Worldcon 76 is over! What a nightmare. These people really had no business running a convention which they proved when they banned a popular Hispanic conservative author for the mere act of existing as the wrong identity. We had a video on Thursday where I went in and peacefully attempted to buy a ticket. Lori Buschbaum, their security, immediately threw me out of the convention, wouldn’t give a reason for it, and violated my civil rights.
The odd part, was she, unlike in January when she threatened to have me thrown out of any hotel in the immediate area as well, admitted on film that throwing me out of a hotel was something beyond her ability to do and she understood that would be a violation of my cviil rights. What she admits by that is that I’m no threat to Worldcon attendees at all, think about it logically:
If I’m in the hotel where everyone’ staying, being peaceful, not causing a problem (which I was for a day and didn’t cause any problems), it means she didn’t think I’m a real threat to anyone’s safety. Why? If I was, she would have called the police because I was right there with everyone. This is a horrible look for the con and about the dumbest thing they could have done. But regardless, there are a lot of winners and losers at the con. Let’s talk about some of them.
Winners: People Who Didn’t Go
Worldcon’s panels were a complete shit show of identity politics. Several writers at the con told me there were hardly any panels worth going to at all. There was very little science fiction, very little business, no talk on marketing, but lots of panels about LGBTQWTF+ types and how we should applaud them for existing. This was a political action committee masquerading as a scifi convention. I kept getting messages throughout the weekend of people there who really wished they hadn’t spent the money. And a LOT of money it was. $250 for a ticket! You’d think they’d provide a musical act like Journey or something for the price of that. But now… that’s the price you pay to get lectured about diversity.
Losers: Diversity
On diversity… how diverse is it if everyone speaking and there thinks exactly the same? This is the monolith of the entertainment industry now where differing ideas are banned and everyone has to go into this lockstep craziness of ID Politics. It’s why sales are down, it’s why I expect worldcon attendance will be down. They wen’t way too far. The sad part was when they completely redid their programming with 2 weeks to go, I talked to Mary Robinette Kowal about how to include people who think differently… she wasn’t able to get anything through. She tried, but she’s working with absolute zealots at this con. The whole con though had a lot of fat grannies in wheelchairs though — it looked like a scene out of Wall-E.
Winners: The Right Wing Protests
The Anti-Pedophilia protest drew more people than Antifa. And the Antifa/Worldcon crowd had pretty much nothing there. The right wingers looked better, were more organized, had smarter things to say while the left were standing around wearing pink shirts displaying themselves as literal “pinkos” and having a bizarre #MeatShield. They screamed “racist racist racist” over and over but accomplished nothing.
Losers: The Left
From the programming to the failed counter protest. To the fact that the con com refused to respond to threats of violence, to where they didn’t enforce their “rules” equally to me as they did with left wing authors — Patrick Tomlinson threatened to record people at the con as a threat, far beyond what I tried to do when I said I needed to have a camera in case someone tried to assault me, and yet they ignored it and let him attend the convention. They threw me out without so much as a word. Their full hypocrisy is on display. They looked weak. They looked intellectually retarded.
Winner: Shaymaal Shareef
We’re intellectually honest here, and Worldcon didn’t do everything wrong. Shaymaal is an author from Saudi Arabia, a woman, and she’s trying to produce science fiction content in her home country. They brought her out, and she’s a very cool woman with a lot of talent. Plus she’s very brave for doing what she’s doing in a society like Worldcon wishes they could create. She’s someone to watch over these next few years.
Losers: The Hugo Awards
It’s such a joke at this point. I pretty much voted down the line (cuz I still had rights) with all the identity politics choices — and they all won. 2nd year in a row all women. People were cheering because “black indigenous” women were winning, and weren’t talking about the books at all. It’s all ID Politics now. No one cares about these books or stories and it’s an award that’s going to fade into obscurity over the next few years as it only gets worse with a smaller and smaller group of people attending the con to vote. The echo chamber is here.
Winner: Me.
I released my new book The Blood Of Giants last week. It’s getting great reviews. It’s selling great, just like you would have expected. You should read it too. On top of that, my Flying Sparks IndieGoGo campaign hit $20,000! This comic book is going to change my career and I’m so excited to bring it to you. Only a few days to go so don’t delay in backing!
wow
“Winners: People Who Didn’t Go”
Woo hoo! It’s like winning the lottery without even knowing it!
I dont think you can win this fight. Just like I saw the Sad Puppies lose their fight in 2015.
However since there are a few factions in the winners area. I believe when the WC comes back to America in 2021 then the factions will begin to fight amungst themselves on who is diverse and right.
Homosexual Men Vs Women, Radicals vs Mainstream.
Those that feel oppress who gets big wins usually tear each other apart untill stability comes in again.
Jon,
So the Worldcon’s theme is: but was it any good?
Lord it’s like reading the official literature(tm) of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Inspid, boring, unimaginative, shrill and moralina ( to use the Spanish feminine adjective equivalent to moralizing)
I won’t waste my hard earned beer money on crap. So moving on
xavier
Throughout worldcon history there was lip service to women and minorities and women and minorities sometimes win.
But now since Sad Puppy slate event and that Worldcon was in California. Made the wins possible but as a radical backlash than a slow growth in time.
Its one of these rare times Im glad the foreigners have worldcon for 2 years.
And where will it be held?
And will it frankly be any different that this year’s slow motion giant asteroid hitting a planet disaster?
xavier
2019 Dublin (Game of thrones theme up the ass)
2020 Wellinton New Zealand Lord of the Rings up the ass
Thanks. Let’see see what happens then
xavier
Taste is subjective and anyone can dislike any book for pretty much any reason, but I always know when a “puppy” hasn’t read Jemisin, because the Broken Earth trilogy is anything but insipid, boring, unimaginative, shrill or moralizing. In fact, I bounced off the first book, but I’m glad I gave it another shot because it’s one of the most creative, interesting and enjoyable things to come out of the genre in a decade at least.
Definitely worth your time, and even some beer money.
“one of the most creative, interesting and enjoyable things to come out of the genre in a decade at least.”
It is literal white supremacy if the greatest sf/f author of all time doesn’t win a 4th Hugo.
Don’t be silly.
I haven’t read Broken Earth, but I did read 100,000 Kingdoms, and was not impressed (to be fair, Kingdoms was badly marketed – it’s a cheesy lust fantasy, but it was marketed as intricate “brilliant” political fantasy, so it ticked off people like me, and completely missed the far more lucrative cheesy lust fantasy audience.)
“Taste is subjective and anyone can dislike any book for pretty much any reason, but I always know when a “puppy” hasn’t read Jemisin, because the Broken Earth trilogy is anything but insipid, boring, unimaginative, shrill or moralizing.”
Nice clumsy qualifier you have there. As a smarter man than I once said, when used in this fashion, everything you said or wrote before ‘But” was a lie.
I’m no ‘Puppy’. And years back, before I ever heard of Vox Day, Larry Correia or the puppy movement, I attempted to read NK Jemisin’s first trilogy.
It was one of the single most boring books (I only read half of the first book) I’ve ever attempted. A member of the writing group I belonged to at the time kept pushing them and I kept trying to get into it.
Pure boredom. Remarkable only because of how I strained to get anything like an exciting plot out of it or interesting characters.
@Emmett —
“I’m no ‘Puppy’. And years back, before I ever heard of Vox Day, Larry Correia or the puppy movement, I attempted to read NK Jemisin’s first trilogy.”
In case you haven’t noticed, the Broken Earth trilogy is not the same thing as the 100,000 Kingdoms trilogy.
I bounced off the 100,000 books myself. DNFed em just a coupla hours into the audio version, never tried em again.
OTOH, the Broken Earth books are brilliant.
As Jason noted — it’s always easy to tell when a puppy (or any other critic) hasn’t actually bothered read these books before criticizing them.
And in case you hadn’t noticed, I never mentioned reading the new trilogy for which she won her awards. I was intentionally specific that it was her earlier books.
And also, you might have noticed, if Reading Comprehension were “your thing” that Jason’s words were people who hadn’t read Jemisin, not necessarily her award winning trilogy:
“… but I always know when a “puppy” hasn’t read Jemisin,”
And THEN he mentions the new trilogy.
So, you might have noticed, I only criticized the books I tried to read. Reading Comprehension. It. Matters. Thanks for playing.
Buh Bye.
@Emmett —
In case you hadn’t noticed, the discussion was about Worldcon nominated and winning works. In case you hadn’t noticed, Broken Earth won. In case you hadn’t noticed, 100,000 Kingdoms wasn’t even nominated.
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Emmett. 😉
I get it, Contrarius. Typical SJW crap. Move the goal posts when they don’t work for you. I was specifically addressing his comments. And I even delineated how and why, since you failed the comprehension test.
Now I see erring on the side of assuming you were ignorant is wrong.
You’re just dishonest. SJWs always lie.
@Emmett —
I get it, Emmett. Flail and whine when you can’t even be bothered to notice context.
You’re just oblivious. Right wing nutcases always live in their own little fantasy world.
“Flail and whine.”
Shall we skip to “I know you are but what am I?” I’m flexible.
That seems to be your speed.
@Emmett —
If that’s the best you can come up with, I think we’re done here.
Thanks for playing.
Ha! Contrarius, you scamp. You have me know!
I’ve read Jemsin’s books, including the last three that won the Hugo’s. The fact I can’t tell you much about them now is an indicator of how much I thought of them.
The fact I can talk about the Forever War, Ender’s Game, The Vor Game, Barrayar, The City & City, Diamond Age and others who were nominated even now tells you what I think of them.
How many people, casual readers, and even hard core fans, are going to be hard pressed to remember who won this years Hugo 10 years from now?
Books that win major awards are supposed to leave an impression, usually a good one. (Why yes, I am looking at Redshirts and the bad impression it left me…) and I get that tastes vary. What I like, others may not, which is fine.
The number of nominators fell again this year (unexpectedly?), and until recent events the awards were falling into obscurity. Case in point, my high school had more people vote for Prom King and Queen than voted for some of the categories. Thats not a good sign. Another not so good sign: If Card had written Ender’s Game this year instead of ’85, the odds it wouldn’t be nominated because of his political and personal statements in the past decade plus are well north of 99%. And if your OK with it not being nominated because of that, well…there’s a reason participation keeps dropping, and the Dragon Awards are becoming more popular.
@Andrew —
“The number of nominators fell again this year (unexpectedly?), and until recent events the awards were falling into obscurity.”
Actually, there were 1000 **more** final ballots this year than in 2013, the year before puppy interference started. (2828 this year, 1848 in 2013). I don’t know how you make the leap from that to “fading into obscurity”. In reality, the trend in voting numbers has been fairly steadily UPwards since 2008, with of course a huge upward diversion during the puppy years.
“there’s a reason participation keeps dropping”
Except that it actually hasn’t. Please try to stick with the facts instead of convenient fantasies.
I’ve got a graph showing Hugo voting trends that I made last year — you can see it here:
https:// contrariusest.wordpress. com/2017/09/02/hugo-voting-2000-2017/
I haven’t updated the graph, but as I mentioned above, the final ballot total this year was 2828.
“The fact I can talk about the Forever War, Ender’s Game, The Vor Game, Barrayar, The City & City, Diamond Age and others who were nominated even now tells you what I think of them.”
And that’s fine — appreciation is subjective. Feel free to criticize any of the books or shorts as much as you like — AS LONG AS YOU’VE READ THEM BEFORE CRITIQUING THEM.
“And that’s fine — appreciation is subjective. Feel free to criticize any of the books or shorts as much as you like — AS LONG AS YOU’VE READ THEM BEFORE CRITIQUING THEM.”
Yeah, trying saying that in 2015 or 2016…
Anyhow, less that 500 people voted for best novel….in 2007. In 2006 it was about 550, in 2005 About 650, it was a long downward trend, after holding steady in the 700-800 range for years IIRC.
A Decade ago it took 745 votes to win best novel.
Declining into obscurity is an apt description, unless a long trend of stagnation and decline is a sign of health and vitality somehow.
I don’t know if 2009 it was the Gaiman fandom that pushed it over 1000, but its telling that in 2010 it fell back to 875, and that was a really strong year for Best Novel. I’m not sure why it kicked up in 2011, Blackout/All Clear was good, but the rest of the field was weak, including Bujold IMO.
2012 was Waltons year for sure, but the 2013 numbers were down from 2012, and I blame Redshirts. How that book managed to beat Bujold is a crime against Science Fiction IMO.
2014 was the First SP, then the 2015 bounce, then it’s fallen off.
Yes, there were 1000 more people voting this year than in 2011, but another way of stating that is 500 more people voted this year than last year, and I don’t think thats a good sign.
I didn’t agree with everything on the SP/RP platform, but given the chain of events since 2014, they weren’t all wrong. When your voting against Mike Resnick and Toni Weiskopf because of who nominated them and not on the quality of the body of work that got them there, how does that square with your statement on critiquing?
IMO Worldcon and the Hugos will settle around the 2000-2500 range for a few years, and unless there is a year where more than a few books of quality come out, they could fall back under 2000 again.
But honestly, do you think 3000 people in all of science fiction fandom voting for the most prestigious award in the genre is a good thing?
And since you declined to answer last time, I’ll ask again: If Enders Game came out this year, in this current environment, would it win Best Novel?
@Andrew —
You didn’t actually ask any question about Ender’s Game in your previous post — you merely stated your own doubts. 😉
As for me, I’d say that Card couldn’t have written that book this year, because his talent seems to have gone down the tubes. So the question is kinda moot. And besides, stories are very much of their times — for instance, I doubt that Le Guin’s Omelas story would win this year either.
As for the voting numbers — yes, the numbers were pretty stagnant before 2008. They weren’t fading away as you claim. And the trend has been upwards since then. No, of course the voting pool isn’t huge — but just as many more people vote for the People’s Choice awards than vote for the Oscars, prestige and/or significance isn’t all about voting numbers. If it were, then tge Goodreads awards would probably be the most prestigious.
And yes, the numbers are now trending back towards “normal” after the big bump caused by the pups. There’s nothing wrong with that, and certainly nothing apocalyptic.
As for why the Hugo numbers started rising in 2008 — the Hugo packets started getting distributed in 2007 or 2008, and that probably had something to do with it.
Contrarius, You are dodging the question asked, COULD Mr. Card have won a Hugo for ENDER’S GAME this year? The issue was not whether Mr. Card’s abilities as a writer are declining. My answer would be NO, because Mr. Card refuses to be Politically Correct.
@Sean — If that’s the worst thing you can think of to say about my entire post, then I am very well satisfied. But basically, I think it’s a nonsensical question. I’ve already pointed out that at least one very left-leaning previous winner would also not be likely to have won this year.
If you guys want to see the literature you like winning Hugos, then you need to buy memberships and VOTE. Don’t try to game the system — the pups have already proven quite clearly that their tactics don’t work. Heck, those tactics aren’t even working for the pups in the Dragon Awards this year, and the Dragons allow for a lot more shenanigans than the Hugos do!
The tactics that DO work? Read the books. Talk about them with your friends. Tell lots of other people how much you love them. Buy memberships. VOTE. And don’t whine if it turns out that more people like some other book.
(Forgive typos. I’m typing on my phone again!)
I agree with Sean about Mr. Card. His political and religious beliefs against Homosexuality he would not win a Hugo today.
The Sad Puppy’s could not win ( I was at the vote of 2015). Lost because they were out numbered 3 to 1.
The SJWs could have handled the slate problem if they just outvoted them.when the problem was revealed. SJWs went rabid and drove or driving the conservatives out.
At the 2015 World I became a Sad Puppy. I would have been a Rabid Puppy but those assholes were to racist.
Contrarius, I see you are STILL dodging the specific question asked of you by others and then myself. Could or could not Mr. Card’s ENDER’S GAME have won this year? I would have been satisfied with a simple YES or NO from you. Then we could have gone into issues such as whether or not Mr. Card’s book should have won the Hugo. MY answer, given the kind of people who, de facto, control the Hugos, would have been no, it would not have. Your answer, such as it was, was totally UNSATISFACTORY.
When it comes to science fiction I prefer the works of the late Poul Anderson, Jerry Pournelle, Avram Davidson, etc., among deceased writers. And I favor the works of S.M. Stirling the most, among living authors.
@Sean —
And again, your question is nonsensical — somewhere along the lines of “could Lincoln have won the presidency this year?”. You’re trying to construct an imaginary argument about a conservative author, even though I’ve already pointed out to you multiple times that a certain liberal author would also be unlikely to win this year. And did you stop to pay attention to my use of the word “also” this time? Yup, sure enough, that means I think NEITHER the conservative NOR the liberal in question would have won.
As for OSC’s writing talent, he was my favorite author for years. His earlier works were outstanding, in both SF and F. But he started losing it somewhere around the time of Children of the Mind, and only went diwnhill from there.
I heard OSC speak in person once, at BYU, when I was living in Salt Lake City back in the early 90s. Boy, was that an unpleasant shock. He was such an ass! 🙁
As for whether his books should have won — sure, so far as I’m concerned. I see more of the problems with his books now, but I’m still a big fan of that earlier stuff.
Contrarius, I remain dissatisfied by your response. In this context, the issue was not whether a conservative or left wing author could have won the Hugo for ENDER’S GAME this year. The point was, given the KIND of writer Mr. Card is, COULD he have won? I continue to say that he very likely would not have, because Mr. Card is not a leftie. That his work would have been judged not on their literary merits within the science fiction field, but on irrelevancies like his refusal to be Politically Correct.
It is also IRRELEVANT, in this context, whether or not Mr. Card is a nice or pleasant person. Also irrelevant would be his alleged decline as a writer. The issue AT HAND is whether or not ENDER’S GAME could have won a Hugo, given the dominant political mood at recent Worldcons. Your response was unsatisfactory and not to the point.
@Sean —
“Contrarius, I remain dissatisfied by your response.”
So what?
“ That his work would have been judged not on their literary merits within the science fiction field, but on irrelevancies like his refusal to be Politically Correct.”
Literature of all genres is always judged in part on its message — liberal, conservative, or otherwise. During the Communist scares, antiCommie books were big. During the Vietnam War, war books were big. During the 60s, free love and civil rights stories were big. And so on. Books and awards are always products of their times. This should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Contrarius: STILL dodging the point. Shame on you!!!
@Sean: STILL ignoring the point — and reality. Shame on you!!!
Come out of the conspiracy-theory headspace, Sean. Try to join the real world.
Contrarius: MORE irrelevancies from you. STILL refusing to answer the question specifically asked of you. I see we are not going to get anywhere.
Sean, I answered your question several posts ago. But of course we’re not going to get anywhere, because you didn’t like the answer. 😉
Contrarius: No, you did not answer the question asked of you in a straight forward way. You dodged and weaved, giving us only irrelevancies and non sequiturs. I drew a very unfavorable conclusion!
This discussion is terminated.
@Sean —
The fact that you didn’t like my answer has no bearing on the fact that I did indeed answer your question.
If you can’t handle reality, run along back to your safe space.
Sean, I have no idea where you are going with this. Mainly because I’m not sure if it would win a Hugo, but Ender’s Game could still be very successful if published today. It includes topics like genocide, drone warfare and the effects of warfare on children* all of which are relevant and engaging today. Card is still actively published, by TOR (hehe…), with The Swarm out in January in 2018, so you can’t claim religious or political discrimination either.
*this was a major theme in Hunger Games and Harry Potter and both were wildly successful.
@Jason —
Heck, if it were published today the right wing might even categorize it as SJW propaganda, because it depicts a deceitful military warping and lying to all these kids — and especially Speaker for the Dead, which — horrors! — preaches the importance of understanding and loving one’s opponents. What Good Conservative would ever dream of doing such a thing? 😉
Exactly… Just like how a lot of people today miss that Starship Troopers is satire…
Don’t confuse the poor dears with facts, Jason!
If Card were to have published Ender’s Game this year, it would be a very successful book, of that I have no doubt.
If it were to be nominated for a Hugo, his past statements on homosexuality and other issues would ensure he finished behind No Award. Of that I have no doubt. If I am wrong in this belief, tell me why.
@Andrew —
“If I am wrong in this belief, tell me why.”
Sorry, no. The person who makes a claim is the person who is responsible for coming up with evidence. You claim that Hugo voters would put OSC below NA for purely political reasons — so it’s up to you to cough up the evidence.
And no, the sad attempts of the sad and rabid pups don’t count. Those NAs were not about conservatism vs liberalism. They were about two things: first, nominees of execrable literary quality; and second, resistance to concerted attempts to corrupt the Hugo voting process.
Waiting for your evidence to support your claim. Do you actually have any?
Contrarius is correct, to make your point, you would need to provide examples of people being voted en mass below no award specifically for their politics.
It’s happened to punish slate voting, but not for an authors politics as far as I know.
@ Contrarius
You don’t get to demands a response, and then make the rules trying to limit them.
That’s not how this works.
If you think I am wrong in making that statement, if you know I am wrong, then it should be very easy for you to point out the details of how and why.
Like it or not, the SP campaigns are a perfect example. Heck, Jim Butcher, who is about as apolitcal and private author out there as you can be in this day and age, finished behind No Award, and it wasn’t because Skin Game was a work of execrable quality, was it?
To that end, Mike Resnick is a nominee of execrable literary quality? When did that happen? Did it happen before, during, or after his previous award nominations and wins?
Toni Weiskopf is a nominee of execrable quality?
Last I checked, and admittedly this was a couple years ago, so the exec council may have changed things, the Hugo’s are a “literary award”.
To many of us, that means you judge the works on their literary merits alone. I’ve applied that standard since I started participating. When the whole SP/RP fracas started, that’s the standard I read and judged the works by, and they nominated some klunkers…Dark between the stars is time I’ll never get back. I’ll be the first to admit that, but not all of them were bad. Some of them were pretty good, award worthy even.
I could care less about Jemsin’s politics, her twitter stream, or what she said in an interview 15 years ago. To me, her story wasn’t the best one I read this year, and that’s why I didn’t vote for it for the Best Novel Hugo.
Personally I think Mieville’s politics are slightly to the right of Trotsky, but that doesn’t stop me from recommending City & City to friends looking for a great read. Neal Stephenson could start wearing a MAGA hat everywhere he goes, that doesn’t mean I’m going to put all his books in a pile and burn them.
How many of the other Hugo voters can say the same? How many could say the same in 2014? 2015? This year?
Looks like we cross posted. Contrarius is correct, to make your case, you would need to provide examples of people being voted en mass below no award specifically for their politics.
It’s happened to punish slate voting, but not for an authors politics as far as I know.
“It’s happened to punish slate voting, but not for an authors politics as far as I know.”
So, your saying if a popular Sci Fi Author, like say Jon Scalzi, put out a list of books and other stories he had read and urged other readers to read them and vote, then the works on that list that made it to the Hugo Nominations would have finished below No Award as well?
There are plenty of examples out there. File770 alone has a few hundred (thousand) posts on it.
But really, the proof is self evident.
If the SP were works were “Punished” due solely to slate voting, no mention of a SP/RP persons politics, race, sexual identity or personal views need have been made when arguing against either campaign. The message should have been “These works were nominated as part of a slate that didn’t break the nominating rules, but the manner in which they were nominated violated the spirit of the rules.
But the article I read about the Hugo’s on EW wasn’t decrying slate voting, but the identities and politics of the people who nominated them.
The Vox article mentions conservative more than once.
People didn’t didn’t attack SP particpant’s based on the slate vote, but because of who the were nominated with. See Marko Kloos and Annie Bellett. They both wrote really good works, but did they withdraw because of how they were nominated? Or who they were nominated with?
There were more than few posts on Butchers forum telling him to disassociate himself or the poster “would never buy another one of his books again.” No mention of slate voting as the reason why they would no longer buy his works, plenty of mentions as to who he was nominated with.
Arthur Chu called Brad Torgersons Wife and daughter shields because of slate voting made him do it, right?
When asked NK Jemsin didn’t mention slate voting, unless a bunch of angry old white men getting together is a metaphor for slate. It could be I suppose.
And really, if you looked back at all the articles at the time, you would think Beales pen name was Racist White Supremacist Vox Day. But slate voting is why people voted against those works…no mention of John Wrights stance on homosexuality or things like that.
And those are just a few examples. There’s plenty of evidence out there on various forum’s, youtube videos and blog posts that show a great many people were voting against SP nominated works based on the identity and politics of the people who put them there.
I think there were a few people who read the works and voted no award because of how they were nominated. Given the number of blog posts, forum posts and the like, it’s safe to say a large percentage of voters bought a membership, didn’t read any of the nominated works, and voted no award above everything and used “Slate Voting” as an acceptable excuse, because voting against a work nominated for a literary award based on the writers politics, identity and the like would never, ever happen.
Thats why if OSC had never written anything in the Enderverse until this year, and Ender’s Game came out, it would not only be nominated but finish top three in front of No Award in next years Best Novel Hugos without question.
Honestly, from your POV, nothing that’s happened in the greater science fiction community as a whole these past few years would preclude such a event from happening, right?
Enjoy your holiday!
@Andrew —
“So, your saying if a popular Sci Fi Author, like say Jon Scalzi, put out a list of books and other stories he had read and urged other readers to read them and vote, then the works on that list that made it to the Hugo Nominations would have finished below No Award as well?”
This wasn’t any single person extolling the virtues of their favorite books. This was a concerted effort by a large gang to corrupt the system. Apples and assault vehicles.
“If the SP were works were “Punished” due solely to slate voting, no mention of a SP/RP persons politics, race, sexual identity or personal views need have been made when arguing against either campaign.”
Balderdash.
If a person commits a crime, then many aspects of that criminals’ identity are often mentioned — for instance, news reports often mention whether the criminal was white, black, male, female, and so on. And if the criminal was shouting anything in particular, like “Praise Allah!” or “Die, you stinking commies!”, then you can be sure those utterances will be mentioned as well.
In this case, the pups were loudly shouting about their political grievances the entire time they were trying to game the system. Naturally, therefore, those utterances were mentioned in the reports about their activities.
“People didn’t didn’t attack SP particpant’s based on the slate vote, but because of who the were nominated with. See Marko Kloos and Annie Bellett.”
Marko Kloos and Annie Bellett were not attacked that I know of (I could easily have forgotten or missed attacks — if so, please quote some of these). Instead, they themselves declined the nominations because THEY didn’t want to be associated with people who would try to game the system in such a dishonest fashion. And the right of association is sanctified by our Constitution, remember?
“No mention of slate voting as the reason why they would no longer buy his works”
Seriously?
You know the old adage “You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas?” Yeah, guilt by association is a real thing. Sometimes it’s deserved, and sometimes it isn’t. And I easily found multiple discussions involving Butcher and whether or not he should actually be tainted in the fannish eye by his possibly unwilling association with the pups and their actions.
You seem to have a very conveniently selective memory. Try for some facts instead.
“But slate voting is why people voted against those works…”
Slate voting was the only reason fans had the **opportunity** to vote against those works — they would never have made it to the final ballot on their own merits, because most of them were lousy.
@Andrew —
“You don’t get to demands a response, and then make the rules trying to limit them.”
It’s kinda cute that you believe I made up the standard rules of debate. 😉
Rest assured, I didn’t just pull that rule out of my hat. It’s a atandard. Heck, that principle even underlies our entire justice system — the one who makes the accusation is responsible for providing the proof.
And it’s hysterically funny that you would try on this self-righteous tone after you’re the one who initially demanded that I must tell you why your belief was wrong. Try looking in the mirror once in a while — you might save yourself some embarrassment.
“Heck, Jim Butcher, who is about as apolitcal and private author out there as you can be in this day and age, finished behind No Award”
LOL. You’ve just disproved your own claim. Bravo! You claimed that authors are NA’d because of the authors’ politics, yet you just admitted that Butcher was NA’d **despite** being apolitical. QED, your claim is wrong. Good job!
Remember, I gave TWO reasons for voters NAing works during the failed pup campaigns: bad lit, and reaction to attempts to corrupt the system. Butcher got caught up in the second, and added on to that, his book definitely didn’t belong in the category. If Butcher ever gets around to publishing another Dresden I’ll be happy to support him for best series, but best individual novel just ain’t his thing.
I’m posting on my phone and it’s choking on this page a little right now, so I’ll go ahead and post this and then add another post if I need to respond to anything else!
I had thought to terminate this discussion, and I would have ignored Contrarius and Jason’s comments. But Andrew’s replies to them were exactly what I would have said in rebuttal. The works of conservative, libertarian, and Christian science fiction writers are too often not being judged on their literary merits but on irrelevancies like their religious, philosophical, or political views.
@Sean —
“The works of conservative, libertarian, and Christian science fiction writers are too often not being judged on their literary merits but on irrelevancies like their religious, philosophical, or political views.”
And again: religious, philosophical, and/or political views and how they are expressed in books ARE PART OF the literary merit of those books, and are naturally taken into account as a part of evaluating those books. That has been a fact since the first book that ever got judged for any award, ever. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
“Rest assured, I didn’t just pull that rule out of my hat. It’s a standard. Heck, that principle even underlies our entire justice system — the one who makes the accusation is responsible for providing the proof.”
So the only reason the SP/RP works lost to No Award was in the manner they were nominated, not in who ( and the identity and politics of those same people) nominated them, and that the majority of voters who voted no award did so because of their appearance on the nominations due to Slate Voting?
“LOL. You’ve just disproved your own claim. Bravo! You claimed that authors are NA’d because of the authors’ politics, yet you just admitted that Butcher was NA’d **despite** being apolitical. QED, your claim is wrong. Good job!”
No, because Butcher wasn’t being asked to remove his book based on his politics, was he?
Skin Game definitely belonged (moreso than Dark Between the stars, that’s for sure). Easily one of the best books in the series, which considering its the fifteenth in the series is quite the accomplishment, and the best Urban Fantasy books of the year IMO. I can see why people disagree with that POV, but then the vast majority people weren’t advocating Jim remove it because if its literary merit (or lack thereof depending on your POV), but because of who nominated it and their politics.
There were more than a few posts on his forum back in the day that were of the “These white conservative/racists nominated you and if you don’t recuse yourself I’m never ever buying one of your books again.” He was guilty by association in their minds.
“RP nominated you therefore by staying on the ballot you agree with everything Vox Day says and does! But I’m voting against it because it was on a slate!”
Really?
“religious, philosophical, and/or political views and how they are expressed in books ARE PART OF the literary merit of those books, and are naturally taken into account as a part of evaluating those books. That has been a fact since the first book that ever got judged for any award, ever. Pretending otherwise is just silly.”
I agree. But the question is How big a part?
It’s why I have my OSC theory: In today’s environment, assuming OSC has not written anything in the Enderverse, but all his other works and writings exist, If Ender’s Game were to be published this year, it would not be nominated for a Best Novel Hugo, and if it were nominated, would not win because of the personal views OSC has espoused on homosexuality and other matters outside of literary consideration. It might finish above No Award though. 5th place. Maybe
It’s been an interesting discussion, but as I am going on holiday the next two weeks, I have to end my participation here.
If it’s still going in two week, well, surely there are books we should be reading instead? 😉
@Andrew —
“So the only reason the SP/RP works lost to No Award was in the manner they were nominated”
Wow. You really seem to have a hard time counting all the way up to two, don’t you?
For the third time, those books were mainly NA’d for TWO reasons:
1. Most of them were lousy pieces of literature;
2. People reacted very strongly to the pups’ attempts to corrupt the system with slate voting.
TWO reasons, not one.
“No, because Butcher wasn’t being asked to remove his book based on his politics, was he?”
That’s right, he wasn’t. See, you’ve disproved your own claim yet again. Thanks for that!
“Skin Game definitely belonged”
No, it didn’t. Now, personally I didn’t NA that one, because I’m a big Butcher fan — but it would never have made the shortlist without the slate voting.
“(moreso than Dark Between the stars, that’s for sure).”
No argument there! But neither book belonged there.
“the vast majority people weren’t advocating Jim remove it because if its literary merit (or lack thereof depending on your POV), but because of who nominated it and their politics.”
No — because of HOW IT WAS NOMINATED. The politics were inherent in the people who chose to try to corrupt the system.
“He was guilty by association in their minds.”
Dogs and fleas, remember? Guilt by association is inevitable in any human society.
“I agree. But the question is How big a part?”
That’s up to the individual reader and voter to decide for themselves — not you.