?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

What Now?

For all of you who are sick of Puppygate... I am too, but there's still a few more things that I need to say. Another day, maybe, and I will move on to happier topics.

Yes, I know about Larry Correia's response to my earlier posts and I will reply to him here... but not just now. There's another topic I need to cover first, one that I have been leading up to all along -- what the hell do we do now?

Whether you think what the Sad Puppies did is right or wrong, it's done. The ballot is out. It is what it is. So the ball is in our court now. What to do?

(Here is where I will probably piss off everybody on the anti-slate of this mess. Sorry).

Over at Making Light, and on several other sites, various rules changes are being proposed to prevent this from happening ever again. There are so many different proposals they make my head spin. More nominating slots, less nominating slots, weighted voting, eliminating the supporting memberships, outlawing slates, limiting nominees to a single nomination, juried nominations... on and on and on. The worldcon business meeting is never exactly a funfest, but if the proponents of half these proposals show up at Sasquan, this year's will be a nightmare. And will probably still be going on when MidAmericon II convenes.

I am against all these proposals. If indeed I am at Spokane, and if I can get myself up in time for the business meeting, I will vote against every one of them.

Most of them, frankly, suck. And the mere fact that so many people are discussing them makes me think that the Puppies won. They started this whole thing by saying the Hugo Awards were rigged to exclude them. That is completely untrue, as I believe I demonstrated conclusively in my last post. So what is happening now? The people on MY SIDE, the trufans and SMOFs and good guys, are having an endless circle jerk trying to come up with a foolproof way to RIG THE HUGOS AND EXCLUDE THEM. God DAMN, people. You are proving them right.

I hate what the Puppies did. It was based on false premises, and though it was not illegal, it was mean-spirited and unsportsmanlike. So how about we do NOT prove them right by rigging the rules against Sad Puppies 4? How about we try to be better than that? There is nothing wrong with the Hugo rules. If we want to defeat the Puppies, all we need to do is outvote them. Get in our own nominations. This year, the Puppies emptied the kennels and got out their vote, and we didn't. Fandom danced the usual, "oh, too busy to nominate, I will just vote on the final ballot," and for that complacency, we got blindsided. We lost. They kicked our fannish asses, and now we have the ballot they gave us. If we don't want that to happen again, we need to get out our OWN vote.

But let's not give in to our worst impulses. I do not want to disenfranchise anyone. (Well, okay, maybe a few, rabies is dangerous). The fandom I joined in 1971, the fandom I love, is open and friendly and welcoming, and has room for every shade of political opinion and literary taste. Those are values worth defending, a culture worth fighting for.

Oh, and there's another (lesser, admittedly) reason not to change the Hugo rules. The Nebulas. I have been a SFWA member since 1972, and I swear, the organization spends half its time arguing about the Nebula rules, year after year, decade after decade. I have seen a dozen "reforms" in my tenure, all in the interests of making the voting "more fair," but no matter what rules we adopt, a couple years later the bitching starts and members start demanding we change them again. It's endless. We do NOT want to open that Pandora's Box at worldcon. Change the rules to deal with the Sad Puppies, and a year or two from now we'll be changing again. Aside from adding the occasional category, or splitting one, the Hugo Awards have operated more or less the same way for decades, and that stability is part of their prestige. Let's not mess with that.

Which brings me to another proposed countermeasure: the No Award strategy.

This comes in two flavors. The hardliners propose we vote NO AWARD for everything. Every category, even the ones where the Puppies have no nominees. No Hugo Awards at Sasquan, whatsoever. We'll show them. Rather than letting them move into our house, we will burn it to the ground. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." It worked so well in Vietnam.
All I've got to say about this idea is, are you fucking crazy?

The other approach is less radical. Vote NO AWARD in all the categories that are All Puppy. In the others, chose between the nominees (there are a few) that did not appear on either the Sad Puppy or Rabid Puppy slate, and place all the rest, the SP/RP candidates, under No Award.

That's less insane than the "No Award For Everything" idea, but only a little bit. Sorry, I will not sign on for this one either. For a whole bunch of reasons. For starts, the Puppies are already proclaiming that "No Award" equals victory for them (though sometimes it seems as though they believe anything that happens constitutes victory for them). Also, near as I can tell from reading the blogs, it appears that some of the Sad Puppy candidates never consented to joining their slate, and that none of the Rabid Puppies were ever asked if they wanted to be included (I am ninety per cent certain that none of the films or TV shows in the two Dramatic Presentations category were ever contacted). There are also a whole bunch of people -- all the editors except Vox Day, for starts -- who may or may not have been contacted. No one has said, no one talking about it, we just don't know.

Also... really, when you come down to it, this whole "were they contacted?" thing is a false issue. Torgensen says he contacted almost everyone, but missed a few. Some of his slate say no, they never heard from him... but does it really matter? I have been trying my damndest to get Alan Lee and John Howe nominated for Best Artist for years, and I never asked if I could. This year I wrote a long post about the brilliance of STATION ELEVEN and why it should be nominated in Best Novel, and I never contacted Emily St. John Mandel to ask if I could. I will not condemn Brad Torgensen for failing to do what I never do myself.

I do not believe in Guilt by Association, and that's what we'd be doing if we vote against every name on the Puppy slates simply because they are on the slate. That was a classic weapon of the McCarthy Era: first you blacklist the communists, then you blacklist the people who defend the communists and the companies that hire them, then you blacklist the people who defend the people on the blacklist, and on and on, in ever widening circles. No. I won't be part of that.

I have looked over the ballot, but I have not read all of it. Will I read all of it? Well, not every word.... but I will at least glance at every nomination. I know, from past experience, that there are some very talented writers on the list. There are also some very bad writers, and at least one whose picture probably appears next to MEDIOCRE in Websters. There are a lot of writers I have never read before, whose work I need to sample. Torgensen has claimed that the Sad Puppies slate is diverse, and a cursory glance at the names suggests he is not wrong.

I intend to consider every story and every finalist in every category, and vote for those that I think worthy of Hugos. I will vote NO AWARD, I promise you, but only where No Award is warranted. (Truth be told, I vote No Award every year in almost every category. Usually not in first, admittedly... but I don't just look at a category and rank them one to five in order of preference, I rank the ones I think rocket-worthy above No Award, and the ones I don't below).

This ballot is the worst I have ever seen, admittedly, and there are stories and writers on it who are not fit to polish a Hugo, much less win one. But there's good stuff as well, and talented writers whose work I have enjoyed, and I am not going to vote against them just because the Sad Puppies like them too.

As I get further into my reading, I will let you know my thoughts on what I've read. But that may be a long process, so be patient.

Honestly, I don't think any of the choices we have now are good ones. All roads seem to lead to perdition, but each of us will need to walk the one we think best. Meanwhile, I urge everyone who is reading this to go to the Sasquan website and join the convention. Attend if you can; if not, join as a Supporting member, just as the Puppies did. It is too late to nominate, but not too late to vote. The Puppies will be getting out their vote, you can be sure. We need to do the same, unless we care to see some poor guy hand Vox Day a rocket.

I wish I was more optimistic about how all this is going to turn out.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

(That's Yeats, not me. Just to be clear).

Comments

ihatenamessono
Apr. 10th, 2015 04:52 pm (UTC)
by calling vox day a white supremacist and john c wright a homophobe you're already lying.
by doing this you're proving them right that the people that oppose them will says anything to smear and defame them.
you should choose your words more carefully.
grrm
Apr. 10th, 2015 04:58 pm (UTC)
Ah... have you actually read Vox Day's piece about N.K. Jemisin?

If that is not a white supremacist screed, then there's never been one.
ihatenamessono
Apr. 10th, 2015 05:08 pm (UTC)
i think he's not a very nice person, and i think he was a huge asshole towards a black women.
however i don't think he was an asshole at her for being black, he simply doesn't like her and as an asshole used he being black as a way to hurt her.
this doesn't make his a white supremacist, it just makes him a very unpleasant person. besides there's the entire him not being white thing.
i don't agree with the man on many things but calling him a white supremacist is really uncalled for and in my opinion untrue and precisely the kind of thing people end up angry about.
you can't just call anyone that disagrees with you politically a racist, or part of the kkk, or homophobic or whatever other thing you want, that is not acceptable behaviour.
grrm
Apr. 10th, 2015 06:54 pm (UTC)
You can if it's true.

He doesn't just attack Jemisin's speech, he calls her a "savage" for being black.

Look, don't take my word for it. Read what he said.
ihatenamessono
Apr. 10th, 2015 07:02 pm (UTC)
i did, using racially charged words doesn't always make someone a racist, usually it just makes him an asshole. a nice comic by garth ennis called "the boys" makes that point really well.
he used that word because he knew it'll hurt her and he wanted to hurt her but he didn't want to hurt her because she was black but because he disliked her as a person. her being black is a tool he used to harm her, not the reason he wanted to harm her. you may find this to fine a distinction but i don't.
either way you said yourself you wanted to keep this civil, that people shouldn't use "sjw" because that's not how some people want to call themselves.
we know for a fact vox does not want to be called a "white nationalist" why does he not get the same privilege as you extend other people? why do you think it's acceptable to call some people some names but not call other people other names?
i just don't see any logical reason behind such a distinction.
debtwo
Apr. 10th, 2015 07:33 pm (UTC)
He said that Asians and other non-whites were an infestation. Is that white supremacist enough for you?
solarbird
Apr. 10th, 2015 07:34 pm (UTC)
You'll note, I didn't call him a white nationalist. I identified him - correctly - as a white supremacist. Those are different. "You may find this too fine a distinction, but I don't."

Vox Day holding a white nationalist position wouldn't even be vaguely rational, as he's stated that he doesn't think black people are capable of forming functional civilisations, but that would be functionally required as part of any white nationalist plan - barring, oh, genocide, which I have also not claimed he favours. (Nor am I claiming or implying that now, nor do I even think it to be true. He is vile, but not that vile.)

I further haven't seen any indication that he's actively in support of white nationalist-specific actions. No, he's not a separatist; he's a supremacist, inarguably. On several axises, really - one of which is quite explicitly race.
ihatenamessono
Apr. 10th, 2015 08:15 pm (UTC)
i have not seen evidence of this, i have only seen evidence of him being, as you so aptly put it, vile and quite honestly just an average internet troll.
while i have seen a lot of bullshit spoken about immigration and a lot of very nasty cursing towards minorities i have not seen any evidence of him being a white supremacist. if admittedly i've not read much of the man's blog.
and again i find it hard to believe he'd be a white supremacist considering the fact he himself is not white.
I'm vaguely surprised that got unscreened - solarbird - Apr. 10th, 2015 08:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
jimhenley
Apr. 10th, 2015 07:50 pm (UTC)
This Distinction Doesn't Fly
"her being black is a tool he used to harm her"

The "tool" can only work because of racism. In a culture without racism the tool would not exist. So by your supposed defense, Vox Day deployed a racist tool with intent. He willfully availed himself of what racism left there for him to demean a person. He called upon existing racial hierarchies to reduce her to a level below his own.

That just is racism.
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - ihatenamessono - Apr. 10th, 2015 08:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - thewrittenpath - Apr. 10th, 2015 08:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - jimhenley - Apr. 10th, 2015 08:52 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - grrm - Apr. 10th, 2015 09:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - ihatenamessono - Apr. 10th, 2015 10:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - ihatenamessono - Apr. 11th, 2015 10:21 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - grrm - Apr. 11th, 2015 06:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - renepavan - Apr. 11th, 2015 07:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: This Distinction Doesn't Fly - ihatenamessono - Apr. 11th, 2015 09:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
Why is this a thing - Katryna Wade - Apr. 17th, 2015 12:27 am (UTC) - Expand
Alexander Pendergrass
Apr. 10th, 2015 08:39 pm (UTC)
This is just obnoxious, but fine. As bizarre of an arguing point it is, sure, you're technically correct. Vox Day proudly spouts off racist rhetoric...but that does not make him racist. John C. Wright proudly spouts off homophobe rhetoric...but that does not make him a homophobe. Similarly, I might often block shots in basketball...but that does not make me a shot blocker. It's just something I do, proudly, through a public platform, to the adoration of my glowing friends and fans. Likewise, you have been employing hairsplitting rhetoric...but that does not make you a hairsplitter. You've got us there.

In summation, Vox Day uses racist rhetoric. John C. Wright uses homophobic rhetoric. Is that okay for us to say? Or does that offend some sensibility too? (Honest question.) And is it okay to then make the declarative statement that some of the principal players in the Puppies platform [alliteration is awesome] (Yes, I know I'm combining Sad and Rabid puppies, is that okay?) use racist and homophobic rhetoric? Is that fair enough?
(no subject) - ihatenamessono - Apr. 11th, 2015 10:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grrm - Apr. 11th, 2015 09:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - Alexander Pendergrass - Apr. 11th, 2015 10:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
yamamanama
Apr. 10th, 2015 06:34 pm (UTC)
What is this, Opposite World?
solarbird
Apr. 10th, 2015 07:09 pm (UTC)
Of course it is; they're flying a GamerGate user icon. GamerGate collectively are the anti-vaxxers of the online world; repeat anything often enough, some people will believe it, and apparently one of the things to repeat today is that Vox Day isn't a white supremacist, and John C. Wright doesn't hate queers.

Good luck with that.
ihatenamessono
Apr. 10th, 2015 08:24 pm (UTC)
well you just lost all credibility. you should honestly try to depict yourself in a better light, people respond to reason and an open mind, not insults and attempted shaming.
especially on the internet.
i believe most of the things you do politically speaking, this is why i care. when you act this way you make us all look bad.
solarbird
Apr. 10th, 2015 08:44 pm (UTC)
My statements on these matters are fully sourced. Readers may feel free to come to their own conclusions based on that.

Edited at 2015-04-10 09:00 pm (UTC)
asombreroman
Apr. 11th, 2015 01:54 am (UTC)
Re: Belief
Your own ideological leanings are showing today, miss.

I would hope that instead of believing that GamerGate are the 'anti-vaxxers of the online world', which is a pretty funny way to call an entire group stupid, you would instead try to analyze what led them that way. It wasn't 'feminism in games', it wasn't 'women who are in game development' or even 'women in tech'; it was 'mistreatment of an unequal societal layer'. You see, the press has more power than the average gamer. It also has the power to bury them six feet under and to condemn them with their own Two Minutes Hate. They didn't rise up out of nowhere, they aren't entitled consumers. There are episodes of dissatisfaction going back to 2010, where AAA publishers and indie studios and journalists alike decided to demonize, to reprehend, to judge a subset of gaming's 'trufans', if you will, because they were 'doing it wrong'.

What Gamergate is, in my opinion, is truly the Emmanuel Goldstein of modern sensationalist media. It lasted months. It became the living embodiment of all that is considered 'evil'. For instance: It's dead, but at the same time it is STILL actively harrassing women! How can this be, if the entire event came to pass? Even the Sad Puppies being accused of Gamergate affiliation show that it's a cheap trick being used to demonize a subset of people who go against the narrative.

Likewise, in understanding what led the Sad Puppies to feel, think and act this way, and by reading the opposition's often unreasonable, oft radical, oft selfish words, I am starting to lean towards sympathy with them. I truly think and feel that any popularity contests are stupid and meaningless; we take nothing with us when we die. One hopes we leave behind happy memories.

Perhaps John C. Wright hates 'queers' (I hate the very word; I treat people the same because that is the education I was given at home), perhaps he is simply a radical traditionalist with a loud mouth. Vox Day is definitely racist, in the sense that his ideological leanings lead toward praise of the white race. But then you see that with just a little bit of reading, what he ceases to talk about is how black culture as we know it today is a dry shell of what it once was.
Re: Belief - grrm - Apr. 11th, 2015 04:51 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Belief - solarbird - Apr. 11th, 2015 06:04 am (UTC) - Expand

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

November 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner