer.
Some of the changes are factual edits, so that's fine. But Kowal felt obliged to alter things like the "betrays" line because she felt they expressed morally problematic attitudes on her part. That is not the response one should expect from an artist. Your work is supposed to express who you are, warts and all.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Actually, I'm not even sure I have a problem with Tidhar's tweet itself. What I have a problem with is the atmosphere that makes it supposedly commendable for Kowal to edit her published work in response to criticism. That's not the relationship a writer should have with readers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't disagree with anything you've said, really. But the author owns the story and can do with it what they wish. Change it, purge it, whatever.
I don't say that all their decisions are good ones.
I haven't found anything by Tidhar that really speaks to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's not the relationship a writer should have with readers.
Why not? I know a lot of writers, and they're not all that special.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That's not the relationship a writer should have with readers.
Why not? I know a lot of writers, and they're not all that special.
That's a dirty lie, promulgated by fascists and ne'er do wells.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What I have a problem with is the atmosphere that makes it supposedly commendable for Kowal to edit her published work in response to criticism. That's not the relationship a writer should have with readers.
If it had been me, and I had truly found some colonialism in my work that was incongruous with the setting, or that made it seem like I supported colonialism, I'd have apologized.
I would probably not have edited the story, though. I like Destineer's "warts-and-all" stance.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That's not the relationship a writer should have with readers.
Why not? I know a lot of writers, and they're not all that special.
Like I said, an author's work is ideally an expression of who they are, including their moral flaws. Whitewashing the flaws out of the work is an inauthentic thing to do. It's the writer's choice, of course, but if it were me I would rather have my vices come out in my work than paper them over.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, I object to the sentiment that in order to be good, a work has to exhibit moral virtue. This is often the opposite of the truth. In many works, their morally problematic aspects are part of what gives them life and aesthetic merit. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with Kowal's story, but it is another reason not to push people to morally whitewash the things they publish.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whitewashing the flaws out of the work is an inauthentic thing to do.
I'm not sure that's true. If I was sculpting a bust and chipped a bit off someone's earlobe -- but didn't notice it -- it would not be "inauthentic" of me to go back and smooth the nick out if someone pointed it out to me.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: it would not be "inauthentic" of me to go back and smooth the nick out if someone pointed it out to me.
Pardon my reading comprehension. I'm having trouble deciding if the double negative applies here or not. Would you mind rephrasing a bit?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
He's saying it would be appropriate to fix certain things. That it would be okay to fix a chip in a sculpture.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Whitewashing the flaws out of the work is an inauthentic thing to do.
I'm not sure that's true. If I was sculpting a bust and chipped a bit off someone's earlobe -- but didn't notice it -- it would not be "inauthentic" of me to go back and smooth the nick out if someone pointed it out to me.
Isn't the initial edit process of a book a "whitewashing" of flaws? Why is a subsequent edit any different?
Readers will see a lot of things in a work of art that aren't intended by the author. When a beta-reader or editor points these out, an author can make changes prior to publication. To argue that publication creates a fixed work that can't be altered is ridiculous.
Amanda Palmer modified a flawed version of The Bed Song in her last album. Does this compromise some bizarre sense of artistic integrity?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's considered a bit disingenuous here to edit a post without at least noting what was changed. Best practice is just to tack an ETA on to the end.
There's a reason the editing process exists. It's when all the flaws should be caught, including stuff that the author might agree is objectionable and want to revise. That's not whitewashing. At that point few people have seen the work and those who have are actively assisting in ferreting out all the flaws. The actual publication of the book should happen after the author and those she trusts are satisfied with the work.
Once it's published and readers get to read it for the first time, they may respond critically to it, but letting them actually sway further changes to it at this point is IMO very bad practice. Once everybody has access to it, the work ceases in a sense to be the sole property of the author. Everybody gets to interact with it personally, and changing it based on one person's opinion negates a lot of other opinions and experiences.
If the author wants to make changes after publication, she should do it in a new edition, with an explanation.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)