I'm Back; Did You Burn Down The Internet?

Jul 13, 2014 11:27

Obviously not. Well done ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 11

browngirl July 13 2014, 16:38:34 UTC
*waves hi*
*makes a note*

Reply

catsittingstill July 14 2014, 14:47:51 UTC
*waves hi back*

Reply


groblek July 13 2014, 19:56:38 UTC
Thanks for the links, they're an interesting analysis of the history of the situation. I find myself in an interesting position, as I have a wide enough range in my tastes to enjoy books from across the different camps mentioned. That set of essays does clarify for me some of the reason for my own reactions as I've been reading through the Hugo nominees.

I'm finding that even the "right-wing" works I enjoy just don't hold up when competing with other styles I like for "best work", even if my sole criteria is "How much I enjoyed it". There's just a lack of depth, especially in characterization that keeps me from ranking them too highly. I found the discussion of how that style evolved interesting and illuminating as to the reasons for that particular lack.

Reply

catsittingstill July 14 2014, 15:05:03 UTC
I enjoy stuff I wouldn't put up for awards. I think of it as being the difference between McDonalds and the kind of place you put up for a Best Restaurant award. I like McDonalds food now and then (can't afford to eat out often) because it's hot and tasty and conveniently available and inexpensive (for eating out.) But I can't accept that it's just prejudice that keeps McDonalds from winning awards for Best Restaurant. Best Restaurant goes to places that reward close attention to the food and the ambience, and so on. McDonalds doesn't try for that, and doesn't achieve it, and thus the Best Restaurant awards go to other places that sell less food and make less money, and that's fine.
By the same token, I also find that right wing pulp can be fun, but doesn't reward close attention the way other authors do. Lack of depth, as you put it, covers it pretty well.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

catsittingstill July 14 2014, 15:05:17 UTC
I'm glad you liked it.

Reply


randwolf July 14 2014, 04:51:07 UTC
I don't think this story can be told without including the history of feminist sf, which Hickey does not seem to engage, and the reaction to it. Feminism in sf, more than other single thing, is probably much of what the sad puppies are so sad about.

But I really don't know enough to say. The Hugos have always depended on the goodwill of the participants. Very popular authors could easily get their fans to stack the ballot. It is only due to the goodwill and collegial attitude of sf authors that they have not. These are the conservative virtues of an elite which respects a broader polity. It is, inherently, a system which depends on conservative values. And now we have Correa and Beale trying to tear this basically conservative system down. I am left wondering just what our conservatives think they are conserving.

(numerous errors and infelicities corrected a few hours after posting, sorry.)

Reply

catsittingstill July 14 2014, 15:18:52 UTC
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that feminism is the single biggest cause of the Sad Puppies' discomfort. They also seem to feel threatened by the deliberate inclusion of characters or authors of color, or who are gay or trans or disabled. Which is the biggest issue probably varies from Puppy to Puppy.

What really bothers me is the deliberate inclusion of hate as a rallying tactic here. "Make the literati's heads explode." Previous attempts to get a Hugo for a particular author or work ran along the lines of "these are my works; if you think they deserve a Hugo I hope you'll vote for them" and "these are stories I thought deserved a Hugo; if you agree I hope you'll vote for them." In other words they were born of enthusiasm and love for a work.

The Sad Puppies will discover that other groups can go through the door they have opened, and I expect they will whine about the obvious and predictable results.

Reply

randwolf July 16 2014, 02:39:56 UTC
I think that was wrong, yah, but I also think that threatened masculinity is the biggest motivation at work--it seems to largely explain Correia's motivations.

Would be that it explained Beale! I think he is driven by something darker: he has fallen in love with destruction and is consumed by hatred, like one of the demons he imagines he is fighting. Such people are terrifying. [Added: he probably expects that other groups will come through the door and is "pleased" with it.]

Feminist SF is important in another way: science fiction's feminists have led the way in making the field more inclusive. It is also often left out of histories of the field, and that is one sign, if we need another, that its work is not done yet.

Well, then again, the filmed version of The Moon and the Sun may become a hit, and we may see a revival of interest in Vonda McIntyre's work and the other 1970s SF feminists. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. I have never asked her what it is like to be a fairly successful revolutionary. Maybe sometime I'll ( ... )

Reply

catsittingstill July 16 2014, 22:42:38 UTC
Well, I do get the impression the Sad Puppies believe they are being attacked, and it is true that most of them seem to be male, so I suppose threatened masculinity may enter into it. As I recall one suggestion that perhaps speculative fiction should move beyond the assumption of binary gender prompted an outcry that would make one think the writer had proposed informal sex change surgery be committed against the persons of the Sad Puppies.

I don't think anyone can explain Beale, but what I find more puzzling than his meanness is that anyone else would willingly *ally* with it. Then again, I don't know that I care to understand. Know what they are, and guard myself, yes, but I don't want to get drawn in.

I had not read The Moon And The Sun; I look forward to giving it a try when I have finished the Hugo reading I still have to do.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up