by Doctor Science
One of the things the Sad Puppies said an awful lot last year was that they just wanted the works they’d nominated for Hugos to be read and judged “on their merits”. In many ways the most surprising thing for me about last year’s Puppy nominees was that none of their horses was fit to race. None had what I think of as baseline qualifications for an award for literary (including science fictional) merit. What I still don’t understand is *why*: why a group of people who wanted me to judge works “on their merits” would nominate things without significant merit. And, especially, things that are *objectively* bad.
You may think there’s no such thing as an objective standard of literary quality, but it’s quite possible to tell the basic difference between competent writing and the stuff that isn’t.
It might be easiest to think of this in the context of Sturgeon’s Law:
90% of every human creative endeavor is crud.
With fanfic, if it’s a very large fandom and/or the fan writers are generally very young (median age 20 or younger), you’ll be lucky if the “Sturgeon factor” is only 90% — it’s often more like 95%, with barely 1 in 20 stories being not-crud.
But just because something is crud doesn’t mean I won’t read it, and even like it. It depends on what I’m in the mood for; it’s quite possible for a story to be enjoyable or just what I wanted right then, while still being objectively bad.
When I recommend stories, though, I kind of insist on not-crud, and the recs lists I trust come from people who have similar standards. But sometimes I’m just, “gimme everything you’ve got with time travel” or whatever, and I’ll at least look at them all — even though around 90% of them are going to be cruddy. There’s nothing wrong with reading and liking crud.
The problems come when writers and people who make influential recs lists don’t seem to grasp the difference between crud and non-crud. In fanfiction, I think of that line as tracing “basic competence in English prose”. Is the text laced with SPAG (spelling, punctuation, and grammar) errors? Do verb tenses and POV shift a lot? Are character names misspelled? Are names misspelled in the summary? (this is usually a sign not to read the story at all, or you’ll be s-o-r-r-y.) Are words chosen poorly or mistakenly? Are the sentences clumsily constructed?
As far as I’m concerned, the interesting part of voting for the Hugos or other awards is taking a nominations list that is all not-crud, and deciding which is best in my opinion. What shocked and even offended me last year was that the Puppy nominations didn’t pass the basic, not-crud standard.
Cut for length, including some close, editor-like reading.
What really surprised and appalled me was that both of Brad Torgerson’s stories are shockingly badly-written and -edited with regard to basic grammar, punctuation, and sentence-structure. I was especially annoyed because, in “The Exchange Officers”, he consistently used “Chesty and I” when he should have written “Chesty and me”.
When I said something about this on file770, S1AL pointed out that there were no such mistakes in the copy of “Exchange Officers” now on Analog‘s site.
I had been referring to the copy of the story I received in the Hugo Packet last summer. Cross-checking to the PDF from Analog, I see that all the instances where it should have said “Chesty and me”, but didn’t, in the packet text are correct in the online version. I wonder why we got an unedited text? That was a really poor choice for awards consideration.
Even with the blatant grammatical errors removed, Torgersen’s prose needs editorial work. Let me take a couple of random paragraphs, right where the first “Chesty and me” occurs in the clean copy:
“Please don’t do that,” said an Air Force master sergeant who’d been supervising Chesty and me during our first day in the suits. We’d already logged two weeks going over mechanics and theory, hitting the books and soaking our brains in math, diagrams, and history lessons on the development of these, the United States’ most sophisticated remotely-operated vehicles in existence. Even a single arm from one of the proxies was worth more than my retired mother’s five-bedroom McMansion in the Bay Area.
I rightfully quit my fooling around and waited for further instructions from the master sergeant—just one of many technically-savvy non-commissioned offers who prowled on the sidelines. The closed hangar in which we all stood was part of the ODIS simulator—a place where new proxy Operators could get a feel for their machines, and the body suits could be “tuned” to their wearers. No human being’s electromagnetic or physiological signature being quite the same as any other’s.
In the first place, the prose needs tightening up — why is he telling us the guy is a master sergeant twice, and so clumsily? Why say more than my retired mother’s five-bedroom McMansion in the Bay Area — are we supposed to know from this that old mom is extremely wealthy? that in this universe retired people have more property than they can cope with? or what?
A number of the sentences could stand to be re-ordered, to flow better and be more active: The closed hangar in which we all stood would be better as “We were all in a closed hangar, …”
Word choice: I can’t figure out what he means, that rightfully was the word to use.
These 2 random paragraphs include both infodumps and a sentence fragment (the last sentence in the second paragraph).
Overall, Torgersen’s sentences just aren’t very good. It’s probably hyperbole to say that software should be able to flag his mistakes — but I don’t think those mistakes are really just a matter of opinion. This is basic stuff, the kind of bar any writer needs to clear to get out of the “90% crud” zone predicted by Sturgeon’s Law. I might still read and enjoy fanfic with sentences like this — if it involved characters or tropes I was already committed to — but I probably wouldn’t recommend it or say it was *good*. To have it presented to me as though it might be worthy of a major award felt like an insult to my reading ability and to the memory of Poul Anderson (probably my favorite conservative sff writer of all time, winner of 7 richly-deserved Hugos).
It’s not just the one story, either, or this one author. Stephanie Zvan, poor dear, did a close reading of Vox Day’s “Opera Vita Aeterna”, and also found ensconced in the crud zone.
Since Torgerson put together the SP3 slate, I feel safe dismissing it out of hand — he’s demonstrated that he doesn’t have the minimum level of competence at English-wrangling necessary to pick lists of “the best stories”. The Rabid Puppies list was put together by Vox Day, for whom I have a good deal less respect than I have for Torgersen, and I dismiss it even more decisively. Under the “fool me twice, shame on me” principle, I don’t plan to read any Puppy-nominated work unless someone worth trusting recommends it to me.
I’m not saying every good sff story has to be a literary masterpiece — on the contrary, I often prefer prose that doesn’t call attention to itself, that just gets the job done. If “The Martian” had been eligible for awards this year I would have voted for it cheerfully: Andy Weir’s writing is workmanlike but not the *point* of his book.
You’ll note that none of my comments are about the contents, political or otherwise, of Torgersen’s work, or Day’s. I’m just saying that, as far as I can tell, neither Torgersen nor Larry Correia (who curated the SP2 list) can tell good sentences from bad, nor can they tell the difference between “I enjoyed it” and “it’s good enough to win an award”.
For fanfic, it’s not uncommon for the most popular or admired stories in a fandom to be technically poor, especially if the readers and writers are young (= median age below 18). When it happens in an adult fandom (median age 25 or older), it goes along with an ingrown fan culture, one where people are reading and admiring each other’s stories, but not reading much fan- or pro-fic outside their circle. This may be especially true if the fandom is large and active, because then there’s so much stuff coming down the pipe it can use up all your reading time (and more!), so you never get bored enough to go looking outside your fandom.
I suspect something like that is going on with the Puppies: they’re talking only to each other, and there’s enough stuff getting published that they like for them not to really go reading outside their circle. So their plan last year was something like:
- Organize to get stuff *we* like on the Hugo ballot
- Fair-minded people will read it and give at least one of us a Hugo
- If we get no Hugos, they really weren’t fair-minded, were they?
But the possibility that fair-minded people could read their nominees and say, “this is crud! it shouldn’t even be on the ballot!” doesn’t seem to have crossed their minds. And so this year they doubled-down on the organizing and succeeded beyond their expectations — but don’t seem to have put much effort into separating the crud from the not-crud. Even though that’s the whole point of the Hugo Nominations and Awards.
I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.
Perhaps those on the right in fandom have adopted the same worldview — that writing well is necessarily a sign of failure to fight the oppression of the liberal establishment. It would at least explain why everything put forward in these two lists was so bad.
(As you say, Poul proved pretty conclusively that you could be conservative and write well. But then, that was back when conservative mostly was the establishment.)
I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.
Perhaps those on the right in fandom have adopted the same worldview — that writing well is necessarily a sign of failure to fight the oppression of the liberal establishment. It would at least explain why everything put forward in these two lists was so bad.
(As you say, Poul proved pretty conclusively that you could be conservative and write well. But then, that was back when conservative mostly was the establishment.)
I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.
Perhaps those on the right in fandom have adopted the same worldview — that writing well is necessarily a sign of failure to fight the oppression of the liberal establishment. It would at least explain why everything put forward in these two lists was so bad.
(As you say, Poul proved pretty conclusively that you could be conservative and write well. But then, that was back when conservative mostly was the establishment.)
You may think there’s no such thing as an objective standard of literary quality, but it’s quite possible to tell the basic difference between competent writing and the stuff that isn’t.
I agree with this.
There are always questions of style, or subject, or point of view.
But basic craft can be evaluated fairly objectively.
I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.
I think that time corresponds roughly to the time when most people who identified as being “on the left” were about 19 years old.
With time, daylight emerged between being progressive (insert whatever word you like) and “sticking it to the man” as an exercise in adolescent self-expression.
That’s my analysis, anyway.
You may think there’s no such thing as an objective standard of literary quality, but it’s quite possible to tell the basic difference between competent writing and the stuff that isn’t.
I agree with this.
There are always questions of style, or subject, or point of view.
But basic craft can be evaluated fairly objectively.
I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.
I think that time corresponds roughly to the time when most people who identified as being “on the left” were about 19 years old.
With time, daylight emerged between being progressive (insert whatever word you like) and “sticking it to the man” as an exercise in adolescent self-expression.
That’s my analysis, anyway.
You may think there’s no such thing as an objective standard of literary quality, but it’s quite possible to tell the basic difference between competent writing and the stuff that isn’t.
I agree with this.
There are always questions of style, or subject, or point of view.
But basic craft can be evaluated fairly objectively.
I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.
I think that time corresponds roughly to the time when most people who identified as being “on the left” were about 19 years old.
With time, daylight emerged between being progressive (insert whatever word you like) and “sticking it to the man” as an exercise in adolescent self-expression.
That’s my analysis, anyway.
Dr S, i hate to do this… but there are a couple of typos in there which kinda stick out, given that they’re in the middle of a post on SPAG. one is near “Opera Vita Aeterna” and the other near your use of ‘rightfully’.
feel free to delete this 🙂
Dr S, i hate to do this… but there are a couple of typos in there which kinda stick out, given that they’re in the middle of a post on SPAG. one is near “Opera Vita Aeterna” and the other near your use of ‘rightfully’.
feel free to delete this 🙂
Dr S, i hate to do this… but there are a couple of typos in there which kinda stick out, given that they’re in the middle of a post on SPAG. one is near “Opera Vita Aeterna” and the other near your use of ‘rightfully’.
feel free to delete this 🙂
It seems to me that, if a piece of writing can be enjoyable aside from ‘literary merit’, (And that’s certainly the case.) this logically implies that a piece of writing can be UNenjoyable aside from ‘literary merit’. (And having read enough Hugo nominees in my day, that’s also certainly the case.)
Unless these awards are supposed to be the literary equivalent of, “Eat your brocoli, blast it!”, this raises the question of whether literary merit should play such a high role in handing them out.
Now, I’ve got to run off to the dentist, don’t mistake that for disinterest. 😉
It seems to me that, if a piece of writing can be enjoyable aside from ‘literary merit’, (And that’s certainly the case.) this logically implies that a piece of writing can be UNenjoyable aside from ‘literary merit’. (And having read enough Hugo nominees in my day, that’s also certainly the case.)
Unless these awards are supposed to be the literary equivalent of, “Eat your brocoli, blast it!”, this raises the question of whether literary merit should play such a high role in handing them out.
Now, I’ve got to run off to the dentist, don’t mistake that for disinterest. 😉
It seems to me that, if a piece of writing can be enjoyable aside from ‘literary merit’, (And that’s certainly the case.) this logically implies that a piece of writing can be UNenjoyable aside from ‘literary merit’. (And having read enough Hugo nominees in my day, that’s also certainly the case.)
Unless these awards are supposed to be the literary equivalent of, “Eat your brocoli, blast it!”, this raises the question of whether literary merit should play such a high role in handing them out.
Now, I’ve got to run off to the dentist, don’t mistake that for disinterest. 😉
cleek:
I fixed the first one, thanks (I was C&Ping from a comment I made elsewhere). The second is also a in a location where I C&Ped, and for the life of me I can’t see it.
Could you point it out? Otherwise I have to make Sprog the Elder find it (she inherited Mister Doctor’s eagle eye for such things — if I’m writing anything long or important I try to get one of them to proof-read. My editorial skills are more “big picture”, I like to think.)
cleek:
I fixed the first one, thanks (I was C&Ping from a comment I made elsewhere). The second is also a in a location where I C&Ped, and for the life of me I can’t see it.
Could you point it out? Otherwise I have to make Sprog the Elder find it (she inherited Mister Doctor’s eagle eye for such things — if I’m writing anything long or important I try to get one of them to proof-read. My editorial skills are more “big picture”, I like to think.)
cleek:
I fixed the first one, thanks (I was C&Ping from a comment I made elsewhere). The second is also a in a location where I C&Ped, and for the life of me I can’t see it.
Could you point it out? Otherwise I have to make Sprog the Elder find it (she inherited Mister Doctor’s eagle eye for such things — if I’m writing anything long or important I try to get one of them to proof-read. My editorial skills are more “big picture”, I like to think.)
I’d say that, while the Hugos are not about literary merit per se, competant use of language should be a necessary (albeit not sufficient) criteria for consideration. It’s not a matter of rewarding literary merit so much as a matter of rewarding good stories once literary competence is achieved.
I’d say that, while the Hugos are not about literary merit per se, competant use of language should be a necessary (albeit not sufficient) criteria for consideration. It’s not a matter of rewarding literary merit so much as a matter of rewarding good stories once literary competence is achieved.
I’d say that, while the Hugos are not about literary merit per se, competant use of language should be a necessary (albeit not sufficient) criteria for consideration. It’s not a matter of rewarding literary merit so much as a matter of rewarding good stories once literary competence is achieved.
Could you point it out?
it’s: “Word choice: I can’t figure out what he means, that rightfully was the word to use.”
i can’t quite make out what your saying there.
could be entirely my fault.
Could you point it out?
it’s: “Word choice: I can’t figure out what he means, that rightfully was the word to use.”
i can’t quite make out what your saying there.
could be entirely my fault.
Could you point it out?
it’s: “Word choice: I can’t figure out what he means, that rightfully was the word to use.”
i can’t quite make out what your saying there.
could be entirely my fault.
I’m not really familiar with the sci-fi world. Can someone tell me what the Hugos *are* about?
What is the standard for “best”?
Is literary quality considered a sort of secondary factor?
Is it considered at all?
I’m not really familiar with the sci-fi world. Can someone tell me what the Hugos *are* about?
What is the standard for “best”?
Is literary quality considered a sort of secondary factor?
Is it considered at all?
I’m not really familiar with the sci-fi world. Can someone tell me what the Hugos *are* about?
What is the standard for “best”?
Is literary quality considered a sort of secondary factor?
Is it considered at all?
and the babies are threatening to wreck future awards .
because it’s about merit.
and the babies are threatening to wreck future awards .
because it’s about merit.
and the babies are threatening to wreck future awards .
because it’s about merit.
drat.
drat.
drat.
It seems to me that the puppies are responding to a perceived loss of influence. After all, John W. Campbell, jr., took science fiction in a conservative direction pretty early on. Michael Moorcock’s portrayal in “Starship Stormtroopers” comes to mind:
“Astounding became full of crew-cut wisecracking, cigar-chewing, competent guys (like Campbell’s image of himself). But Campbell and his writers (and they considered themselves something of a unified team) were not producing Westerns. They claimed to be producing a fiction of ideas. These competent guys were suggesting how the world should be run. By the early fifties Astounding had turned by almost anyone’s standard into a crypto-fascist deeply philistine magazine pretending to intellectualism and offering idealistic kids an ‘alternative’ that was, of course, no alternative at all. Through the fifties Campbell used his whole magazine as propaganda for the ideas he promoted in his editorials. His writers, by and large, were enthusiastic. Those who were not fell away from him, disturbed by his increasingly messianic disposition (Alfred Bester gives a good account of this).”
Full text here: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html
It seems to me that the puppies are responding to a perceived loss of influence. After all, John W. Campbell, jr., took science fiction in a conservative direction pretty early on. Michael Moorcock’s portrayal in “Starship Stormtroopers” comes to mind:
“Astounding became full of crew-cut wisecracking, cigar-chewing, competent guys (like Campbell’s image of himself). But Campbell and his writers (and they considered themselves something of a unified team) were not producing Westerns. They claimed to be producing a fiction of ideas. These competent guys were suggesting how the world should be run. By the early fifties Astounding had turned by almost anyone’s standard into a crypto-fascist deeply philistine magazine pretending to intellectualism and offering idealistic kids an ‘alternative’ that was, of course, no alternative at all. Through the fifties Campbell used his whole magazine as propaganda for the ideas he promoted in his editorials. His writers, by and large, were enthusiastic. Those who were not fell away from him, disturbed by his increasingly messianic disposition (Alfred Bester gives a good account of this).”
Full text here: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html
It seems to me that the puppies are responding to a perceived loss of influence. After all, John W. Campbell, jr., took science fiction in a conservative direction pretty early on. Michael Moorcock’s portrayal in “Starship Stormtroopers” comes to mind:
“Astounding became full of crew-cut wisecracking, cigar-chewing, competent guys (like Campbell’s image of himself). But Campbell and his writers (and they considered themselves something of a unified team) were not producing Westerns. They claimed to be producing a fiction of ideas. These competent guys were suggesting how the world should be run. By the early fifties Astounding had turned by almost anyone’s standard into a crypto-fascist deeply philistine magazine pretending to intellectualism and offering idealistic kids an ‘alternative’ that was, of course, no alternative at all. Through the fifties Campbell used his whole magazine as propaganda for the ideas he promoted in his editorials. His writers, by and large, were enthusiastic. Those who were not fell away from him, disturbed by his increasingly messianic disposition (Alfred Bester gives a good account of this).”
Full text here: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html
“What I still don’t understand is *why*: why a group of people who wanted me to judge works “on their merits” would nominate things without significant merit. And, especially, things that are *objectively* bad.”
I’m puzzled at your lack of understanding. These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.
“What I still don’t understand is *why*: why a group of people who wanted me to judge works “on their merits” would nominate things without significant merit. And, especially, things that are *objectively* bad.”
I’m puzzled at your lack of understanding. These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.
“What I still don’t understand is *why*: why a group of people who wanted me to judge works “on their merits” would nominate things without significant merit. And, especially, things that are *objectively* bad.”
I’m puzzled at your lack of understanding. These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.
wj: “I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
I don’t.
wj: “I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
I don’t.
wj: “I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
I don’t.
cleek:
What I’m trying to say is: In the phrase, “I rightfully quit my fooling around and waited for further instructions from the master sergeant” I can’t figure out what he means by “rightfully”, or what he’s trying to convey that “rightfully” seemed like the correct choice.
cleek:
What I’m trying to say is: In the phrase, “I rightfully quit my fooling around and waited for further instructions from the master sergeant” I can’t figure out what he means by “rightfully”, or what he’s trying to convey that “rightfully” seemed like the correct choice.
cleek:
What I’m trying to say is: In the phrase, “I rightfully quit my fooling around and waited for further instructions from the master sergeant” I can’t figure out what he means by “rightfully”, or what he’s trying to convey that “rightfully” seemed like the correct choice.
Barry, I guess you weren’t in the Bay Area in the later part of the 1960s. 😉
Barry, I guess you weren’t in the Bay Area in the later part of the 1960s. 😉
Barry, I guess you weren’t in the Bay Area in the later part of the 1960s. 😉
One of the more delightful experiences to be had reading fanfic is watching a writer mature. Once a fanfic writer has a plot idea more complicated than “I’m gonna put these two characters in a room to watch them boink,” a plot idea that carries the characters and situation to new and different places than the source material, the writer’s skillset always seems to mature relatively quickly. Somewhere between 10K and 20K words, a lot of the chattiness, text messaging habits, fourth-wall violations and the like just disappear, and a workmanlike prose emerges.
It’s not fabulous prose, but it stops trying to engage the reader with artificial attention-grabbing stuff like that of Tumblr and Livejournal post-adolescent angst posts. The writer starts to tell a story. It’s rarely a commercially marketable story; fanfic writers want a lot more slice-of-life, introspection, and revelation, even moreso than your traditional romance novel. (I sometimes suspect that the quiet slice-of-life anime is big with some US audiences because they’re tired of YA save-the-world bombast and really want good examples of, as my two teenagers daughter put it, “how do I adult already?”) They want to share with each other what they think is going on inside these characters.
They’re not fantastic writers. They’re mostly just kids with free time and creative urges and God bless ’em for it.
I have read the Vox D*y story and was unimpressed; I haven’t read Corriea or Torgerson. But from my experience, and from the examples you’ve provided, it seems to me that they have a lot more maturing to do before they’re ready for the big time.
One of the more delightful experiences to be had reading fanfic is watching a writer mature. Once a fanfic writer has a plot idea more complicated than “I’m gonna put these two characters in a room to watch them boink,” a plot idea that carries the characters and situation to new and different places than the source material, the writer’s skillset always seems to mature relatively quickly. Somewhere between 10K and 20K words, a lot of the chattiness, text messaging habits, fourth-wall violations and the like just disappear, and a workmanlike prose emerges.
It’s not fabulous prose, but it stops trying to engage the reader with artificial attention-grabbing stuff like that of Tumblr and Livejournal post-adolescent angst posts. The writer starts to tell a story. It’s rarely a commercially marketable story; fanfic writers want a lot more slice-of-life, introspection, and revelation, even moreso than your traditional romance novel. (I sometimes suspect that the quiet slice-of-life anime is big with some US audiences because they’re tired of YA save-the-world bombast and really want good examples of, as my two teenagers daughter put it, “how do I adult already?”) They want to share with each other what they think is going on inside these characters.
They’re not fantastic writers. They’re mostly just kids with free time and creative urges and God bless ’em for it.
I have read the Vox D*y story and was unimpressed; I haven’t read Corriea or Torgerson. But from my experience, and from the examples you’ve provided, it seems to me that they have a lot more maturing to do before they’re ready for the big time.
One of the more delightful experiences to be had reading fanfic is watching a writer mature. Once a fanfic writer has a plot idea more complicated than “I’m gonna put these two characters in a room to watch them boink,” a plot idea that carries the characters and situation to new and different places than the source material, the writer’s skillset always seems to mature relatively quickly. Somewhere between 10K and 20K words, a lot of the chattiness, text messaging habits, fourth-wall violations and the like just disappear, and a workmanlike prose emerges.
It’s not fabulous prose, but it stops trying to engage the reader with artificial attention-grabbing stuff like that of Tumblr and Livejournal post-adolescent angst posts. The writer starts to tell a story. It’s rarely a commercially marketable story; fanfic writers want a lot more slice-of-life, introspection, and revelation, even moreso than your traditional romance novel. (I sometimes suspect that the quiet slice-of-life anime is big with some US audiences because they’re tired of YA save-the-world bombast and really want good examples of, as my two teenagers daughter put it, “how do I adult already?”) They want to share with each other what they think is going on inside these characters.
They’re not fantastic writers. They’re mostly just kids with free time and creative urges and God bless ’em for it.
I have read the Vox D*y story and was unimpressed; I haven’t read Corriea or Torgerson. But from my experience, and from the examples you’ve provided, it seems to me that they have a lot more maturing to do before they’re ready for the big time.
” In the phrase, “I rightfully quit my fooling around and waited for further instructions from the master sergeant” I can’t figure out what he means by “rightfully”, or what he’s trying to convey that “rightfully” seemed like the correct choice.”
Ok, Doc, I’m going to have to say this straight out: That’s not an example of bad writing. It’s an example of bad reading.
It meant that quitting his fooling around was the right thing to do.
Now, granted, “I properly quit my fooling around” would have been better English. I spent my youth being mocked and spit at, and more painful things, precisely because I spoke excellent English, as though I were speaking written English. I went out of my way to learn to speak “colloquially”.
It seems to me that you can criticize the narrator in a work of literature for not speaking perfect English, though doing so might, depending on the atmosphere intended, be somewhat foolish. But criticizing the author for having his characters speak as real people do, rather than in proper written English? Not so justifiable.
” In the phrase, “I rightfully quit my fooling around and waited for further instructions from the master sergeant” I can’t figure out what he means by “rightfully”, or what he’s trying to convey that “rightfully” seemed like the correct choice.”
Ok, Doc, I’m going to have to say this straight out: That’s not an example of bad writing. It’s an example of bad reading.
It meant that quitting his fooling around was the right thing to do.
Now, granted, “I properly quit my fooling around” would have been better English. I spent my youth being mocked and spit at, and more painful things, precisely because I spoke excellent English, as though I were speaking written English. I went out of my way to learn to speak “colloquially”.
It seems to me that you can criticize the narrator in a work of literature for not speaking perfect English, though doing so might, depending on the atmosphere intended, be somewhat foolish. But criticizing the author for having his characters speak as real people do, rather than in proper written English? Not so justifiable.
” In the phrase, “I rightfully quit my fooling around and waited for further instructions from the master sergeant” I can’t figure out what he means by “rightfully”, or what he’s trying to convey that “rightfully” seemed like the correct choice.”
Ok, Doc, I’m going to have to say this straight out: That’s not an example of bad writing. It’s an example of bad reading.
It meant that quitting his fooling around was the right thing to do.
Now, granted, “I properly quit my fooling around” would have been better English. I spent my youth being mocked and spit at, and more painful things, precisely because I spoke excellent English, as though I were speaking written English. I went out of my way to learn to speak “colloquially”.
It seems to me that you can criticize the narrator in a work of literature for not speaking perfect English, though doing so might, depending on the atmosphere intended, be somewhat foolish. But criticizing the author for having his characters speak as real people do, rather than in proper written English? Not so justifiable.
“But criticizing the author for having his characters speak as real people do, rather than in proper written English? Not so justifiable.”
Oh, completely agreed, and I got that impression too, but the phrase in question was not the character speaking (i.e., not in quotes) except to the reader as first-person narration.
IIRC, authors have to use a lot of care to do first-person narration well, and this passage illustrates why.
BTW, an Iain M Banks novel, “Feersum Enjin (sp?)” had first-person ban-spelling narration. The story was fine, the narration was very annoying.
“But criticizing the author for having his characters speak as real people do, rather than in proper written English? Not so justifiable.”
Oh, completely agreed, and I got that impression too, but the phrase in question was not the character speaking (i.e., not in quotes) except to the reader as first-person narration.
IIRC, authors have to use a lot of care to do first-person narration well, and this passage illustrates why.
BTW, an Iain M Banks novel, “Feersum Enjin (sp?)” had first-person ban-spelling narration. The story was fine, the narration was very annoying.
“But criticizing the author for having his characters speak as real people do, rather than in proper written English? Not so justifiable.”
Oh, completely agreed, and I got that impression too, but the phrase in question was not the character speaking (i.e., not in quotes) except to the reader as first-person narration.
IIRC, authors have to use a lot of care to do first-person narration well, and this passage illustrates why.
BTW, an Iain M Banks novel, “Feersum Enjin (sp?)” had first-person ban-spelling narration. The story was fine, the narration was very annoying.
No, I loved Feersum Endjinn.
The narrative voice was tough to get into for a few pages, but well worth the effort, IMO.
As a sustained technical excercise, I though it rather impressive – and after a dozen or so pages, it ceased being a challenge, and became transparent; a bit like listening to someone speak in a broad and unfamiliar accent.
Torgesen, on the other hand, is just tough going, and unrewarding.
No, I loved Feersum Endjinn.
The narrative voice was tough to get into for a few pages, but well worth the effort, IMO.
As a sustained technical excercise, I though it rather impressive – and after a dozen or so pages, it ceased being a challenge, and became transparent; a bit like listening to someone speak in a broad and unfamiliar accent.
Torgesen, on the other hand, is just tough going, and unrewarding.
No, I loved Feersum Endjinn.
The narrative voice was tough to get into for a few pages, but well worth the effort, IMO.
As a sustained technical excercise, I though it rather impressive – and after a dozen or so pages, it ceased being a challenge, and became transparent; a bit like listening to someone speak in a broad and unfamiliar accent.
Torgesen, on the other hand, is just tough going, and unrewarding.
Ok, Doc, I’m going to have to say this straight out: That’s not an example of bad writing. It’s an example of bad reading.
It meant that quitting his fooling around was the right thing to do.
Now, granted, “I properly quit my fooling around” would have been better English.
I think it’s bad writing.
First of all, you don’t “rightfully,” or “properly,” or “rightly,” do something that you’ve been ordered to do by a superior. You might do it promptly, or reluctantly, or obediently, or unhappily, or…. Any of those adverbs would be OK, if they helped the story.
Second, I don’t think you do things liek taht rightfully at all. You can complain rightfully. You can, if you are a cop, write someone a speeding ticket rightfully. Doing something “rightfully” means there is a justification for your action, and you could have done otherwise. That’s not what’s going on here.
A couple of other things struck me.
“Supervising Chesty and me,” is deaf. How about “Supervising me and Chesty?” Sounds better, IMO.
“the United States’ most sophisticated remotely-operated vehicles in existence.”
As opposed to the ones that aren’t in existence? That phrase would have cost me a letter grade or so in high school English.
Ok, Doc, I’m going to have to say this straight out: That’s not an example of bad writing. It’s an example of bad reading.
It meant that quitting his fooling around was the right thing to do.
Now, granted, “I properly quit my fooling around” would have been better English.
I think it’s bad writing.
First of all, you don’t “rightfully,” or “properly,” or “rightly,” do something that you’ve been ordered to do by a superior. You might do it promptly, or reluctantly, or obediently, or unhappily, or…. Any of those adverbs would be OK, if they helped the story.
Second, I don’t think you do things liek taht rightfully at all. You can complain rightfully. You can, if you are a cop, write someone a speeding ticket rightfully. Doing something “rightfully” means there is a justification for your action, and you could have done otherwise. That’s not what’s going on here.
A couple of other things struck me.
“Supervising Chesty and me,” is deaf. How about “Supervising me and Chesty?” Sounds better, IMO.
“the United States’ most sophisticated remotely-operated vehicles in existence.”
As opposed to the ones that aren’t in existence? That phrase would have cost me a letter grade or so in high school English.
Ok, Doc, I’m going to have to say this straight out: That’s not an example of bad writing. It’s an example of bad reading.
It meant that quitting his fooling around was the right thing to do.
Now, granted, “I properly quit my fooling around” would have been better English.
I think it’s bad writing.
First of all, you don’t “rightfully,” or “properly,” or “rightly,” do something that you’ve been ordered to do by a superior. You might do it promptly, or reluctantly, or obediently, or unhappily, or…. Any of those adverbs would be OK, if they helped the story.
Second, I don’t think you do things liek taht rightfully at all. You can complain rightfully. You can, if you are a cop, write someone a speeding ticket rightfully. Doing something “rightfully” means there is a justification for your action, and you could have done otherwise. That’s not what’s going on here.
A couple of other things struck me.
“Supervising Chesty and me,” is deaf. How about “Supervising me and Chesty?” Sounds better, IMO.
“the United States’ most sophisticated remotely-operated vehicles in existence.”
As opposed to the ones that aren’t in existence? That phrase would have cost me a letter grade or so in high school English.
FWIW, w/o actually reading the story, I’d assume by the title that “Chesty and me” are officers, so the instruction from an NCO, even a senior one, wouldn’t be an order from a superior, but rather from an exasperated subordinate. As a colloquial phrase, I personally don’t have a problem with the use of “rightfully” here. Having said that, I agree that most any of your suggested substitutions would work better, and I’d actually say the author presumably meant to say “rightly”. And having said that I’ll also add that I loathe colloquial 1st-person narration and it tends to leave a bad taste of wistfulness for 50s and 60s scifi with Big Ideas and Mediocre Writing.
FWIW, w/o actually reading the story, I’d assume by the title that “Chesty and me” are officers, so the instruction from an NCO, even a senior one, wouldn’t be an order from a superior, but rather from an exasperated subordinate. As a colloquial phrase, I personally don’t have a problem with the use of “rightfully” here. Having said that, I agree that most any of your suggested substitutions would work better, and I’d actually say the author presumably meant to say “rightly”. And having said that I’ll also add that I loathe colloquial 1st-person narration and it tends to leave a bad taste of wistfulness for 50s and 60s scifi with Big Ideas and Mediocre Writing.
FWIW, w/o actually reading the story, I’d assume by the title that “Chesty and me” are officers, so the instruction from an NCO, even a senior one, wouldn’t be an order from a superior, but rather from an exasperated subordinate. As a colloquial phrase, I personally don’t have a problem with the use of “rightfully” here. Having said that, I agree that most any of your suggested substitutions would work better, and I’d actually say the author presumably meant to say “rightly”. And having said that I’ll also add that I loathe colloquial 1st-person narration and it tends to leave a bad taste of wistfulness for 50s and 60s scifi with Big Ideas and Mediocre Writing.
nv,
I think you are too hard on “colloquial 1st-person narration.”
Still, it’s easy to feel that way, without you have read a book by the name of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” but that ain’t no matter.
nv,
I think you are too hard on “colloquial 1st-person narration.”
Still, it’s easy to feel that way, without you have read a book by the name of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” but that ain’t no matter.
nv,
I think you are too hard on “colloquial 1st-person narration.”
Still, it’s easy to feel that way, without you have read a book by the name of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” but that ain’t no matter.
I have to say, as an Army officer with a BA in English, that this is actually how enlisted military folks talk. I don’t necessarily like to listen to it – it’s hard to follow, especially in a written sworn statement – but it’s pretty accurate. I don’t follow the line of reasoning that says that the first person narrator should have an internal voice that is significantly different than their speech in dialogue.
“Righfully” in this context is pretty standard southern rural dialect. It translates as “appropriately.” “As appropriate, I quit my fooling around.” Master Sergeant, of course, is the man’s name. Master Sergeant is how you address them and how you speak about them, to be differentiated only if there is more than one person with the same name, thus: “Master Sergeant Brown and Master Sergeant McSimmons are arguing again.”
I have to say, as an Army officer with a BA in English, that this is actually how enlisted military folks talk. I don’t necessarily like to listen to it – it’s hard to follow, especially in a written sworn statement – but it’s pretty accurate. I don’t follow the line of reasoning that says that the first person narrator should have an internal voice that is significantly different than their speech in dialogue.
“Righfully” in this context is pretty standard southern rural dialect. It translates as “appropriately.” “As appropriate, I quit my fooling around.” Master Sergeant, of course, is the man’s name. Master Sergeant is how you address them and how you speak about them, to be differentiated only if there is more than one person with the same name, thus: “Master Sergeant Brown and Master Sergeant McSimmons are arguing again.”
I have to say, as an Army officer with a BA in English, that this is actually how enlisted military folks talk. I don’t necessarily like to listen to it – it’s hard to follow, especially in a written sworn statement – but it’s pretty accurate. I don’t follow the line of reasoning that says that the first person narrator should have an internal voice that is significantly different than their speech in dialogue.
“Righfully” in this context is pretty standard southern rural dialect. It translates as “appropriately.” “As appropriate, I quit my fooling around.” Master Sergeant, of course, is the man’s name. Master Sergeant is how you address them and how you speak about them, to be differentiated only if there is more than one person with the same name, thus: “Master Sergeant Brown and Master Sergeant McSimmons are arguing again.”
I wrote a similar analysis last year, right after the awards were announced, on a somewhat higher level (story structure, rather than words and paragraphs): https://www.owlfolio.org/fiction/the-literary-merit-of-right-wing-sf/
Torgerson’s failure on that level boils down to, he’s retreading stuff that’s been done before, only with weaker, flatter characters and poor plot choices (specifically, choices that lower the stakes, which is exactly what not to do in a thriller). This speaks even more poorly of his ability (or lack thereof) to recognize the “wheat” among the “chaff,” as you put it.
I wrote a similar analysis last year, right after the awards were announced, on a somewhat higher level (story structure, rather than words and paragraphs): https://www.owlfolio.org/fiction/the-literary-merit-of-right-wing-sf/
Torgerson’s failure on that level boils down to, he’s retreading stuff that’s been done before, only with weaker, flatter characters and poor plot choices (specifically, choices that lower the stakes, which is exactly what not to do in a thriller). This speaks even more poorly of his ability (or lack thereof) to recognize the “wheat” among the “chaff,” as you put it.
I wrote a similar analysis last year, right after the awards were announced, on a somewhat higher level (story structure, rather than words and paragraphs): https://www.owlfolio.org/fiction/the-literary-merit-of-right-wing-sf/
Torgerson’s failure on that level boils down to, he’s retreading stuff that’s been done before, only with weaker, flatter characters and poor plot choices (specifically, choices that lower the stakes, which is exactly what not to do in a thriller). This speaks even more poorly of his ability (or lack thereof) to recognize the “wheat” among the “chaff,” as you put it.
Tom Sawyer demonstrates that, if you are as good as Mark Twain, you can do first person narration and make it work. But most people, including this author, aren’t even close to that good.
Tom Sawyer demonstrates that, if you are as good as Mark Twain, you can do first person narration and make it work. But most people, including this author, aren’t even close to that good.
Tom Sawyer demonstrates that, if you are as good as Mark Twain, you can do first person narration and make it work. But most people, including this author, aren’t even close to that good.
From the other side(I don’t have an opinion about it either way.)
Leftists Attack Libertarian Sci-Fi
From the other side(I don’t have an opinion about it either way.)
Leftists Attack Libertarian Sci-Fi
From the other side(I don’t have an opinion about it either way.)
Leftists Attack Libertarian Sci-Fi
As an almost complete outsider to the SF world. I just want to say that I appreciated Elf Steinberg’s 5:47.
It gave me good insight into what the SF scene, and specifically the fanfic scene, is about, and what the appeal is.
It seems kind of cool to me that there are venues for people to try their hand at writing their own stuff, even if they are not quite ready for the big show yet. It reminds me of jazz sessions, where folks are allowed and (depending on the session) even encouraged to jump in and do their best, even if they are extremely rough around the edges.
The way to be great is to suck a lot, usually for a long time, until you don’t suck anymore. And, if that moment never arrives, at least you tried, and probably had some fun and learned some things along the way.
It’s a shame that the Sad Puppies (whoever they are – I hope they didn’t give themselves that name) are messing with it. I kind of feel your pain about all of this, now.
As an almost complete outsider to the SF world. I just want to say that I appreciated Elf Steinberg’s 5:47.
It gave me good insight into what the SF scene, and specifically the fanfic scene, is about, and what the appeal is.
It seems kind of cool to me that there are venues for people to try their hand at writing their own stuff, even if they are not quite ready for the big show yet. It reminds me of jazz sessions, where folks are allowed and (depending on the session) even encouraged to jump in and do their best, even if they are extremely rough around the edges.
The way to be great is to suck a lot, usually for a long time, until you don’t suck anymore. And, if that moment never arrives, at least you tried, and probably had some fun and learned some things along the way.
It’s a shame that the Sad Puppies (whoever they are – I hope they didn’t give themselves that name) are messing with it. I kind of feel your pain about all of this, now.
As an almost complete outsider to the SF world. I just want to say that I appreciated Elf Steinberg’s 5:47.
It gave me good insight into what the SF scene, and specifically the fanfic scene, is about, and what the appeal is.
It seems kind of cool to me that there are venues for people to try their hand at writing their own stuff, even if they are not quite ready for the big show yet. It reminds me of jazz sessions, where folks are allowed and (depending on the session) even encouraged to jump in and do their best, even if they are extremely rough around the edges.
The way to be great is to suck a lot, usually for a long time, until you don’t suck anymore. And, if that moment never arrives, at least you tried, and probably had some fun and learned some things along the way.
It’s a shame that the Sad Puppies (whoever they are – I hope they didn’t give themselves that name) are messing with it. I kind of feel your pain about all of this, now.
“I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
Reminds me of the article from 15 years ago on that very topic: “Is Bad Writing Necessary?”
“I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
Reminds me of the article from 15 years ago on that very topic: “Is Bad Writing Necessary?”
“I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
Reminds me of the article from 15 years ago on that very topic: “Is Bad Writing Necessary?”
“I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
I don’t know where on ‘the left’ this happened, but I’ve been a left-wing activist (Trade Unionist, member of the Socialist Party and it’s precursor Militant, reader of SF/F and gamer) for 30+ years and I don’t remember that. Good English has always been important in the circles I’ve moved in.
Maybe I’m from the wrong country or something.
“I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
I don’t know where on ‘the left’ this happened, but I’ve been a left-wing activist (Trade Unionist, member of the Socialist Party and it’s precursor Militant, reader of SF/F and gamer) for 30+ years and I don’t remember that. Good English has always been important in the circles I’ve moved in.
Maybe I’m from the wrong country or something.
“I remember a time, some decades back, when those on the left rejected as oppression anything society in general valued, including coherent writing.”
I don’t know where on ‘the left’ this happened, but I’ve been a left-wing activist (Trade Unionist, member of the Socialist Party and it’s precursor Militant, reader of SF/F and gamer) for 30+ years and I don’t remember that. Good English has always been important in the circles I’ve moved in.
Maybe I’m from the wrong country or something.
“I’m puzzled at your lack of understanding. These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.”
There’s nothing a conservative loves more than his own political correctness. Unless it’s the smell of his own farts.
“I’m puzzled at your lack of understanding. These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.”
There’s nothing a conservative loves more than his own political correctness. Unless it’s the smell of his own farts.
“I’m puzzled at your lack of understanding. These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.”
There’s nothing a conservative loves more than his own political correctness. Unless it’s the smell of his own farts.
Kyle:
Thanks for your insight. The character is, in fact, supposed to be a highly-skilled (helicopter & other vehicle pilot) Army officer, not enlisted. I would expect his voice to reflect that level of education and experience. The author is a Master Sgt, though.
Ideally you’re right — 1st person narrative should match the character’s voice. The trouble is, as other commenters have pointed out by referencing Huck Finn, that sort of thing comes with a high degree of difficulty, especially for characters who aren’t “bookish”.
Kyle:
Thanks for your insight. The character is, in fact, supposed to be a highly-skilled (helicopter & other vehicle pilot) Army officer, not enlisted. I would expect his voice to reflect that level of education and experience. The author is a Master Sgt, though.
Ideally you’re right — 1st person narrative should match the character’s voice. The trouble is, as other commenters have pointed out by referencing Huck Finn, that sort of thing comes with a high degree of difficulty, especially for characters who aren’t “bookish”.
Kyle:
Thanks for your insight. The character is, in fact, supposed to be a highly-skilled (helicopter & other vehicle pilot) Army officer, not enlisted. I would expect his voice to reflect that level of education and experience. The author is a Master Sgt, though.
Ideally you’re right — 1st person narrative should match the character’s voice. The trouble is, as other commenters have pointed out by referencing Huck Finn, that sort of thing comes with a high degree of difficulty, especially for characters who aren’t “bookish”.
ObNitpick: Tom Sawyer uses third-person narration; Huckleberry Finn uses first-person narration.
ObNitpick: Tom Sawyer uses third-person narration; Huckleberry Finn uses first-person narration.
ObNitpick: Tom Sawyer uses third-person narration; Huckleberry Finn uses first-person narration.
“Barry, I guess you weren’t in the Bay Area in the later part of the 1960s. ;-)”
Posted by: wj
No. I was not in an unrepresentative area of the country in a time loooooooooooooooong since dead.
“Barry, I guess you weren’t in the Bay Area in the later part of the 1960s. ;-)”
Posted by: wj
No. I was not in an unrepresentative area of the country in a time loooooooooooooooong since dead.
“Barry, I guess you weren’t in the Bay Area in the later part of the 1960s. ;-)”
Posted by: wj
No. I was not in an unrepresentative area of the country in a time loooooooooooooooong since dead.
Having looked at that Michigan Standard piece, to me it cries aloud ‘dismiss out of hand’ without being really informed on the topic at hand. It shows all the characteristic traits of a ‘war on Xmas’ story, so even if the basic facts should be true, they are not doing themselves a favor unless their sole audience is the true believers anyway. It’s not about these guys being to the right of me, over here I know similar pieces mainly from eternal-yesterdayers* on the Left (who also tend to be terrible at writing btw).
*Ewiggestrige
Having looked at that Michigan Standard piece, to me it cries aloud ‘dismiss out of hand’ without being really informed on the topic at hand. It shows all the characteristic traits of a ‘war on Xmas’ story, so even if the basic facts should be true, they are not doing themselves a favor unless their sole audience is the true believers anyway. It’s not about these guys being to the right of me, over here I know similar pieces mainly from eternal-yesterdayers* on the Left (who also tend to be terrible at writing btw).
*Ewiggestrige
Having looked at that Michigan Standard piece, to me it cries aloud ‘dismiss out of hand’ without being really informed on the topic at hand. It shows all the characteristic traits of a ‘war on Xmas’ story, so even if the basic facts should be true, they are not doing themselves a favor unless their sole audience is the true believers anyway. It’s not about these guys being to the right of me, over here I know similar pieces mainly from eternal-yesterdayers* on the Left (who also tend to be terrible at writing btw).
*Ewiggestrige
James,
ObNitpick: Tom Sawyer uses third-person narration; Huckleberry Finn uses first-person narration.
Correct.
Sorry to sow confusion.
I’m not sure whether to be complimented or insulted that you and wj think the comment was totally my own creation.
James,
ObNitpick: Tom Sawyer uses third-person narration; Huckleberry Finn uses first-person narration.
Correct.
Sorry to sow confusion.
I’m not sure whether to be complimented or insulted that you and wj think the comment was totally my own creation.
James,
ObNitpick: Tom Sawyer uses third-person narration; Huckleberry Finn uses first-person narration.
Correct.
Sorry to sow confusion.
I’m not sure whether to be complimented or insulted that you and wj think the comment was totally my own creation.
Skip down to the start of the book.
Skip down to the start of the book.
Skip down to the start of the book.
Zack:
Thanks for the link to your analysis last year. I couldn’t really talk in much depth about the Correia novel, because I couldn’t really get into it.
That wasn’t *entirely* because, when the slate was announced, Sprog the Elder intoned Warbound: Book Three of the Grimnoir Chronicles in this fake Portentous Voice, and I could never even *think* the title without laughing after that.
Because seriously, Grimnoir Chronicles sounds like a parody of the “I’ll make it all *dark* and *gritty*, that’ll be different!” school of thought.
Your point (and great supporting links) about how writing that resists conventional tropes is bound to require more thoughtful care from the writer, which may lead to it being better-crafted, is appealing, but I’m not sure yet if I agree. I have to think about it some more.
I’ve tended to guess that the Puppies’ disregard of literary standards has to do with the (current American) conservative meme that academia and everything associated with it is The Enemy — where the associations extend to “science” and “subtle writing”.
Zack:
Thanks for the link to your analysis last year. I couldn’t really talk in much depth about the Correia novel, because I couldn’t really get into it.
That wasn’t *entirely* because, when the slate was announced, Sprog the Elder intoned Warbound: Book Three of the Grimnoir Chronicles in this fake Portentous Voice, and I could never even *think* the title without laughing after that.
Because seriously, Grimnoir Chronicles sounds like a parody of the “I’ll make it all *dark* and *gritty*, that’ll be different!” school of thought.
Your point (and great supporting links) about how writing that resists conventional tropes is bound to require more thoughtful care from the writer, which may lead to it being better-crafted, is appealing, but I’m not sure yet if I agree. I have to think about it some more.
I’ve tended to guess that the Puppies’ disregard of literary standards has to do with the (current American) conservative meme that academia and everything associated with it is The Enemy — where the associations extend to “science” and “subtle writing”.
Zack:
Thanks for the link to your analysis last year. I couldn’t really talk in much depth about the Correia novel, because I couldn’t really get into it.
That wasn’t *entirely* because, when the slate was announced, Sprog the Elder intoned Warbound: Book Three of the Grimnoir Chronicles in this fake Portentous Voice, and I could never even *think* the title without laughing after that.
Because seriously, Grimnoir Chronicles sounds like a parody of the “I’ll make it all *dark* and *gritty*, that’ll be different!” school of thought.
Your point (and great supporting links) about how writing that resists conventional tropes is bound to require more thoughtful care from the writer, which may lead to it being better-crafted, is appealing, but I’m not sure yet if I agree. I have to think about it some more.
I’ve tended to guess that the Puppies’ disregard of literary standards has to do with the (current American) conservative meme that academia and everything associated with it is The Enemy — where the associations extend to “science” and “subtle writing”.
I was not in an unrepresentative area of the country in a time loooooooooooooooong since dead.
And yet, I was there (in college at Berkeley), and I’m not even retired yet. Let alone dead. So perhaps not quite so long ago as that.
As for “unrepresentative”? Well yes and no. The point was how liberals, representative of the whole country or not, were viewing following standards. On language or anything else. And in that, I submit, the Bay Area was representative. Unless someone who was around then and elsewhere in the country wants to offer up some ddata to the contrary.
I was not in an unrepresentative area of the country in a time loooooooooooooooong since dead.
And yet, I was there (in college at Berkeley), and I’m not even retired yet. Let alone dead. So perhaps not quite so long ago as that.
As for “unrepresentative”? Well yes and no. The point was how liberals, representative of the whole country or not, were viewing following standards. On language or anything else. And in that, I submit, the Bay Area was representative. Unless someone who was around then and elsewhere in the country wants to offer up some ddata to the contrary.
I was not in an unrepresentative area of the country in a time loooooooooooooooong since dead.
And yet, I was there (in college at Berkeley), and I’m not even retired yet. Let alone dead. So perhaps not quite so long ago as that.
As for “unrepresentative”? Well yes and no. The point was how liberals, representative of the whole country or not, were viewing following standards. On language or anything else. And in that, I submit, the Bay Area was representative. Unless someone who was around then and elsewhere in the country wants to offer up some ddata to the contrary.
i’d just assume that narrowing one’s focus to works that are politically correct [to a very conservative audience] limits the number of eligible authors so greatly that there just aren’t enough really good prose stylists to choose from.
i’d just assume that narrowing one’s focus to works that are politically correct [to a very conservative audience] limits the number of eligible authors so greatly that there just aren’t enough really good prose stylists to choose from.
i’d just assume that narrowing one’s focus to works that are politically correct [to a very conservative audience] limits the number of eligible authors so greatly that there just aren’t enough really good prose stylists to choose from.
byomtov: I was responding to wj’s (more recent) post, not yours; I did immediately recognize the phrasing you used as from Huck’s beginning.
Huck Finn also demonstrates the degree to which writing in dialect is a tightwire: when done well, it’s extremely effective. In other cases, it can cause problems. (Twain doesn’t just use Huck’s own dialect, but has a number of distinct, fairly accurate, dialects represented by different speakers, including general American “educated” English, and it’s a careful detail of the book.)
Take the point of “rightfully” above. It’s been pointed out that this use is in the narrator’s dialect / idiolect. However, it’s not as “obviously” dialect in the way that Twain, Faulkner, etc. is, which means that’s it’s more likely for a reader to be brought up short by the unexpected use of a word in an unusual way.
One of the risks with using dialect, and one’s own dialect, as the narratorial voice is that it complicates the matter of copyediting: normally, there are standards for tightening up prose to written standards, but they don’t necessarily apply where a normally oral dialect is being used to characterize the narrator. Is that extra “in existence” unnecessary filler, or is it meant to capture what the narrator’s type of person would say? And it’s trickier again where the narrator’s idiolect is the same, substantively, as the author’s, because it’s harder to tell whether a variation is deliberate or just carelessness.
FWIW, Torgersen does not show the signs of a craftsman-type writer, and his own statements show that he values story over craft. That makes him likely to read as clunky to someone like me, but other people may (and obviously do) have different judgements.
There’s nothing necessarily linking conservative values to simple, or careless, prose: I call Céine, Pound, and Proust to witness.
byomtov: I was responding to wj’s (more recent) post, not yours; I did immediately recognize the phrasing you used as from Huck’s beginning.
Huck Finn also demonstrates the degree to which writing in dialect is a tightwire: when done well, it’s extremely effective. In other cases, it can cause problems. (Twain doesn’t just use Huck’s own dialect, but has a number of distinct, fairly accurate, dialects represented by different speakers, including general American “educated” English, and it’s a careful detail of the book.)
Take the point of “rightfully” above. It’s been pointed out that this use is in the narrator’s dialect / idiolect. However, it’s not as “obviously” dialect in the way that Twain, Faulkner, etc. is, which means that’s it’s more likely for a reader to be brought up short by the unexpected use of a word in an unusual way.
One of the risks with using dialect, and one’s own dialect, as the narratorial voice is that it complicates the matter of copyediting: normally, there are standards for tightening up prose to written standards, but they don’t necessarily apply where a normally oral dialect is being used to characterize the narrator. Is that extra “in existence” unnecessary filler, or is it meant to capture what the narrator’s type of person would say? And it’s trickier again where the narrator’s idiolect is the same, substantively, as the author’s, because it’s harder to tell whether a variation is deliberate or just carelessness.
FWIW, Torgersen does not show the signs of a craftsman-type writer, and his own statements show that he values story over craft. That makes him likely to read as clunky to someone like me, but other people may (and obviously do) have different judgements.
There’s nothing necessarily linking conservative values to simple, or careless, prose: I call Céine, Pound, and Proust to witness.
byomtov: I was responding to wj’s (more recent) post, not yours; I did immediately recognize the phrasing you used as from Huck’s beginning.
Huck Finn also demonstrates the degree to which writing in dialect is a tightwire: when done well, it’s extremely effective. In other cases, it can cause problems. (Twain doesn’t just use Huck’s own dialect, but has a number of distinct, fairly accurate, dialects represented by different speakers, including general American “educated” English, and it’s a careful detail of the book.)
Take the point of “rightfully” above. It’s been pointed out that this use is in the narrator’s dialect / idiolect. However, it’s not as “obviously” dialect in the way that Twain, Faulkner, etc. is, which means that’s it’s more likely for a reader to be brought up short by the unexpected use of a word in an unusual way.
One of the risks with using dialect, and one’s own dialect, as the narratorial voice is that it complicates the matter of copyediting: normally, there are standards for tightening up prose to written standards, but they don’t necessarily apply where a normally oral dialect is being used to characterize the narrator. Is that extra “in existence” unnecessary filler, or is it meant to capture what the narrator’s type of person would say? And it’s trickier again where the narrator’s idiolect is the same, substantively, as the author’s, because it’s harder to tell whether a variation is deliberate or just carelessness.
FWIW, Torgersen does not show the signs of a craftsman-type writer, and his own statements show that he values story over craft. That makes him likely to read as clunky to someone like me, but other people may (and obviously do) have different judgements.
There’s nothing necessarily linking conservative values to simple, or careless, prose: I call Céine, Pound, and Proust to witness.
I rightfully quit my fooling around
It’s a diction problem, not one of grammar.
The word he’s groping for is probably “dutifully”, if the character was reluctant to quit fooling around, or “gladly” if he wasn’t, or something like “virtuously” if the character was motivated by a desire for goodness, or “self-righteously” if the character intends his attention to duty as a tacit rebuke to others who are still fooling around.
It’s not clear to me which of those is meant, or maybe the author intends something else entirely which I’ve failed to grok. That’s why it’s bad writinig.
“An author should
…
12. _Say_ what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.
13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.”
Mark Twain’s Rules for Writing
I rightfully quit my fooling around
It’s a diction problem, not one of grammar.
The word he’s groping for is probably “dutifully”, if the character was reluctant to quit fooling around, or “gladly” if he wasn’t, or something like “virtuously” if the character was motivated by a desire for goodness, or “self-righteously” if the character intends his attention to duty as a tacit rebuke to others who are still fooling around.
It’s not clear to me which of those is meant, or maybe the author intends something else entirely which I’ve failed to grok. That’s why it’s bad writinig.
“An author should
…
12. _Say_ what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.
13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.”
Mark Twain’s Rules for Writing
I rightfully quit my fooling around
It’s a diction problem, not one of grammar.
The word he’s groping for is probably “dutifully”, if the character was reluctant to quit fooling around, or “gladly” if he wasn’t, or something like “virtuously” if the character was motivated by a desire for goodness, or “self-righteously” if the character intends his attention to duty as a tacit rebuke to others who are still fooling around.
It’s not clear to me which of those is meant, or maybe the author intends something else entirely which I’ve failed to grok. That’s why it’s bad writinig.
“An author should
…
12. _Say_ what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.
13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.”
Mark Twain’s Rules for Writing
narrowing one’s focus to works that are politically correct [to a very conservative audience] limits the number of eligible authors
One of our political parties has the same problem with candidates for office.
narrowing one’s focus to works that are politically correct [to a very conservative audience] limits the number of eligible authors
One of our political parties has the same problem with candidates for office.
narrowing one’s focus to works that are politically correct [to a very conservative audience] limits the number of eligible authors
One of our political parties has the same problem with candidates for office.
Unless someone who was around then … wants to offer up some data to the contrary.
I was in Iowa then. We had leftists, particularly in Iowa City.
I’ve spent the last thirty-five years in the Bay Area.
All I can say is that trying to generalize from the Bay Area to Iowa is quite a stretch.
Unless someone who was around then … wants to offer up some data to the contrary.
I was in Iowa then. We had leftists, particularly in Iowa City.
I’ve spent the last thirty-five years in the Bay Area.
All I can say is that trying to generalize from the Bay Area to Iowa is quite a stretch.
Unless someone who was around then … wants to offer up some data to the contrary.
I was in Iowa then. We had leftists, particularly in Iowa City.
I’ve spent the last thirty-five years in the Bay Area.
All I can say is that trying to generalize from the Bay Area to Iowa is quite a stretch.
Joel,
Add,
The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.
Joel,
Add,
The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.
Joel,
Add,
The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.
James,
Take the point of “rightfully” above. It’s been pointed out that this use is in the narrator’s dialect / idiolect. However, it’s not as “obviously” dialect in the way that Twain, Faulkner, etc. is, which means that’s it’s more likely for a reader to be brought up short by the unexpected use of a word in an unusual way.
Not only is it not obvious dialect, there is really no earlier clue, at least in this passage, that the narrator customarily speaks in a southern rural dialect, as suggested by Kyle. That’s not the tone of the passage, and we also learn that the narrator’s retired mother lives in a large home in the Bay Area.
James,
Take the point of “rightfully” above. It’s been pointed out that this use is in the narrator’s dialect / idiolect. However, it’s not as “obviously” dialect in the way that Twain, Faulkner, etc. is, which means that’s it’s more likely for a reader to be brought up short by the unexpected use of a word in an unusual way.
Not only is it not obvious dialect, there is really no earlier clue, at least in this passage, that the narrator customarily speaks in a southern rural dialect, as suggested by Kyle. That’s not the tone of the passage, and we also learn that the narrator’s retired mother lives in a large home in the Bay Area.
James,
Take the point of “rightfully” above. It’s been pointed out that this use is in the narrator’s dialect / idiolect. However, it’s not as “obviously” dialect in the way that Twain, Faulkner, etc. is, which means that’s it’s more likely for a reader to be brought up short by the unexpected use of a word in an unusual way.
Not only is it not obvious dialect, there is really no earlier clue, at least in this passage, that the narrator customarily speaks in a southern rural dialect, as suggested by Kyle. That’s not the tone of the passage, and we also learn that the narrator’s retired mother lives in a large home in the Bay Area.
All I can say is that trying to generalize from the Bay Area to Iowa is quite a stretch.
Understood. But comparing the liberals in Iowa City to the liberals in the Bay Area? Maybe still a stretch, but much less of one.
The main difference, I suggest, is that in one place the liberals were a very small part of the population, whereas in the other they were a much larger and more visible one. (Still distinctly a minority, actully, but definitely numerous enough to be high profile.)
All I can say is that trying to generalize from the Bay Area to Iowa is quite a stretch.
Understood. But comparing the liberals in Iowa City to the liberals in the Bay Area? Maybe still a stretch, but much less of one.
The main difference, I suggest, is that in one place the liberals were a very small part of the population, whereas in the other they were a much larger and more visible one. (Still distinctly a minority, actully, but definitely numerous enough to be high profile.)
All I can say is that trying to generalize from the Bay Area to Iowa is quite a stretch.
Understood. But comparing the liberals in Iowa City to the liberals in the Bay Area? Maybe still a stretch, but much less of one.
The main difference, I suggest, is that in one place the liberals were a very small part of the population, whereas in the other they were a much larger and more visible one. (Still distinctly a minority, actully, but definitely numerous enough to be high profile.)
Too much verb tense and POV shifting…
“Ever heard of Woolf? Joyce?”
“Yes.”
“Amateurs.”
Too much verb tense and POV shifting…
“Ever heard of Woolf? Joyce?”
“Yes.”
“Amateurs.”
Too much verb tense and POV shifting…
“Ever heard of Woolf? Joyce?”
“Yes.”
“Amateurs.”
These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.
Oh padawan, you have much to learn in the ways of cynicism.
Actually, my first thought could easily be wrong here, because Doctor Science considers VD (and JC Wright) more likely to benefit from this fiasco than Mr. Grimnoir. Unlike Correia, VD does not appear to benefit by filling the ballot with crap-plus-Correia. But still, let’s not be so hasty to camp at a conclusion.
These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.
Oh padawan, you have much to learn in the ways of cynicism.
Actually, my first thought could easily be wrong here, because Doctor Science considers VD (and JC Wright) more likely to benefit from this fiasco than Mr. Grimnoir. Unlike Correia, VD does not appear to benefit by filling the ballot with crap-plus-Correia. But still, let’s not be so hasty to camp at a conclusion.
These guys are clearing judging primarily by political ‘merit’.
Oh padawan, you have much to learn in the ways of cynicism.
Actually, my first thought could easily be wrong here, because Doctor Science considers VD (and JC Wright) more likely to benefit from this fiasco than Mr. Grimnoir. Unlike Correia, VD does not appear to benefit by filling the ballot with crap-plus-Correia. But still, let’s not be so hasty to camp at a conclusion.
Nous, I recall when I got to read Portrait of the Artist in college. And said to the instructor “The problem with Joyce is that he doesn’t know how to handle the English language.” He was a bit shocked. But having, at his request, tried to read Ulysses (and failed ot get through it), I remain of the same opinion.
Nous, I recall when I got to read Portrait of the Artist in college. And said to the instructor “The problem with Joyce is that he doesn’t know how to handle the English language.” He was a bit shocked. But having, at his request, tried to read Ulysses (and failed ot get through it), I remain of the same opinion.
Nous, I recall when I got to read Portrait of the Artist in college. And said to the instructor “The problem with Joyce is that he doesn’t know how to handle the English language.” He was a bit shocked. But having, at his request, tried to read Ulysses (and failed ot get through it), I remain of the same opinion.
Joyce absolutely can handle the English language, he just thinks it deserves to be roughed up a bit. So he hit English over the head with a sap and left it in the alley.
Then Sam Beckett came by and repeatedly put a boot into English’s prostrate form.
Joyce absolutely can handle the English language, he just thinks it deserves to be roughed up a bit. So he hit English over the head with a sap and left it in the alley.
Then Sam Beckett came by and repeatedly put a boot into English’s prostrate form.
Joyce absolutely can handle the English language, he just thinks it deserves to be roughed up a bit. So he hit English over the head with a sap and left it in the alley.
Then Sam Beckett came by and repeatedly put a boot into English’s prostrate form.
Ping.
Ping.
Ping.
byomtov: My personal suspicion is that it is Torgersen’s own idiolect rather than a conscious characterization of the narrator’s, but given two paragraphs to go by and first-person narration, it’s a bit of an open question.
One obvious craft-related question is “why write in first-person”? There are lots of reasons, but here, who knows? My own guess is that Torgersen is writing by putting himself in the narrator’s place to develop the story, a technique one step away from Mary-Sue.
Then there’s the use of dialect (as opposed to military jargon, which has an obvious role of adding verisimilitude to the narrative). Is it because he’s interested in providing a specific background for the character? If so, is he being consistent, or just sprinkling in words, whether opaque to outsiders, or well-known markers (like a writer marking a southerner by scattering y’all over his speech without any other adjustments)? Does the character’s origin play a role somewhere in the story?
I don’t think that these are the sorts of questions Torgersen is asking himself. I suspect that he thinks he is writing transparent prose and isn’t expert enough to get there. But on the basis of these two paragraphs, as I haven’t read the story, I can’t tell.
wj: It is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated many times, that Joyce does indeed know how to handle the English Language, and Ulysses is a tour-de-force of different ways of doing it. One short work pointing this out is Kenner’s Joyce’s Voices, about narratorial technique in Ulysses.
byomtov: My personal suspicion is that it is Torgersen’s own idiolect rather than a conscious characterization of the narrator’s, but given two paragraphs to go by and first-person narration, it’s a bit of an open question.
One obvious craft-related question is “why write in first-person”? There are lots of reasons, but here, who knows? My own guess is that Torgersen is writing by putting himself in the narrator’s place to develop the story, a technique one step away from Mary-Sue.
Then there’s the use of dialect (as opposed to military jargon, which has an obvious role of adding verisimilitude to the narrative). Is it because he’s interested in providing a specific background for the character? If so, is he being consistent, or just sprinkling in words, whether opaque to outsiders, or well-known markers (like a writer marking a southerner by scattering y’all over his speech without any other adjustments)? Does the character’s origin play a role somewhere in the story?
I don’t think that these are the sorts of questions Torgersen is asking himself. I suspect that he thinks he is writing transparent prose and isn’t expert enough to get there. But on the basis of these two paragraphs, as I haven’t read the story, I can’t tell.
wj: It is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated many times, that Joyce does indeed know how to handle the English Language, and Ulysses is a tour-de-force of different ways of doing it. One short work pointing this out is Kenner’s Joyce’s Voices, about narratorial technique in Ulysses.
byomtov: My personal suspicion is that it is Torgersen’s own idiolect rather than a conscious characterization of the narrator’s, but given two paragraphs to go by and first-person narration, it’s a bit of an open question.
One obvious craft-related question is “why write in first-person”? There are lots of reasons, but here, who knows? My own guess is that Torgersen is writing by putting himself in the narrator’s place to develop the story, a technique one step away from Mary-Sue.
Then there’s the use of dialect (as opposed to military jargon, which has an obvious role of adding verisimilitude to the narrative). Is it because he’s interested in providing a specific background for the character? If so, is he being consistent, or just sprinkling in words, whether opaque to outsiders, or well-known markers (like a writer marking a southerner by scattering y’all over his speech without any other adjustments)? Does the character’s origin play a role somewhere in the story?
I don’t think that these are the sorts of questions Torgersen is asking himself. I suspect that he thinks he is writing transparent prose and isn’t expert enough to get there. But on the basis of these two paragraphs, as I haven’t read the story, I can’t tell.
wj: It is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated many times, that Joyce does indeed know how to handle the English Language, and Ulysses is a tour-de-force of different ways of doing it. One short work pointing this out is Kenner’s Joyce’s Voices, about narratorial technique in Ulysses.
@joel:
The word he’s groping for is probably “dutifully”, if the character was reluctant to quit fooling around, or “gladly” if he wasn’t, or something like “virtuously” if the character was motivated by a desire for goodness, or “self-righteously” if the character intends his attention to duty as a tacit rebuke to others who are still fooling around.
There’s another possibility you’re not considering: the likes of you aren’t supposed to grok this. Of the people who chimed in on this thread, the ones who had the least problem parsing appear to have been Kyle and me, and we both have a military background. There is a certain genre of SciFi which specifically aims to write in a “military” manner, and “southern rural” may not be an apt description of the dialect that the American military homogenizes towards, but it’s certainly a strong influence. Military writing also tends to be intentionally “dumbed down” structurally – not out of anti-intellectualism (though that does crop up), but rather simple pragmatics: you want simple, clear, unambiguous language because you can’t know the reading comprehension of your intended audience.
Ofc, it says something that you’re trying to push works that willfully cater to a niche audience – to the point of excluding a broader readership – as deserving of praise, recognition, and honors from that excluded broader readership…
@Dr. S:
Because seriously, Grimnoir Chronicles sounds like a parody of the “I’ll make it all *dark* and *gritty*, that’ll be different!” school of thought.
That particular choice of titles is actually so much worse than just trying to sound edgy. I can hardly even imagine it’s accidental, nor that the book isn’t a parody. I’d not be shocked if it wasn’t, but I would be appalled.
@joel:
The word he’s groping for is probably “dutifully”, if the character was reluctant to quit fooling around, or “gladly” if he wasn’t, or something like “virtuously” if the character was motivated by a desire for goodness, or “self-righteously” if the character intends his attention to duty as a tacit rebuke to others who are still fooling around.
There’s another possibility you’re not considering: the likes of you aren’t supposed to grok this. Of the people who chimed in on this thread, the ones who had the least problem parsing appear to have been Kyle and me, and we both have a military background. There is a certain genre of SciFi which specifically aims to write in a “military” manner, and “southern rural” may not be an apt description of the dialect that the American military homogenizes towards, but it’s certainly a strong influence. Military writing also tends to be intentionally “dumbed down” structurally – not out of anti-intellectualism (though that does crop up), but rather simple pragmatics: you want simple, clear, unambiguous language because you can’t know the reading comprehension of your intended audience.
Ofc, it says something that you’re trying to push works that willfully cater to a niche audience – to the point of excluding a broader readership – as deserving of praise, recognition, and honors from that excluded broader readership…
@Dr. S:
Because seriously, Grimnoir Chronicles sounds like a parody of the “I’ll make it all *dark* and *gritty*, that’ll be different!” school of thought.
That particular choice of titles is actually so much worse than just trying to sound edgy. I can hardly even imagine it’s accidental, nor that the book isn’t a parody. I’d not be shocked if it wasn’t, but I would be appalled.
@joel:
The word he’s groping for is probably “dutifully”, if the character was reluctant to quit fooling around, or “gladly” if he wasn’t, or something like “virtuously” if the character was motivated by a desire for goodness, or “self-righteously” if the character intends his attention to duty as a tacit rebuke to others who are still fooling around.
There’s another possibility you’re not considering: the likes of you aren’t supposed to grok this. Of the people who chimed in on this thread, the ones who had the least problem parsing appear to have been Kyle and me, and we both have a military background. There is a certain genre of SciFi which specifically aims to write in a “military” manner, and “southern rural” may not be an apt description of the dialect that the American military homogenizes towards, but it’s certainly a strong influence. Military writing also tends to be intentionally “dumbed down” structurally – not out of anti-intellectualism (though that does crop up), but rather simple pragmatics: you want simple, clear, unambiguous language because you can’t know the reading comprehension of your intended audience.
Ofc, it says something that you’re trying to push works that willfully cater to a niche audience – to the point of excluding a broader readership – as deserving of praise, recognition, and honors from that excluded broader readership…
@Dr. S:
Because seriously, Grimnoir Chronicles sounds like a parody of the “I’ll make it all *dark* and *gritty*, that’ll be different!” school of thought.
That particular choice of titles is actually so much worse than just trying to sound edgy. I can hardly even imagine it’s accidental, nor that the book isn’t a parody. I’d not be shocked if it wasn’t, but I would be appalled.
The character is, in fact, supposed to be a highly-skilled (helicopter & other vehicle pilot) Army officer, not enlisted. I would expect his voice to reflect that level of education and experience.
To (perhaps needlessly) clarify this point, Flight Warrant Officers are, when not directly enlisted as WO candidates, selected from the enlisted ranks and don’t necessarily have the same educational background as “traditional” commissioned officers. Warrant Officers in general enjoy broader respect among enlisted personnel than other officers because they’re “one of us” from the enlisted perspective, and this perspective normally includes a streak of anti-intellectualism. So again, w/o reading the work, I personally would hesitate to assume that the narrator is supposed to be highly educated. Highly trained, certainly, but depending on the rest of his characterization a lack of “book learning” could well be a point of pride.
The character is, in fact, supposed to be a highly-skilled (helicopter & other vehicle pilot) Army officer, not enlisted. I would expect his voice to reflect that level of education and experience.
To (perhaps needlessly) clarify this point, Flight Warrant Officers are, when not directly enlisted as WO candidates, selected from the enlisted ranks and don’t necessarily have the same educational background as “traditional” commissioned officers. Warrant Officers in general enjoy broader respect among enlisted personnel than other officers because they’re “one of us” from the enlisted perspective, and this perspective normally includes a streak of anti-intellectualism. So again, w/o reading the work, I personally would hesitate to assume that the narrator is supposed to be highly educated. Highly trained, certainly, but depending on the rest of his characterization a lack of “book learning” could well be a point of pride.
The character is, in fact, supposed to be a highly-skilled (helicopter & other vehicle pilot) Army officer, not enlisted. I would expect his voice to reflect that level of education and experience.
To (perhaps needlessly) clarify this point, Flight Warrant Officers are, when not directly enlisted as WO candidates, selected from the enlisted ranks and don’t necessarily have the same educational background as “traditional” commissioned officers. Warrant Officers in general enjoy broader respect among enlisted personnel than other officers because they’re “one of us” from the enlisted perspective, and this perspective normally includes a streak of anti-intellectualism. So again, w/o reading the work, I personally would hesitate to assume that the narrator is supposed to be highly educated. Highly trained, certainly, but depending on the rest of his characterization a lack of “book learning” could well be a point of pride.
Doctor Science: I have to agree that “Warbound: Book Three of the Grimnoir Chronicles” is a title that, in a better world, would have belonged to a send-up of the “absurdly grimdark” subgenre. There is some internal justification for the name “Grimnoir” but I say it’s spinach.
What really bugs me about this year’s go-round is, Torgerson claims to be trying to open up the Hugos to a broader audience, yeah? Only I count among my friends a group of SF writers who are mostly younger, women, and/or PoC, and their reaction to this year’s shortlist amounts to “well, forget me ever having a chance at it, Lucy will always take the football away.” I have to believe that the bulk of Worldcon-fandom doesn’t want them to feel that way, but here we are.
Doctor Science: I have to agree that “Warbound: Book Three of the Grimnoir Chronicles” is a title that, in a better world, would have belonged to a send-up of the “absurdly grimdark” subgenre. There is some internal justification for the name “Grimnoir” but I say it’s spinach.
What really bugs me about this year’s go-round is, Torgerson claims to be trying to open up the Hugos to a broader audience, yeah? Only I count among my friends a group of SF writers who are mostly younger, women, and/or PoC, and their reaction to this year’s shortlist amounts to “well, forget me ever having a chance at it, Lucy will always take the football away.” I have to believe that the bulk of Worldcon-fandom doesn’t want them to feel that way, but here we are.
Doctor Science: I have to agree that “Warbound: Book Three of the Grimnoir Chronicles” is a title that, in a better world, would have belonged to a send-up of the “absurdly grimdark” subgenre. There is some internal justification for the name “Grimnoir” but I say it’s spinach.
What really bugs me about this year’s go-round is, Torgerson claims to be trying to open up the Hugos to a broader audience, yeah? Only I count among my friends a group of SF writers who are mostly younger, women, and/or PoC, and their reaction to this year’s shortlist amounts to “well, forget me ever having a chance at it, Lucy will always take the football away.” I have to believe that the bulk of Worldcon-fandom doesn’t want them to feel that way, but here we are.
It is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated many times, that Joyce does indeed know how to handle the English Language.
James, I submit that, if you write stuff that your prospective readers cannot make sense of, it doesn’t matter how brilliant professors and critics think it is. You’ve failed as a writer because you can’t handle English as a medium of communication.
Which, after all, it its purpose. Following the standard rules for grammer and word meaning are fine. But if people cannot understand you, you haven’t communicated.
It is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated many times, that Joyce does indeed know how to handle the English Language.
James, I submit that, if you write stuff that your prospective readers cannot make sense of, it doesn’t matter how brilliant professors and critics think it is. You’ve failed as a writer because you can’t handle English as a medium of communication.
Which, after all, it its purpose. Following the standard rules for grammer and word meaning are fine. But if people cannot understand you, you haven’t communicated.
It is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated many times, that Joyce does indeed know how to handle the English Language.
James, I submit that, if you write stuff that your prospective readers cannot make sense of, it doesn’t matter how brilliant professors and critics think it is. You’ve failed as a writer because you can’t handle English as a medium of communication.
Which, after all, it its purpose. Following the standard rules for grammer and word meaning are fine. But if people cannot understand you, you haven’t communicated.
Nombrilisme Vide: I read the entire series in order to review them, last year. I suspect Correia picked the title because he thought he was writing noir (in the film sense). But what he actually produced was black-and-white-morality superhero action in which the Good Guys Win, played 100% straight, no parody, no deconstruction, no nothin’.
I have to say that I did enjoy them, on the whole, in the same way that I’m perfectly able to enjoy a cheesy superhero movie — except for the fact that none of the protagonists were at all pleasant to be around, and ultimately I felt insulted by being expected to root for them, and that was the final straw that put Warbound below No Award on my ballot. (What’s the pro-wrestling jargon term for when the bookers are pushing someone the fans consider dull or icky? I’m sure there is one but I can’t find it. Anyway, like that.)
Nombrilisme Vide: I read the entire series in order to review them, last year. I suspect Correia picked the title because he thought he was writing noir (in the film sense). But what he actually produced was black-and-white-morality superhero action in which the Good Guys Win, played 100% straight, no parody, no deconstruction, no nothin’.
I have to say that I did enjoy them, on the whole, in the same way that I’m perfectly able to enjoy a cheesy superhero movie — except for the fact that none of the protagonists were at all pleasant to be around, and ultimately I felt insulted by being expected to root for them, and that was the final straw that put Warbound below No Award on my ballot. (What’s the pro-wrestling jargon term for when the bookers are pushing someone the fans consider dull or icky? I’m sure there is one but I can’t find it. Anyway, like that.)
Nombrilisme Vide: I read the entire series in order to review them, last year. I suspect Correia picked the title because he thought he was writing noir (in the film sense). But what he actually produced was black-and-white-morality superhero action in which the Good Guys Win, played 100% straight, no parody, no deconstruction, no nothin’.
I have to say that I did enjoy them, on the whole, in the same way that I’m perfectly able to enjoy a cheesy superhero movie — except for the fact that none of the protagonists were at all pleasant to be around, and ultimately I felt insulted by being expected to root for them, and that was the final straw that put Warbound below No Award on my ballot. (What’s the pro-wrestling jargon term for when the bookers are pushing someone the fans consider dull or icky? I’m sure there is one but I can’t find it. Anyway, like that.)
wj: The audience Joyce wrote for did, in fact, “make sense” of it, and continues to do so, in much the same way as the same can be said for Dante, or Shakespeare, or any number of less major writers. They found doing so so interesting, in fact, that they were willing to go to great lengths to import Ulysses under rather severe restrictions, in the early years.
However, it’s not really helpful to speak as though “making sense of” something is the same as “getting everything out of it at once, without detailed attention”. Joyce (or other authors like him as far as approach goes: Milton comes to mind) worked at a highly detailed level, and part of the fun of reading Ulysses is making connections which the author put there and that you missed the first N times. A work of literature has a number of different aspects, and a simplistic view of language as used in that context as only “a medium of communication” if by that is meant “plain meaning” is reductive.
wj: The audience Joyce wrote for did, in fact, “make sense” of it, and continues to do so, in much the same way as the same can be said for Dante, or Shakespeare, or any number of less major writers. They found doing so so interesting, in fact, that they were willing to go to great lengths to import Ulysses under rather severe restrictions, in the early years.
However, it’s not really helpful to speak as though “making sense of” something is the same as “getting everything out of it at once, without detailed attention”. Joyce (or other authors like him as far as approach goes: Milton comes to mind) worked at a highly detailed level, and part of the fun of reading Ulysses is making connections which the author put there and that you missed the first N times. A work of literature has a number of different aspects, and a simplistic view of language as used in that context as only “a medium of communication” if by that is meant “plain meaning” is reductive.
wj: The audience Joyce wrote for did, in fact, “make sense” of it, and continues to do so, in much the same way as the same can be said for Dante, or Shakespeare, or any number of less major writers. They found doing so so interesting, in fact, that they were willing to go to great lengths to import Ulysses under rather severe restrictions, in the early years.
However, it’s not really helpful to speak as though “making sense of” something is the same as “getting everything out of it at once, without detailed attention”. Joyce (or other authors like him as far as approach goes: Milton comes to mind) worked at a highly detailed level, and part of the fun of reading Ulysses is making connections which the author put there and that you missed the first N times. A work of literature has a number of different aspects, and a simplistic view of language as used in that context as only “a medium of communication” if by that is meant “plain meaning” is reductive.
And, if people don’t enjoy reading your works, you’ve failed as an author of fiction. Which is why this, “I don’t care if a lot of people enjoyed reading it, it lacks literary merit.” misses the point.
Being enjoyable to read IS an aspect of literary merit, in the context of popular fiction.
This gets back to the original complaint behind Sad Puppies, of course, which is that these awards had been captured by left wing literary snobs, and were excluding a lot of works that were actually quite good reads, on the basis of some combination of very much minority tastes, and/or political ideology.
As I’ve said, I haven’t been following the Hugos for a decade or more, due to lack of time to read that many books, but this wouldn’t be an implausible extrapolation of trends I was seeing when I was following them.
The remarkably vitrolic attacks I’ve seen on Sad Puppies sure makes it plausible.
And, if people don’t enjoy reading your works, you’ve failed as an author of fiction. Which is why this, “I don’t care if a lot of people enjoyed reading it, it lacks literary merit.” misses the point.
Being enjoyable to read IS an aspect of literary merit, in the context of popular fiction.
This gets back to the original complaint behind Sad Puppies, of course, which is that these awards had been captured by left wing literary snobs, and were excluding a lot of works that were actually quite good reads, on the basis of some combination of very much minority tastes, and/or political ideology.
As I’ve said, I haven’t been following the Hugos for a decade or more, due to lack of time to read that many books, but this wouldn’t be an implausible extrapolation of trends I was seeing when I was following them.
The remarkably vitrolic attacks I’ve seen on Sad Puppies sure makes it plausible.
And, if people don’t enjoy reading your works, you’ve failed as an author of fiction. Which is why this, “I don’t care if a lot of people enjoyed reading it, it lacks literary merit.” misses the point.
Being enjoyable to read IS an aspect of literary merit, in the context of popular fiction.
This gets back to the original complaint behind Sad Puppies, of course, which is that these awards had been captured by left wing literary snobs, and were excluding a lot of works that were actually quite good reads, on the basis of some combination of very much minority tastes, and/or political ideology.
As I’ve said, I haven’t been following the Hugos for a decade or more, due to lack of time to read that many books, but this wouldn’t be an implausible extrapolation of trends I was seeing when I was following them.
The remarkably vitrolic attacks I’ve seen on Sad Puppies sure makes it plausible.
Well, yes, that could explain it. It could, however, also be explained by precisely how the Puppies have chosen to go about “righting” that “wrong”.
Well, yes, that could explain it. It could, however, also be explained by precisely how the Puppies have chosen to go about “righting” that “wrong”.
Well, yes, that could explain it. It could, however, also be explained by precisely how the Puppies have chosen to go about “righting” that “wrong”.
Dr S does include a link to Torgersen’s full story in the OP.
it’s definitely a military story, told from the POV of a Warrant Officer, in space, having a big battle defending a US space station against some Chinese marauders. the voice has the characteristic jargon-heavy terseness that military people use when writing about military things.
here’s the opening:
i don’t really like the rhythm in his sentences. and i really dislike when sifi writers use language that people in the story would never use in order to make it comprehensible to readers. but that’s something all sifi writers have to struggle with; some do it better than others.
even though they were literally within shouting distance
well, no. there is literally no distance in space where a shout can be heard.
Dr S does include a link to Torgersen’s full story in the OP.
it’s definitely a military story, told from the POV of a Warrant Officer, in space, having a big battle defending a US space station against some Chinese marauders. the voice has the characteristic jargon-heavy terseness that military people use when writing about military things.
here’s the opening:
i don’t really like the rhythm in his sentences. and i really dislike when sifi writers use language that people in the story would never use in order to make it comprehensible to readers. but that’s something all sifi writers have to struggle with; some do it better than others.
even though they were literally within shouting distance
well, no. there is literally no distance in space where a shout can be heard.
Dr S does include a link to Torgersen’s full story in the OP.
it’s definitely a military story, told from the POV of a Warrant Officer, in space, having a big battle defending a US space station against some Chinese marauders. the voice has the characteristic jargon-heavy terseness that military people use when writing about military things.
here’s the opening:
i don’t really like the rhythm in his sentences. and i really dislike when sifi writers use language that people in the story would never use in order to make it comprehensible to readers. but that’s something all sifi writers have to struggle with; some do it better than others.
even though they were literally within shouting distance
well, no. there is literally no distance in space where a shout can be heard.
Dr S does include a link to Torgersen’s full story in the OP.
it’s definitely a military story, told from the POV of a Warrant Officer, in space, having a big battle defending a US space station against some Chinese marauders. the voice has the characteristic jargon-heavy terseness that military people use when writing about military things.
here’s the opening:
i don’t really like the rhythm in his sentences. and i really dislike when sifi writers use language that people in the story would never use in order to make it comprehensible to readers. but that’s something all sifi writers have to struggle with; some do it better than others.
even though they were literally within shouting distance
well, no. there is literally no distance in space where a shout can be heard.
Dr S does include a link to Torgersen’s full story in the OP.
it’s definitely a military story, told from the POV of a Warrant Officer, in space, having a big battle defending a US space station against some Chinese marauders. the voice has the characteristic jargon-heavy terseness that military people use when writing about military things.
here’s the opening:
i don’t really like the rhythm in his sentences. and i really dislike when sifi writers use language that people in the story would never use in order to make it comprehensible to readers. but that’s something all sifi writers have to struggle with; some do it better than others.
even though they were literally within shouting distance
well, no. there is literally no distance in space where a shout can be heard.
Dr S does include a link to Torgersen’s full story in the OP.
it’s definitely a military story, told from the POV of a Warrant Officer, in space, having a big battle defending a US space station against some Chinese marauders. the voice has the characteristic jargon-heavy terseness that military people use when writing about military things.
here’s the opening:
i don’t really like the rhythm in his sentences. and i really dislike when sifi writers use language that people in the story would never use in order to make it comprehensible to readers. but that’s something all sifi writers have to struggle with; some do it better than others.
even though they were literally within shouting distance
well, no. there is literally no distance in space where a shout can be heard.
wow. blogs.com went insane there for a minute.
wow. blogs.com went insane there for a minute.
wow. blogs.com went insane there for a minute.
James,
Mary-Sue?
James,
Mary-Sue?
James,
Mary-Sue?
You’ve failed as a writer because you can’t handle English as a medium of communication.
Which, after all, it its purpose.
This is, I think, an overly instrumental view of the purpose of language.
And, if people don’t enjoy reading your works, you’ve failed as an author of fiction.
If nobody reads your book, but you enjoyed writing it, and/or accomplished what you wanted to accomplish by writing it, you win.
If nobody reads your book, and you want to write books for a living, you have a problem.
You’ve failed as a writer because you can’t handle English as a medium of communication.
Which, after all, it its purpose.
This is, I think, an overly instrumental view of the purpose of language.
And, if people don’t enjoy reading your works, you’ve failed as an author of fiction.
If nobody reads your book, but you enjoyed writing it, and/or accomplished what you wanted to accomplish by writing it, you win.
If nobody reads your book, and you want to write books for a living, you have a problem.
You’ve failed as a writer because you can’t handle English as a medium of communication.
Which, after all, it its purpose.
This is, I think, an overly instrumental view of the purpose of language.
And, if people don’t enjoy reading your works, you’ve failed as an author of fiction.
If nobody reads your book, but you enjoyed writing it, and/or accomplished what you wanted to accomplish by writing it, you win.
If nobody reads your book, and you want to write books for a living, you have a problem.
I wonder if the one point here is that the sick puppies (rabies is a disease) are worried that science fiction will pursue respectability the way poetry and literary novels did and suffer a similarly vitiating dominance by MFAs. That, I think, would be a legitimate worry. One of the nice things about science fiction is that it is in touch with its audience, and its authors are rewarded with royalties, not grants or academic salaries.
That said, there are sentences above, quoted from ‘Chesty and Me,’ that should be taken out and shot. The desire to avoid making science fiction into the sort of academically incestuous backwater that poetry had become by the 1970s is no excuse for nominating bad writing. It looks like the Dunning-Kruger problem — those nominating don’t know the craft of writing well enough to realize that they are nominating bad writers.
I wonder if the one point here is that the sick puppies (rabies is a disease) are worried that science fiction will pursue respectability the way poetry and literary novels did and suffer a similarly vitiating dominance by MFAs. That, I think, would be a legitimate worry. One of the nice things about science fiction is that it is in touch with its audience, and its authors are rewarded with royalties, not grants or academic salaries.
That said, there are sentences above, quoted from ‘Chesty and Me,’ that should be taken out and shot. The desire to avoid making science fiction into the sort of academically incestuous backwater that poetry had become by the 1970s is no excuse for nominating bad writing. It looks like the Dunning-Kruger problem — those nominating don’t know the craft of writing well enough to realize that they are nominating bad writers.
I wonder if the one point here is that the sick puppies (rabies is a disease) are worried that science fiction will pursue respectability the way poetry and literary novels did and suffer a similarly vitiating dominance by MFAs. That, I think, would be a legitimate worry. One of the nice things about science fiction is that it is in touch with its audience, and its authors are rewarded with royalties, not grants or academic salaries.
That said, there are sentences above, quoted from ‘Chesty and Me,’ that should be taken out and shot. The desire to avoid making science fiction into the sort of academically incestuous backwater that poetry had become by the 1970s is no excuse for nominating bad writing. It looks like the Dunning-Kruger problem — those nominating don’t know the craft of writing well enough to realize that they are nominating bad writers.
You know, I’m looking at the Sad Puppies 2015 slate, and guess who wasn’t nominated by them? That’s right, Torgersen.
So, why are we discussing last year’s nominees, rather than this year’s?
You know, I’m looking at the Sad Puppies 2015 slate, and guess who wasn’t nominated by them? That’s right, Torgersen.
So, why are we discussing last year’s nominees, rather than this year’s?
You know, I’m looking at the Sad Puppies 2015 slate, and guess who wasn’t nominated by them? That’s right, Torgersen.
So, why are we discussing last year’s nominees, rather than this year’s?
Brett:
Because Torgersen put together the list, ostensibly.
Brett:
Because Torgersen put together the list, ostensibly.
Brett:
Because Torgersen put together the list, ostensibly.
Mary-Sue: a term from fanfic where the author projects his-or-herself into the story via a character who is (usually) highly competent, in a plotline which involves the (at least ultimate) success of the character.
Mary-Sue: a term from fanfic where the author projects his-or-herself into the story via a character who is (usually) highly competent, in a plotline which involves the (at least ultimate) success of the character.
Mary-Sue: a term from fanfic where the author projects his-or-herself into the story via a character who is (usually) highly competent, in a plotline which involves the (at least ultimate) success of the character.
@byomtov
Mary-Sue?
Idealized or semi-idealized author-insertion characters. See e.g.
@byomtov
Mary-Sue?
Idealized or semi-idealized author-insertion characters. See e.g.
@byomtov
Mary-Sue?
Idealized or semi-idealized author-insertion characters. See e.g.
I think it needs to be pointed out, in light of JohnW’s comment, that there are two slates in this contraversy. “Sad” Puppies, organized by Torgersen this year, and “Rabid” Puppies, which according to Hoyt is just an unauthorized copycat operation by Vox Day, which Sad Puppies had nothing to do with.
Two separate slates, even if VD copied most of the Sad Puppies slate. Just to keep that in mind.
I think it needs to be pointed out, in light of JohnW’s comment, that there are two slates in this contraversy. “Sad” Puppies, organized by Torgersen this year, and “Rabid” Puppies, which according to Hoyt is just an unauthorized copycat operation by Vox Day, which Sad Puppies had nothing to do with.
Two separate slates, even if VD copied most of the Sad Puppies slate. Just to keep that in mind.
I think it needs to be pointed out, in light of JohnW’s comment, that there are two slates in this contraversy. “Sad” Puppies, organized by Torgersen this year, and “Rabid” Puppies, which according to Hoyt is just an unauthorized copycat operation by Vox Day, which Sad Puppies had nothing to do with.
Two separate slates, even if VD copied most of the Sad Puppies slate. Just to keep that in mind.
Kyle and me, and we both have a military background.
ex-SP/4 Hanes, Field Artillery here.
I served with plenty of southerners.
Military slang of my era might have used “righteously” in this place, but never “rightfully”.
Actually, the translation of the author’s sentence into the military slang of my era would have many more words, and is not directly quoteable in this family publication.
Kyle and me, and we both have a military background.
ex-SP/4 Hanes, Field Artillery here.
I served with plenty of southerners.
Military slang of my era might have used “righteously” in this place, but never “rightfully”.
Actually, the translation of the author’s sentence into the military slang of my era would have many more words, and is not directly quoteable in this family publication.
Kyle and me, and we both have a military background.
ex-SP/4 Hanes, Field Artillery here.
I served with plenty of southerners.
Military slang of my era might have used “righteously” in this place, but never “rightfully”.
Actually, the translation of the author’s sentence into the military slang of my era would have many more words, and is not directly quoteable in this family publication.
From an outsider’s perspective, it doesn’t seem like Doc Sci’s criticisms of whichever puppies’ nominees rise to the sort of ivory-tower, academic elitism some people seem to be concerned about. It looks like a reasonably low bar for basic technical competence she’s setting.
I also don’t think anyone’s suggesting that people should be nominating stuff no one likes, just on the say-so of a bunch of self-appointed literature professors (or whatever cartoonishly high-brow scenario you prefer) opining on the high level of quality the works represent.
The goal isn’t outstanding literature (as defined in academic circles), without regard to popularity. It’s popularity without a total disregard for basic competence. What it’s definitely not is *stuff that people don’t like.*
From an outsider’s perspective, it doesn’t seem like Doc Sci’s criticisms of whichever puppies’ nominees rise to the sort of ivory-tower, academic elitism some people seem to be concerned about. It looks like a reasonably low bar for basic technical competence she’s setting.
I also don’t think anyone’s suggesting that people should be nominating stuff no one likes, just on the say-so of a bunch of self-appointed literature professors (or whatever cartoonishly high-brow scenario you prefer) opining on the high level of quality the works represent.
The goal isn’t outstanding literature (as defined in academic circles), without regard to popularity. It’s popularity without a total disregard for basic competence. What it’s definitely not is *stuff that people don’t like.*
From an outsider’s perspective, it doesn’t seem like Doc Sci’s criticisms of whichever puppies’ nominees rise to the sort of ivory-tower, academic elitism some people seem to be concerned about. It looks like a reasonably low bar for basic technical competence she’s setting.
I also don’t think anyone’s suggesting that people should be nominating stuff no one likes, just on the say-so of a bunch of self-appointed literature professors (or whatever cartoonishly high-brow scenario you prefer) opining on the high level of quality the works represent.
The goal isn’t outstanding literature (as defined in academic circles), without regard to popularity. It’s popularity without a total disregard for basic competence. What it’s definitely not is *stuff that people don’t like.*
That’s true, I forgot that. Sorry.
I personally would never have said “rightfully” (as I said upthread, I’d not have gone further than “rightly”), but I didn’t feel any doubt of the sense the author is trying to convey. That sentence, while inelegant, was extremely unambiguous to me. FWVLIW.
And yeah, although it’s not as dramatic as yesteryear, an actual narration in modern American military English would not be family-friendly.
That’s true, I forgot that. Sorry.
I personally would never have said “rightfully” (as I said upthread, I’d not have gone further than “rightly”), but I didn’t feel any doubt of the sense the author is trying to convey. That sentence, while inelegant, was extremely unambiguous to me. FWVLIW.
And yeah, although it’s not as dramatic as yesteryear, an actual narration in modern American military English would not be family-friendly.
That’s true, I forgot that. Sorry.
I personally would never have said “rightfully” (as I said upthread, I’d not have gone further than “rightly”), but I didn’t feel any doubt of the sense the author is trying to convey. That sentence, while inelegant, was extremely unambiguous to me. FWVLIW.
And yeah, although it’s not as dramatic as yesteryear, an actual narration in modern American military English would not be family-friendly.
(@joel)
(@joel)
(@joel)
Well, then, stop whining, and get more people who share your tastes to vote on the Hugos next year.
Seems to me a better solution than ranting about how evil the people who put up the Sad Puppies slate are.
Well, then, stop whining, and get more people who share your tastes to vote on the Hugos next year.
Seems to me a better solution than ranting about how evil the people who put up the Sad Puppies slate are.
Well, then, stop whining, and get more people who share your tastes to vote on the Hugos next year.
Seems to me a better solution than ranting about how evil the people who put up the Sad Puppies slate are.
Can’t people whine, rant and get more people who share their tastes to vote? Maybe whining and ranting are a couple of ways to encourage such voting.
Can’t people whine, rant and get more people who share their tastes to vote? Maybe whining and ranting are a couple of ways to encourage such voting.
Can’t people whine, rant and get more people who share their tastes to vote? Maybe whining and ranting are a couple of ways to encourage such voting.
Brett, as per your complaints in the other thread about why you’re forced to be Republican, the nature of the Hugo voting structure means that just getting more people with similar tastes to vote won’t matter. If there are “puppy” slates next year, it would take alternate slates to defeat them. It’s a structural problem.
Brett, as per your complaints in the other thread about why you’re forced to be Republican, the nature of the Hugo voting structure means that just getting more people with similar tastes to vote won’t matter. If there are “puppy” slates next year, it would take alternate slates to defeat them. It’s a structural problem.
Brett, as per your complaints in the other thread about why you’re forced to be Republican, the nature of the Hugo voting structure means that just getting more people with similar tastes to vote won’t matter. If there are “puppy” slates next year, it would take alternate slates to defeat them. It’s a structural problem.
(Also, yeah, what hsh said)
(Also, yeah, what hsh said)
(Also, yeah, what hsh said)
Mary Sue
Mary Sue
Mary Sue
Well, then, stop whining, and get more people who share your tastes to vote on the Hugos next year.
Seems to me a better solution than ranting about how evil the people who put up the Sad Puppies slate are.
Dude, what are you trying to do, break the internet?!!??!?
Well, then, stop whining, and get more people who share your tastes to vote on the Hugos next year.
Seems to me a better solution than ranting about how evil the people who put up the Sad Puppies slate are.
Dude, what are you trying to do, break the internet?!!??!?
Well, then, stop whining, and get more people who share your tastes to vote on the Hugos next year.
Seems to me a better solution than ranting about how evil the people who put up the Sad Puppies slate are.
Dude, what are you trying to do, break the internet?!!??!?
NV:
That’s true, I forgot that. Sorry.
Not offended.
My favorite depiction of military culture in quality SF is Haldeman’s Forever War. (This choice is probably influenced by having been drafted.)
Right after ‘Nam ended, I would have said The Word For World Is Forest, an anti-militarism polemic novelette by Ursula LeGuin, but we got smarter about some things in the Powell years. The effects of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith and Blackwater/Xe have been so dire that it might again be a good choice.
NV:
That’s true, I forgot that. Sorry.
Not offended.
My favorite depiction of military culture in quality SF is Haldeman’s Forever War. (This choice is probably influenced by having been drafted.)
Right after ‘Nam ended, I would have said The Word For World Is Forest, an anti-militarism polemic novelette by Ursula LeGuin, but we got smarter about some things in the Powell years. The effects of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith and Blackwater/Xe have been so dire that it might again be a good choice.
NV:
That’s true, I forgot that. Sorry.
Not offended.
My favorite depiction of military culture in quality SF is Haldeman’s Forever War. (This choice is probably influenced by having been drafted.)
Right after ‘Nam ended, I would have said The Word For World Is Forest, an anti-militarism polemic novelette by Ursula LeGuin, but we got smarter about some things in the Powell years. The effects of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith and Blackwater/Xe have been so dire that it might again be a good choice.
Brett,
The Rabid Puppies used all of Torgeson’s slate. They (that is, Beale) just added some of their own: http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/04/14/sad-puppy-data-analysis/
Brett,
The Rabid Puppies used all of Torgeson’s slate. They (that is, Beale) just added some of their own: http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/04/14/sad-puppy-data-analysis/
Brett,
The Rabid Puppies used all of Torgeson’s slate. They (that is, Beale) just added some of their own: http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/04/14/sad-puppy-data-analysis/
Regarding “rightfully”, he chimed in, late to the party:
I’ve heard it used in Southern dialect by my father’s family (Georgia coastal plain, near SC, in and around Statesboro), but not really as an adverb.
So, “that car is rightfully mine”, used as an adjective modifying “car”, makes sense to my ear. The care properly and justly belongs to me. But I don’t know what it would mean to “rightfully drive the car”.
Just two tiny cents, and with that I will stand down from any resulting debate about what is and is not proper Southern dialect.
It’s been a while since I hung out with those folks. Most of the ones I actually know are, sadly, gone now.
Regarding “rightfully”, he chimed in, late to the party:
I’ve heard it used in Southern dialect by my father’s family (Georgia coastal plain, near SC, in and around Statesboro), but not really as an adverb.
So, “that car is rightfully mine”, used as an adjective modifying “car”, makes sense to my ear. The care properly and justly belongs to me. But I don’t know what it would mean to “rightfully drive the car”.
Just two tiny cents, and with that I will stand down from any resulting debate about what is and is not proper Southern dialect.
It’s been a while since I hung out with those folks. Most of the ones I actually know are, sadly, gone now.
Regarding “rightfully”, he chimed in, late to the party:
I’ve heard it used in Southern dialect by my father’s family (Georgia coastal plain, near SC, in and around Statesboro), but not really as an adverb.
So, “that car is rightfully mine”, used as an adjective modifying “car”, makes sense to my ear. The care properly and justly belongs to me. But I don’t know what it would mean to “rightfully drive the car”.
Just two tiny cents, and with that I will stand down from any resulting debate about what is and is not proper Southern dialect.
It’s been a while since I hung out with those folks. Most of the ones I actually know are, sadly, gone now.
Actually, sorry, yes, after sitting here talking to myself in the voice of my Aunt Melba, I can hear rightfully as an adverb, but oddly only in a negative sense.
I can hear something like “You can’t rightfully drive the car, it doesn’t belong to you”. But for some reason I can’t hear “You can rightfully drive the car, it’s your car”.
It seems to me that would come out more like “You go right on ahead and drive that car, it’s your car”.
And, with that, I leave the field of Southern diction battle.
Actually, sorry, yes, after sitting here talking to myself in the voice of my Aunt Melba, I can hear rightfully as an adverb, but oddly only in a negative sense.
I can hear something like “You can’t rightfully drive the car, it doesn’t belong to you”. But for some reason I can’t hear “You can rightfully drive the car, it’s your car”.
It seems to me that would come out more like “You go right on ahead and drive that car, it’s your car”.
And, with that, I leave the field of Southern diction battle.
Actually, sorry, yes, after sitting here talking to myself in the voice of my Aunt Melba, I can hear rightfully as an adverb, but oddly only in a negative sense.
I can hear something like “You can’t rightfully drive the car, it doesn’t belong to you”. But for some reason I can’t hear “You can rightfully drive the car, it’s your car”.
It seems to me that would come out more like “You go right on ahead and drive that car, it’s your car”.
And, with that, I leave the field of Southern diction battle.
You may fire at will with your rightful…
You may fire at will with your rightful…
You may fire at will with your rightful…
I think I prefer the one-two punch approach: hit ’em rightfully and then hit ’em leftfully. Just so you hit them fully. 😉
(Definitely got to get more sleep, if I’m getting this silly….)
I think I prefer the one-two punch approach: hit ’em rightfully and then hit ’em leftfully. Just so you hit them fully. 😉
(Definitely got to get more sleep, if I’m getting this silly….)
I think I prefer the one-two punch approach: hit ’em rightfully and then hit ’em leftfully. Just so you hit them fully. 😉
(Definitely got to get more sleep, if I’m getting this silly….)
Ranting and whining is how the puppies advocated for their slate. That and denigrating those they view as enemies.
Ranting and whining is how the puppies advocated for their slate. That and denigrating those they view as enemies.
Ranting and whining is how the puppies advocated for their slate. That and denigrating those they view as enemies.
I think “rightfully” implies a legal right in a situation where that right might possibly be unclear, or maybe where there are legal alternatives.
Thus, “You can rightfully drive the car” implies, to my ear, that you are entitled to drive it, even though that may not be clearcut. That is, you can drive it even though, say, it belongs to someone else. “Rightfully” would be unnecessary if it was your car to begin with.
“Susan rightfully complained.” She had a valid reason for complaining, but had no obligation to do so.
“Susan rightly complained.” She would have been wrong not to complain.
I think “rightfully” implies a legal right in a situation where that right might possibly be unclear, or maybe where there are legal alternatives.
Thus, “You can rightfully drive the car” implies, to my ear, that you are entitled to drive it, even though that may not be clearcut. That is, you can drive it even though, say, it belongs to someone else. “Rightfully” would be unnecessary if it was your car to begin with.
“Susan rightfully complained.” She had a valid reason for complaining, but had no obligation to do so.
“Susan rightly complained.” She would have been wrong not to complain.
I think “rightfully” implies a legal right in a situation where that right might possibly be unclear, or maybe where there are legal alternatives.
Thus, “You can rightfully drive the car” implies, to my ear, that you are entitled to drive it, even though that may not be clearcut. That is, you can drive it even though, say, it belongs to someone else. “Rightfully” would be unnecessary if it was your car to begin with.
“Susan rightfully complained.” She had a valid reason for complaining, but had no obligation to do so.
“Susan rightly complained.” She would have been wrong not to complain.
“All I got to give up is McCaslin blood that rightfully aint even mine….”
Lucas in Faulkner’s Go Down Moses
Other than that, I rightfully got nothin’
“All I got to give up is McCaslin blood that rightfully aint even mine….”
Lucas in Faulkner’s Go Down Moses
Other than that, I rightfully got nothin’
“All I got to give up is McCaslin blood that rightfully aint even mine….”
Lucas in Faulkner’s Go Down Moses
Other than that, I rightfully got nothin’
Bernie has, rightfully, persuaded me.
Bernie has, rightfully, persuaded me.
Bernie has, rightfully, persuaded me.
bless his heart
bless his heart
bless his heart
Shakespeare knew.
And he shall think that thou, which know’st the way
To plant unrightful kings, wilt know again,
Being ne’er so little urged, another way
To pluck him headlong from the usurped throne.
Richard II
Act V, Scene I
Richard, addressing Northumberland, who has helped Bolingbroke depose him.
Shakespeare knew.
And he shall think that thou, which know’st the way
To plant unrightful kings, wilt know again,
Being ne’er so little urged, another way
To pluck him headlong from the usurped throne.
Richard II
Act V, Scene I
Richard, addressing Northumberland, who has helped Bolingbroke depose him.
Shakespeare knew.
And he shall think that thou, which know’st the way
To plant unrightful kings, wilt know again,
Being ne’er so little urged, another way
To pluck him headlong from the usurped throne.
Richard II
Act V, Scene I
Richard, addressing Northumberland, who has helped Bolingbroke depose him.
russell skrev :
I can hear something like “You can’t rightfully drive the car, it doesn’t belong to you”. But for some reason I can’t hear “You can rightfully drive the car, it’s your car”.
It seems to me that would come out more like “You go right on ahead and drive that car, it’s your car”.
My ear agrees with russell’s.
byomtov’s convincing explanation unfortunately doesn’t seem to me to apply to the sentence of interest (over which I’m now going to stop obsessing).
russell skrev :
I can hear something like “You can’t rightfully drive the car, it doesn’t belong to you”. But for some reason I can’t hear “You can rightfully drive the car, it’s your car”.
It seems to me that would come out more like “You go right on ahead and drive that car, it’s your car”.
My ear agrees with russell’s.
byomtov’s convincing explanation unfortunately doesn’t seem to me to apply to the sentence of interest (over which I’m now going to stop obsessing).
russell skrev :
I can hear something like “You can’t rightfully drive the car, it doesn’t belong to you”. But for some reason I can’t hear “You can rightfully drive the car, it’s your car”.
It seems to me that would come out more like “You go right on ahead and drive that car, it’s your car”.
My ear agrees with russell’s.
byomtov’s convincing explanation unfortunately doesn’t seem to me to apply to the sentence of interest (over which I’m now going to stop obsessing).
1. first, convince your radical “conservative” followers that the establishment is oppressively liberal.
2. declare yourself to be a neutral alternative to the horrible left establishment.
3. when people point out that your motivations and slant are explicitly “conservative”, despite your deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny,deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny. assert your fair and balanced goals.
4. profit.
1. first, convince your radical “conservative” followers that the establishment is oppressively liberal.
2. declare yourself to be a neutral alternative to the horrible left establishment.
3. when people point out that your motivations and slant are explicitly “conservative”, despite your deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny,deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny. assert your fair and balanced goals.
4. profit.
1. first, convince your radical “conservative” followers that the establishment is oppressively liberal.
2. declare yourself to be a neutral alternative to the horrible left establishment.
3. when people point out that your motivations and slant are explicitly “conservative”, despite your deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny,deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny. assert your fair and balanced goals.
4. profit.
Joel,
Who are you going to trust, me, or your lying ears?
Joel,
Who are you going to trust, me, or your lying ears?
Joel,
Who are you going to trust, me, or your lying ears?
What Russell thought Aunt Melba said.
What Russell thought Aunt Melba said.
What Russell thought Aunt Melba said.
Any of you who think the parts of “The Exchange Officers” I quoted sound like a person’s voice, could you read the story and tell me what you think of it, as a whole?
Any of you who think the parts of “The Exchange Officers” I quoted sound like a person’s voice, could you read the story and tell me what you think of it, as a whole?
Any of you who think the parts of “The Exchange Officers” I quoted sound like a person’s voice, could you read the story and tell me what you think of it, as a whole?
OH BRETT BELLMORE NO.
(cf: http://fanlore.org/wiki/OH_JOHN_RINGO_NO)
OH BRETT BELLMORE NO.
(cf: http://fanlore.org/wiki/OH_JOHN_RINGO_NO)
OH BRETT BELLMORE NO.
(cf: http://fanlore.org/wiki/OH_JOHN_RINGO_NO)
If my patience comes back, I may take another stab, but it was so painfully written that I stopped about three pages in. It reads like a cheap serial scifi throwback, and not in a good way. “Workmanlike” is the kindest description I can muster – it’s crude and clunky, and can’t decide how to treat its readers.
If my patience comes back, I may take another stab, but it was so painfully written that I stopped about three pages in. It reads like a cheap serial scifi throwback, and not in a good way. “Workmanlike” is the kindest description I can muster – it’s crude and clunky, and can’t decide how to treat its readers.
If my patience comes back, I may take another stab, but it was so painfully written that I stopped about three pages in. It reads like a cheap serial scifi throwback, and not in a good way. “Workmanlike” is the kindest description I can muster – it’s crude and clunky, and can’t decide how to treat its readers.
the main female character is named “Chesty”?
the main female character is named “Chesty”?
the main female character is named “Chesty”?
Chesty and Chopper, fightin the Chinese!
but those are handles given to them by the colonel, Fern McConnell (aka Valkyrie). so it’s OK.
Chesty and Chopper, fightin the Chinese!
but those are handles given to them by the colonel, Fern McConnell (aka Valkyrie). so it’s OK.
Chesty and Chopper, fightin the Chinese!
but those are handles given to them by the colonel, Fern McConnell (aka Valkyrie). so it’s OK.
“the main female character is named “Chesty”?”
Probably named after the famous general.
“the main female character is named “Chesty”?”
Probably named after the famous general.
“the main female character is named “Chesty”?”
Probably named after the famous general.
Yes, very explicitly (and transparently) named after the general, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an extremely blatant ploy* to let the author give the most prominent female character a name that reduces her to her appearance in a very gendered way. It’s part of the old-fashioned scifi crap that got under my skin.
*Made even more blatant by the decision to have a female saddle her with that handle.
Yes, very explicitly (and transparently) named after the general, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an extremely blatant ploy* to let the author give the most prominent female character a name that reduces her to her appearance in a very gendered way. It’s part of the old-fashioned scifi crap that got under my skin.
*Made even more blatant by the decision to have a female saddle her with that handle.
Yes, very explicitly (and transparently) named after the general, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an extremely blatant ploy* to let the author give the most prominent female character a name that reduces her to her appearance in a very gendered way. It’s part of the old-fashioned scifi crap that got under my skin.
*Made even more blatant by the decision to have a female saddle her with that handle.
Anyone who can write “I spoke several obscenities” has a tin ear for language and hasn’t thought through how to bring his scene to life.
The reason Correia/Torgerson and VD fail as writers is that they are so militantly clumsy and unimaginative. They don’t think through what they are doing in any given scene and they seem to think that just slapping the “right” words on a page any old how will get the job done. They mix pedantry and attempted colloquialism like someone cutting Scriabin with Bon Jovi. The result is a semi-literate, noisy confusion that leaves the reader bored and increasingly contemptuous.
Anyone who can write “I spoke several obscenities” has a tin ear for language and hasn’t thought through how to bring his scene to life.
The reason Correia/Torgerson and VD fail as writers is that they are so militantly clumsy and unimaginative. They don’t think through what they are doing in any given scene and they seem to think that just slapping the “right” words on a page any old how will get the job done. They mix pedantry and attempted colloquialism like someone cutting Scriabin with Bon Jovi. The result is a semi-literate, noisy confusion that leaves the reader bored and increasingly contemptuous.
Anyone who can write “I spoke several obscenities” has a tin ear for language and hasn’t thought through how to bring his scene to life.
The reason Correia/Torgerson and VD fail as writers is that they are so militantly clumsy and unimaginative. They don’t think through what they are doing in any given scene and they seem to think that just slapping the “right” words on a page any old how will get the job done. They mix pedantry and attempted colloquialism like someone cutting Scriabin with Bon Jovi. The result is a semi-literate, noisy confusion that leaves the reader bored and increasingly contemptuous.
I suspect that the “properly” is an uncaught copy error, and the word that was intended was “promptly.”
I suspect that the “properly” is an uncaught copy error, and the word that was intended was “promptly.”
I suspect that the “properly” is an uncaught copy error, and the word that was intended was “promptly.”
“The reason Correia/Torgerson and VD fail as writers”
From wikipedia:
“Correia’s first novel, Monster Hunter International, despite being self-published, reached the Entertainment Weekly bestseller list in April 2008, after which he received a publishing contract with Baen Books. Monster Hunter International was re-released in 2009 and was on the Locus bestseller list in November 2009. The sequel, Monster Hunter Vendetta, was a New York Times bestseller.[1] The third book in the series, Monster Hunter Alpha, was released in July 2011 and was also a New York Times bestseller.[2]”
Man, what a failure as a writer.
“The reason Correia/Torgerson and VD fail as writers”
From wikipedia:
“Correia’s first novel, Monster Hunter International, despite being self-published, reached the Entertainment Weekly bestseller list in April 2008, after which he received a publishing contract with Baen Books. Monster Hunter International was re-released in 2009 and was on the Locus bestseller list in November 2009. The sequel, Monster Hunter Vendetta, was a New York Times bestseller.[1] The third book in the series, Monster Hunter Alpha, was released in July 2011 and was also a New York Times bestseller.[2]”
Man, what a failure as a writer.
“The reason Correia/Torgerson and VD fail as writers”
From wikipedia:
“Correia’s first novel, Monster Hunter International, despite being self-published, reached the Entertainment Weekly bestseller list in April 2008, after which he received a publishing contract with Baen Books. Monster Hunter International was re-released in 2009 and was on the Locus bestseller list in November 2009. The sequel, Monster Hunter Vendetta, was a New York Times bestseller.[1] The third book in the series, Monster Hunter Alpha, was released in July 2011 and was also a New York Times bestseller.[2]”
Man, what a failure as a writer.
there are many ways to fail
there are many ways to fail
there are many ways to fail
“Pushpin is as good as poetry, if pushpin is what you like.” (Pushpin was apparently a pub game of the time – not to be confused with the Russian poet of a similar name.)
I was introduced to this aphorism by Jeremy Bentham as a freshman in college, and have never been able to refute it, even though I’m sure it’s wrong.
Brett apparently has the same problem. All that matters is popularity; there is no independent way to measure quality.
Saves a LOT of time in literary analysis. Just look at the NYT bestseller lists, and you know what’s best. (Pushpin.)
But it also should disqualify you from any discussion about literary quality. Are you listening, Brett?
“Pushpin is as good as poetry, if pushpin is what you like.” (Pushpin was apparently a pub game of the time – not to be confused with the Russian poet of a similar name.)
I was introduced to this aphorism by Jeremy Bentham as a freshman in college, and have never been able to refute it, even though I’m sure it’s wrong.
Brett apparently has the same problem. All that matters is popularity; there is no independent way to measure quality.
Saves a LOT of time in literary analysis. Just look at the NYT bestseller lists, and you know what’s best. (Pushpin.)
But it also should disqualify you from any discussion about literary quality. Are you listening, Brett?
“Pushpin is as good as poetry, if pushpin is what you like.” (Pushpin was apparently a pub game of the time – not to be confused with the Russian poet of a similar name.)
I was introduced to this aphorism by Jeremy Bentham as a freshman in college, and have never been able to refute it, even though I’m sure it’s wrong.
Brett apparently has the same problem. All that matters is popularity; there is no independent way to measure quality.
Saves a LOT of time in literary analysis. Just look at the NYT bestseller lists, and you know what’s best. (Pushpin.)
But it also should disqualify you from any discussion about literary quality. Are you listening, Brett?
Who sold more books? Goethe or his brother-in-law Vulpius? To the former’s chagrin clearly the latter. And I would not assume that Vulpius considered himself as more than a pulp writer pandering to the lowest common denominator. The by far most successful German writer of today writes horror dime novels under a pseudonym and openly admits that his stuff vacillates unpredictably between well done and whipped crap.
And then there is that Mormon lady with her sparkling vampires and, or so I hear, abysmal style.
For the more classically minded: ‘Naked came the stranger’ (>100K copies sold)
I also found it quite pleasurable to read ‘Atlanta Nights’.
Quality is clearly overrated as a marker/indicator for success.
Who sold more books? Goethe or his brother-in-law Vulpius? To the former’s chagrin clearly the latter. And I would not assume that Vulpius considered himself as more than a pulp writer pandering to the lowest common denominator. The by far most successful German writer of today writes horror dime novels under a pseudonym and openly admits that his stuff vacillates unpredictably between well done and whipped crap.
And then there is that Mormon lady with her sparkling vampires and, or so I hear, abysmal style.
For the more classically minded: ‘Naked came the stranger’ (>100K copies sold)
I also found it quite pleasurable to read ‘Atlanta Nights’.
Quality is clearly overrated as a marker/indicator for success.
Who sold more books? Goethe or his brother-in-law Vulpius? To the former’s chagrin clearly the latter. And I would not assume that Vulpius considered himself as more than a pulp writer pandering to the lowest common denominator. The by far most successful German writer of today writes horror dime novels under a pseudonym and openly admits that his stuff vacillates unpredictably between well done and whipped crap.
And then there is that Mormon lady with her sparkling vampires and, or so I hear, abysmal style.
For the more classically minded: ‘Naked came the stranger’ (>100K copies sold)
I also found it quite pleasurable to read ‘Atlanta Nights’.
Quality is clearly overrated as a marker/indicator for success.
Poor Brett certainly comes across as Pavlov’s Puppy. Once something is labeled “conservative”, Brett salivates and feels compelled to defend and cherish it, regardless of any logic, fact, or merit involved.
The brute fact in all of this is that the Puppies’ pet writers don’t win prizes because they aren’t particularly good, talented or original writers. The Hugos are flawed, like all human institutions, but they do demand that a writer try a little harder and push a little further the Puppies seem willing or able to do. Maybe they should stop cultivating their self-victimizing petulance and take a harder, more self-critical view at what they are actually producing.
They might also stop lying about their behavior and motivations. Correia has been dog-whistling to the Gamergaters in obvious fashion, while happily pandering to Vox Day to scrounge up a few more votes. It’s hard to respect people who willingly associate with such despicable company while whining about how unfair it is to label them as being part of it.
In sum, Puppies, if you want to get prizes, acclaim and respect as writers, do the hard work of challenging yourselves,write better and stop assuming that you deserve something you haven’t earned.
Poor Brett certainly comes across as Pavlov’s Puppy. Once something is labeled “conservative”, Brett salivates and feels compelled to defend and cherish it, regardless of any logic, fact, or merit involved.
The brute fact in all of this is that the Puppies’ pet writers don’t win prizes because they aren’t particularly good, talented or original writers. The Hugos are flawed, like all human institutions, but they do demand that a writer try a little harder and push a little further the Puppies seem willing or able to do. Maybe they should stop cultivating their self-victimizing petulance and take a harder, more self-critical view at what they are actually producing.
They might also stop lying about their behavior and motivations. Correia has been dog-whistling to the Gamergaters in obvious fashion, while happily pandering to Vox Day to scrounge up a few more votes. It’s hard to respect people who willingly associate with such despicable company while whining about how unfair it is to label them as being part of it.
In sum, Puppies, if you want to get prizes, acclaim and respect as writers, do the hard work of challenging yourselves,write better and stop assuming that you deserve something you haven’t earned.
Poor Brett certainly comes across as Pavlov’s Puppy. Once something is labeled “conservative”, Brett salivates and feels compelled to defend and cherish it, regardless of any logic, fact, or merit involved.
The brute fact in all of this is that the Puppies’ pet writers don’t win prizes because they aren’t particularly good, talented or original writers. The Hugos are flawed, like all human institutions, but they do demand that a writer try a little harder and push a little further the Puppies seem willing or able to do. Maybe they should stop cultivating their self-victimizing petulance and take a harder, more self-critical view at what they are actually producing.
They might also stop lying about their behavior and motivations. Correia has been dog-whistling to the Gamergaters in obvious fashion, while happily pandering to Vox Day to scrounge up a few more votes. It’s hard to respect people who willingly associate with such despicable company while whining about how unfair it is to label them as being part of it.
In sum, Puppies, if you want to get prizes, acclaim and respect as writers, do the hard work of challenging yourselves,write better and stop assuming that you deserve something you haven’t earned.
Look, if ‘literary quality’ and writing skill have nothing to do with whether people enjoy reading something, maybe the problem here is that you’ve got a wacked idea of ‘literary quality’, not that huge numbers of people are reading crap. Maybe you are just a snob who wouldn’t recognize good writing if somebody hit you over the head with an omnibus edition of Doc Savage.
Look, if ‘literary quality’ and writing skill have nothing to do with whether people enjoy reading something, maybe the problem here is that you’ve got a wacked idea of ‘literary quality’, not that huge numbers of people are reading crap. Maybe you are just a snob who wouldn’t recognize good writing if somebody hit you over the head with an omnibus edition of Doc Savage.
Look, if ‘literary quality’ and writing skill have nothing to do with whether people enjoy reading something, maybe the problem here is that you’ve got a wacked idea of ‘literary quality’, not that huge numbers of people are reading crap. Maybe you are just a snob who wouldn’t recognize good writing if somebody hit you over the head with an omnibus edition of Doc Savage.
Or maybe I actually have standards and can defend them with reference to the works in question, which is more than Brett has ever managed to do?
The Sad/Rabid/Grifter Puppies are the fiction-writer equivalent of pickup artists. They “know” they “deserve” prizes, the way PUAs “know” they “deserve” sex. If they can’t get them from a willing group of voters/women on the basis of their own merits, they’ll con, cheat and rape their way to what they “deserve”. And then, of course, they’ll whine even more that those they abused have the audacity to dislike and despise them and, oh horrors!, plan to make sure they can’t repeat their despicable behavior.
Or maybe I actually have standards and can defend them with reference to the works in question, which is more than Brett has ever managed to do?
The Sad/Rabid/Grifter Puppies are the fiction-writer equivalent of pickup artists. They “know” they “deserve” prizes, the way PUAs “know” they “deserve” sex. If they can’t get them from a willing group of voters/women on the basis of their own merits, they’ll con, cheat and rape their way to what they “deserve”. And then, of course, they’ll whine even more that those they abused have the audacity to dislike and despise them and, oh horrors!, plan to make sure they can’t repeat their despicable behavior.
Or maybe I actually have standards and can defend them with reference to the works in question, which is more than Brett has ever managed to do?
The Sad/Rabid/Grifter Puppies are the fiction-writer equivalent of pickup artists. They “know” they “deserve” prizes, the way PUAs “know” they “deserve” sex. If they can’t get them from a willing group of voters/women on the basis of their own merits, they’ll con, cheat and rape their way to what they “deserve”. And then, of course, they’ll whine even more that those they abused have the audacity to dislike and despise them and, oh horrors!, plan to make sure they can’t repeat their despicable behavior.
Popularity is never a good indicator of quality, Brett, only of popularity. Dan Brown is a hack, but he’s a best-selling hack because a lot of people like his simplistic storylines, manipulative plot devices, and cardboard characters. Take TV shows: something awful like Big Bang Theory is enormously popular even though it relies on lazy writing, broad stereotypes, and a teeth-grating laugh track. It’s not complex or well-crafted; it’s simple and plays to what the audience likes. That’s why it’s popular. Or take formulaic “summer blockbuster” movies; they’re by-the-numbers constructions with all the substance of cotton candy, but they draw in the masses… and are forgotten soon afterwards.
It’s reasonable to make distinctions beyond popularity when critiquing art. If it isn’t, then the Hugos should just be a simple ranking based on sales figures. That it’s not should probably hint that there’s going to be some structural or thematic analysis performed, and one isn’t a snob for accepting this.
Popularity is never a good indicator of quality, Brett, only of popularity. Dan Brown is a hack, but he’s a best-selling hack because a lot of people like his simplistic storylines, manipulative plot devices, and cardboard characters. Take TV shows: something awful like Big Bang Theory is enormously popular even though it relies on lazy writing, broad stereotypes, and a teeth-grating laugh track. It’s not complex or well-crafted; it’s simple and plays to what the audience likes. That’s why it’s popular. Or take formulaic “summer blockbuster” movies; they’re by-the-numbers constructions with all the substance of cotton candy, but they draw in the masses… and are forgotten soon afterwards.
It’s reasonable to make distinctions beyond popularity when critiquing art. If it isn’t, then the Hugos should just be a simple ranking based on sales figures. That it’s not should probably hint that there’s going to be some structural or thematic analysis performed, and one isn’t a snob for accepting this.
Popularity is never a good indicator of quality, Brett, only of popularity. Dan Brown is a hack, but he’s a best-selling hack because a lot of people like his simplistic storylines, manipulative plot devices, and cardboard characters. Take TV shows: something awful like Big Bang Theory is enormously popular even though it relies on lazy writing, broad stereotypes, and a teeth-grating laugh track. It’s not complex or well-crafted; it’s simple and plays to what the audience likes. That’s why it’s popular. Or take formulaic “summer blockbuster” movies; they’re by-the-numbers constructions with all the substance of cotton candy, but they draw in the masses… and are forgotten soon afterwards.
It’s reasonable to make distinctions beyond popularity when critiquing art. If it isn’t, then the Hugos should just be a simple ranking based on sales figures. That it’s not should probably hint that there’s going to be some structural or thematic analysis performed, and one isn’t a snob for accepting this.
Oh, bs. That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked. Nope, the fact that the Monster Hunter series keeps selling out IS evidence he’s a good writer.
I’m more and more convinced that Sad Puppies is onto something, and the Hugos have been captured by literary snobs, if this is the way you really think.
Indeed, “Eat your broccoli!” seems to be the theme here. The Hugos should be reserved for works people don’t want to read, evidently.
Oh, bs. That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked. Nope, the fact that the Monster Hunter series keeps selling out IS evidence he’s a good writer.
I’m more and more convinced that Sad Puppies is onto something, and the Hugos have been captured by literary snobs, if this is the way you really think.
Indeed, “Eat your broccoli!” seems to be the theme here. The Hugos should be reserved for works people don’t want to read, evidently.
Oh, bs. That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked. Nope, the fact that the Monster Hunter series keeps selling out IS evidence he’s a good writer.
I’m more and more convinced that Sad Puppies is onto something, and the Hugos have been captured by literary snobs, if this is the way you really think.
Indeed, “Eat your broccoli!” seems to be the theme here. The Hugos should be reserved for works people don’t want to read, evidently.
That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked.
McDonald’s is very popular. No question there. But I defy you to claim that it is well cooked.
That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked.
McDonald’s is very popular. No question there. But I defy you to claim that it is well cooked.
That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked.
McDonald’s is very popular. No question there. But I defy you to claim that it is well cooked.
The Hugo awards are, in fact, popularity awards…from the SF fan community that is involved enough to take part in Worldcon. Which is not *quite* the same as just raw sales figures.
Don’t recall if “Bimbos of the Death Sun” got a Hugo; probably not; but it WAS very popular.
The Nebula awards, voted on by members of SFWA, are much closer to being “literary” awards.
In both cases, the “literary merit” in SF is not quite the same as what one encounters in “literature” of the type that an MFA would study.
Perhaps there should be a special one-time-only Hugo award this year for “Gaming the Rules”; and then make sure it can never happen again.
The Hugo awards are, in fact, popularity awards…from the SF fan community that is involved enough to take part in Worldcon. Which is not *quite* the same as just raw sales figures.
Don’t recall if “Bimbos of the Death Sun” got a Hugo; probably not; but it WAS very popular.
The Nebula awards, voted on by members of SFWA, are much closer to being “literary” awards.
In both cases, the “literary merit” in SF is not quite the same as what one encounters in “literature” of the type that an MFA would study.
Perhaps there should be a special one-time-only Hugo award this year for “Gaming the Rules”; and then make sure it can never happen again.
The Hugo awards are, in fact, popularity awards…from the SF fan community that is involved enough to take part in Worldcon. Which is not *quite* the same as just raw sales figures.
Don’t recall if “Bimbos of the Death Sun” got a Hugo; probably not; but it WAS very popular.
The Nebula awards, voted on by members of SFWA, are much closer to being “literary” awards.
In both cases, the “literary merit” in SF is not quite the same as what one encounters in “literature” of the type that an MFA would study.
Perhaps there should be a special one-time-only Hugo award this year for “Gaming the Rules”; and then make sure it can never happen again.
Quality does not equal value. And, vice versa.
If a lot of people like something and want to read it, nuff said. Enjoy your book. That is called “value”. Some number of people get pleasure from reading the book. No further justification is needed.
There are also reasonably objective measures for literary quality. By “objective”, I mean they can be described sufficiently crisply that a given written work can be considered in light of them, without it being simply a matter of opinion.
There are reasons that Shakespeare and Chekov and Bellow are considered “good writers”, and (for example) Jacqueline Susann is not. And, those reasons can be articulated, they aren’t just a matter of some “snob’s” opinion.
And, of course, Jacqueline Susann sold a lot of books.
If you like to read Jacqueline Susann, read Jacqueline Susann. If you like to read Chekov and Bellow, read Chekov and Bellow.
If you’re going to talk about whether books are “good” or not, you need to be clear about the metric you are using to say what “good” is.
If the metric is “a lot of people like it, including me”, that’s fine.
If you’re going to say “it’s a very well written book”, where “well written” refers to the actual craft of writing, that’s also fine.
The two may overlap as a matter of occasional happy coincidence, but they are not the same.
No point in arguing about who’s yardstick is better, everyone uses the metrics that best satisfy their purposes.
In this thread, specifically, I think Dr Science is interested in questions of actual literary merit, so perhaps “how many books were sold” is somewhat off topic.
As an aside, Emily Dickinson published about 10 or so poems during her lifetime. Out of the almost 2,000 that she wrote. I don’t know how many people read the 10 or so, if it amounted to the low thousands I’d be amazed.
Quality does not equal value. And, vice versa.
If a lot of people like something and want to read it, nuff said. Enjoy your book. That is called “value”. Some number of people get pleasure from reading the book. No further justification is needed.
There are also reasonably objective measures for literary quality. By “objective”, I mean they can be described sufficiently crisply that a given written work can be considered in light of them, without it being simply a matter of opinion.
There are reasons that Shakespeare and Chekov and Bellow are considered “good writers”, and (for example) Jacqueline Susann is not. And, those reasons can be articulated, they aren’t just a matter of some “snob’s” opinion.
And, of course, Jacqueline Susann sold a lot of books.
If you like to read Jacqueline Susann, read Jacqueline Susann. If you like to read Chekov and Bellow, read Chekov and Bellow.
If you’re going to talk about whether books are “good” or not, you need to be clear about the metric you are using to say what “good” is.
If the metric is “a lot of people like it, including me”, that’s fine.
If you’re going to say “it’s a very well written book”, where “well written” refers to the actual craft of writing, that’s also fine.
The two may overlap as a matter of occasional happy coincidence, but they are not the same.
No point in arguing about who’s yardstick is better, everyone uses the metrics that best satisfy their purposes.
In this thread, specifically, I think Dr Science is interested in questions of actual literary merit, so perhaps “how many books were sold” is somewhat off topic.
As an aside, Emily Dickinson published about 10 or so poems during her lifetime. Out of the almost 2,000 that she wrote. I don’t know how many people read the 10 or so, if it amounted to the low thousands I’d be amazed.
Quality does not equal value. And, vice versa.
If a lot of people like something and want to read it, nuff said. Enjoy your book. That is called “value”. Some number of people get pleasure from reading the book. No further justification is needed.
There are also reasonably objective measures for literary quality. By “objective”, I mean they can be described sufficiently crisply that a given written work can be considered in light of them, without it being simply a matter of opinion.
There are reasons that Shakespeare and Chekov and Bellow are considered “good writers”, and (for example) Jacqueline Susann is not. And, those reasons can be articulated, they aren’t just a matter of some “snob’s” opinion.
And, of course, Jacqueline Susann sold a lot of books.
If you like to read Jacqueline Susann, read Jacqueline Susann. If you like to read Chekov and Bellow, read Chekov and Bellow.
If you’re going to talk about whether books are “good” or not, you need to be clear about the metric you are using to say what “good” is.
If the metric is “a lot of people like it, including me”, that’s fine.
If you’re going to say “it’s a very well written book”, where “well written” refers to the actual craft of writing, that’s also fine.
The two may overlap as a matter of occasional happy coincidence, but they are not the same.
No point in arguing about who’s yardstick is better, everyone uses the metrics that best satisfy their purposes.
In this thread, specifically, I think Dr Science is interested in questions of actual literary merit, so perhaps “how many books were sold” is somewhat off topic.
As an aside, Emily Dickinson published about 10 or so poems during her lifetime. Out of the almost 2,000 that she wrote. I don’t know how many people read the 10 or so, if it amounted to the low thousands I’d be amazed.
“That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked.”
Hungry dogs will eat dirty puddings.
Which, on reflection, really ought to be the Sad/Rabid/Grifter Puppies battle-cry.
“That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked.”
Hungry dogs will eat dirty puddings.
Which, on reflection, really ought to be the Sad/Rabid/Grifter Puppies battle-cry.
“That’s like saying that people enjoying a meal isn’t a good indication of whether it’s well cooked.”
Hungry dogs will eat dirty puddings.
Which, on reflection, really ought to be the Sad/Rabid/Grifter Puppies battle-cry.
“Lack of interest”, Brett; “disinterest” means “objectivity”.
“Lack of interest”, Brett; “disinterest” means “objectivity”.
“Lack of interest”, Brett; “disinterest” means “objectivity”.
@Mike Schilling
I sometimes have the impression that Brett is a misinterested participant in the great debates of the day.
@Mike Schilling
I sometimes have the impression that Brett is a misinterested participant in the great debates of the day.
@Mike Schilling
I sometimes have the impression that Brett is a misinterested participant in the great debates of the day.
The following analogy isn’t meant to be definitive, but perhaps Mr. Bellmore will get something from it:
Imagine a fight – not a boxing match, but a no-holds-barred fight – between Shaquille O’Neal and a current flyweight boxing champion (it seems there are four of them holding different organizational belts right now). If Shaq, who is almost two feet taller than the typical flyweight boxer (who couldn’t punch him in the face without jumping) and three times as heavy, has ANY notion at all of how to throw a good punch and how to grapple, I’m picking him to win the fight. I bet I’m not alone in that. (Could it go the other way? It’s possible. But let’s agree on the easily imaginable scenario where Shaq is a clear victor.)
So who’s better at fighting? In one sense, it’s gotta be Shaq, because he won the fight. On the other hand, there’s such a thing as fighting skill. A 7′ 300 pound man with the flyweight champ’s boxing chops would take Shaq apart.
There’s something people care about in prose style that’s different from being able to produce prose that is minimally clear enough to communicate plot points. Many people don’t really care about it, and that’s fine; there are other things in writing. Many people do care about it, and consider it an essential component of literary quality, one that not only has virtue in its own right but can enhance all the other elements of literary skill. Surprisingly, it turns out many writers care about this stuff, as do at least some of the folks who care about voting in the Hugo awards.
The following analogy isn’t meant to be definitive, but perhaps Mr. Bellmore will get something from it:
Imagine a fight – not a boxing match, but a no-holds-barred fight – between Shaquille O’Neal and a current flyweight boxing champion (it seems there are four of them holding different organizational belts right now). If Shaq, who is almost two feet taller than the typical flyweight boxer (who couldn’t punch him in the face without jumping) and three times as heavy, has ANY notion at all of how to throw a good punch and how to grapple, I’m picking him to win the fight. I bet I’m not alone in that. (Could it go the other way? It’s possible. But let’s agree on the easily imaginable scenario where Shaq is a clear victor.)
So who’s better at fighting? In one sense, it’s gotta be Shaq, because he won the fight. On the other hand, there’s such a thing as fighting skill. A 7′ 300 pound man with the flyweight champ’s boxing chops would take Shaq apart.
There’s something people care about in prose style that’s different from being able to produce prose that is minimally clear enough to communicate plot points. Many people don’t really care about it, and that’s fine; there are other things in writing. Many people do care about it, and consider it an essential component of literary quality, one that not only has virtue in its own right but can enhance all the other elements of literary skill. Surprisingly, it turns out many writers care about this stuff, as do at least some of the folks who care about voting in the Hugo awards.
The following analogy isn’t meant to be definitive, but perhaps Mr. Bellmore will get something from it:
Imagine a fight – not a boxing match, but a no-holds-barred fight – between Shaquille O’Neal and a current flyweight boxing champion (it seems there are four of them holding different organizational belts right now). If Shaq, who is almost two feet taller than the typical flyweight boxer (who couldn’t punch him in the face without jumping) and three times as heavy, has ANY notion at all of how to throw a good punch and how to grapple, I’m picking him to win the fight. I bet I’m not alone in that. (Could it go the other way? It’s possible. But let’s agree on the easily imaginable scenario where Shaq is a clear victor.)
So who’s better at fighting? In one sense, it’s gotta be Shaq, because he won the fight. On the other hand, there’s such a thing as fighting skill. A 7′ 300 pound man with the flyweight champ’s boxing chops would take Shaq apart.
There’s something people care about in prose style that’s different from being able to produce prose that is minimally clear enough to communicate plot points. Many people don’t really care about it, and that’s fine; there are other things in writing. Many people do care about it, and consider it an essential component of literary quality, one that not only has virtue in its own right but can enhance all the other elements of literary skill. Surprisingly, it turns out many writers care about this stuff, as do at least some of the folks who care about voting in the Hugo awards.
What I think we’re looking at here, is not a difference in skill, but rather a difference in genre.
I like Lord Dunsany’s work. I like it a LOT. He was a very skilled writer, great stories. Probably the sort of author you’d concede exhibits ‘literary merit’.
But if you took Monster Hunter International, or your typical Doc Savage story, and rewrote it in the literary style of Lord Dunsany, it just wouldn’t work.
Or in the area of cooking, take typical theater fare; A tub of buttered and salted popcorn, and a frozen cherry coke. The popcorn is too oily, much too salty, the cherry coke is sickeningly sweet. But combine them while watching Iron Man, and it works, where a plate of chicken cordon blue and grilled asparagus would not. (Though I like those, too.)
Monster Hunter International belongs to a distinct genre, which has different requirements than the sort of fiction YOU like. That isn’t to say that it doesn’t have criteria for merit. They’re just different.
To use the fighting analogy, if you put your boxer into a mixed martial arts fighting ring, against an opponent of the same weight, he’d probably lose. The mixed martial arts champ, forced to abide by the rules of boxing, would probably also lose.
They’re champs at doing DIFFERENT things.
Now, perhaps this is a case for the Hugos adding a new category, “Fantasy Potboilers”. But don’t tell me that an author with Larry Correia’s record of success doesn’t know how to write. Of course he knows how to write. He just knows how to write stuff you don’t happen to like.
What I think we’re looking at here, is not a difference in skill, but rather a difference in genre.
I like Lord Dunsany’s work. I like it a LOT. He was a very skilled writer, great stories. Probably the sort of author you’d concede exhibits ‘literary merit’.
But if you took Monster Hunter International, or your typical Doc Savage story, and rewrote it in the literary style of Lord Dunsany, it just wouldn’t work.
Or in the area of cooking, take typical theater fare; A tub of buttered and salted popcorn, and a frozen cherry coke. The popcorn is too oily, much too salty, the cherry coke is sickeningly sweet. But combine them while watching Iron Man, and it works, where a plate of chicken cordon blue and grilled asparagus would not. (Though I like those, too.)
Monster Hunter International belongs to a distinct genre, which has different requirements than the sort of fiction YOU like. That isn’t to say that it doesn’t have criteria for merit. They’re just different.
To use the fighting analogy, if you put your boxer into a mixed martial arts fighting ring, against an opponent of the same weight, he’d probably lose. The mixed martial arts champ, forced to abide by the rules of boxing, would probably also lose.
They’re champs at doing DIFFERENT things.
Now, perhaps this is a case for the Hugos adding a new category, “Fantasy Potboilers”. But don’t tell me that an author with Larry Correia’s record of success doesn’t know how to write. Of course he knows how to write. He just knows how to write stuff you don’t happen to like.
What I think we’re looking at here, is not a difference in skill, but rather a difference in genre.
I like Lord Dunsany’s work. I like it a LOT. He was a very skilled writer, great stories. Probably the sort of author you’d concede exhibits ‘literary merit’.
But if you took Monster Hunter International, or your typical Doc Savage story, and rewrote it in the literary style of Lord Dunsany, it just wouldn’t work.
Or in the area of cooking, take typical theater fare; A tub of buttered and salted popcorn, and a frozen cherry coke. The popcorn is too oily, much too salty, the cherry coke is sickeningly sweet. But combine them while watching Iron Man, and it works, where a plate of chicken cordon blue and grilled asparagus would not. (Though I like those, too.)
Monster Hunter International belongs to a distinct genre, which has different requirements than the sort of fiction YOU like. That isn’t to say that it doesn’t have criteria for merit. They’re just different.
To use the fighting analogy, if you put your boxer into a mixed martial arts fighting ring, against an opponent of the same weight, he’d probably lose. The mixed martial arts champ, forced to abide by the rules of boxing, would probably also lose.
They’re champs at doing DIFFERENT things.
Now, perhaps this is a case for the Hugos adding a new category, “Fantasy Potboilers”. But don’t tell me that an author with Larry Correia’s record of success doesn’t know how to write. Of course he knows how to write. He just knows how to write stuff you don’t happen to like.
“What I think we’re looking at here, is not a difference in skill, but rather a difference in genre.”
No,not at all. We are talking about skill in writing within the same genre. Nor does it help to suggest creating a sub-genre of fantasy potboilers, which rather lets the cat out of the bag as to the level of writing you find acceptable. Basically you are now applying the Hruska standard* to fiction prizes! The question, of course, is whether there is any point in having prizes if every mediocrity has to get one or feel unfairly treated by a cruel, hard world.
What you don’t seem to grasp in all of this is that you keep coming back to the same inadequate argument that success equals good writing. Saying “…don’t tell me that an author with Larry Correia’s record of success doesn’t know how to write” is just a restating of this failed assertion that does nothing to meet the case against Correia and Torgerson as writers. The question was never “does Correia/Torgerson/VD know how to write”, but rather “Does he know how to write well?” with the implicit follow-up “Does he write well enough to deserve a Hugo?”. Let’s recall here that the Hugo is not meant to be a prize awarded automatically for number of books sold.
Skill in writing scenes, dialog etc has nothing to do with genre and everything to do with the author’s willingness to think better, work harder, challenge herself to do something more. Suggesting that we set up a new genre for crappy writers is the sort of farcical suggestion that exposes just how desperate the Puppies and their supporters are to “win” a prize, any prize as a form of validation. There is a certain amusement in seeing conservatives advocate their own form of communism for the mediocre writers of the hard right, but it shows just how little faith they have in the quality of their writing.
Maybe, just maybe, these rejected writers should try asking themselves whether the fault lies not in their stars or some imaginary left-wing conspiracy but rather in themselves. No-one has produced a convincing argument that Correia/Torgerson/VD are producing ground-breaking fiction that stands out for its quality or originality. Why then should they feel entitled to win prizes? What have they got to offer apart from being white men writing old-fashioned fiction in a clunky style? If that’s what you want to award prizes to, why not just set up your own awards? Hell,you’ve even got a ready-made name for them. Just call them the Hruskas and remember to award one to everyone who is nominated because mediocrity must be cherished. You wouldn’t want to be like those evil Social Justice Warriors and have standards of quality, would you?
* Roman Hruska famously asked apropos a Supreme Court nomination:
“So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.”
“What I think we’re looking at here, is not a difference in skill, but rather a difference in genre.”
No,not at all. We are talking about skill in writing within the same genre. Nor does it help to suggest creating a sub-genre of fantasy potboilers, which rather lets the cat out of the bag as to the level of writing you find acceptable. Basically you are now applying the Hruska standard* to fiction prizes! The question, of course, is whether there is any point in having prizes if every mediocrity has to get one or feel unfairly treated by a cruel, hard world.
What you don’t seem to grasp in all of this is that you keep coming back to the same inadequate argument that success equals good writing. Saying “…don’t tell me that an author with Larry Correia’s record of success doesn’t know how to write” is just a restating of this failed assertion that does nothing to meet the case against Correia and Torgerson as writers. The question was never “does Correia/Torgerson/VD know how to write”, but rather “Does he know how to write well?” with the implicit follow-up “Does he write well enough to deserve a Hugo?”. Let’s recall here that the Hugo is not meant to be a prize awarded automatically for number of books sold.
Skill in writing scenes, dialog etc has nothing to do with genre and everything to do with the author’s willingness to think better, work harder, challenge herself to do something more. Suggesting that we set up a new genre for crappy writers is the sort of farcical suggestion that exposes just how desperate the Puppies and their supporters are to “win” a prize, any prize as a form of validation. There is a certain amusement in seeing conservatives advocate their own form of communism for the mediocre writers of the hard right, but it shows just how little faith they have in the quality of their writing.
Maybe, just maybe, these rejected writers should try asking themselves whether the fault lies not in their stars or some imaginary left-wing conspiracy but rather in themselves. No-one has produced a convincing argument that Correia/Torgerson/VD are producing ground-breaking fiction that stands out for its quality or originality. Why then should they feel entitled to win prizes? What have they got to offer apart from being white men writing old-fashioned fiction in a clunky style? If that’s what you want to award prizes to, why not just set up your own awards? Hell,you’ve even got a ready-made name for them. Just call them the Hruskas and remember to award one to everyone who is nominated because mediocrity must be cherished. You wouldn’t want to be like those evil Social Justice Warriors and have standards of quality, would you?
* Roman Hruska famously asked apropos a Supreme Court nomination:
“So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.”
“What I think we’re looking at here, is not a difference in skill, but rather a difference in genre.”
No,not at all. We are talking about skill in writing within the same genre. Nor does it help to suggest creating a sub-genre of fantasy potboilers, which rather lets the cat out of the bag as to the level of writing you find acceptable. Basically you are now applying the Hruska standard* to fiction prizes! The question, of course, is whether there is any point in having prizes if every mediocrity has to get one or feel unfairly treated by a cruel, hard world.
What you don’t seem to grasp in all of this is that you keep coming back to the same inadequate argument that success equals good writing. Saying “…don’t tell me that an author with Larry Correia’s record of success doesn’t know how to write” is just a restating of this failed assertion that does nothing to meet the case against Correia and Torgerson as writers. The question was never “does Correia/Torgerson/VD know how to write”, but rather “Does he know how to write well?” with the implicit follow-up “Does he write well enough to deserve a Hugo?”. Let’s recall here that the Hugo is not meant to be a prize awarded automatically for number of books sold.
Skill in writing scenes, dialog etc has nothing to do with genre and everything to do with the author’s willingness to think better, work harder, challenge herself to do something more. Suggesting that we set up a new genre for crappy writers is the sort of farcical suggestion that exposes just how desperate the Puppies and their supporters are to “win” a prize, any prize as a form of validation. There is a certain amusement in seeing conservatives advocate their own form of communism for the mediocre writers of the hard right, but it shows just how little faith they have in the quality of their writing.
Maybe, just maybe, these rejected writers should try asking themselves whether the fault lies not in their stars or some imaginary left-wing conspiracy but rather in themselves. No-one has produced a convincing argument that Correia/Torgerson/VD are producing ground-breaking fiction that stands out for its quality or originality. Why then should they feel entitled to win prizes? What have they got to offer apart from being white men writing old-fashioned fiction in a clunky style? If that’s what you want to award prizes to, why not just set up your own awards? Hell,you’ve even got a ready-made name for them. Just call them the Hruskas and remember to award one to everyone who is nominated because mediocrity must be cherished. You wouldn’t want to be like those evil Social Justice Warriors and have standards of quality, would you?
* Roman Hruska famously asked apropos a Supreme Court nomination:
“So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.”
I’m thinking that, were I to buy a recent dictionary, I might find your photo illustrating the entry for “literary snob”. You seem to be such a good example of one.
Your desperate conviction that a best selling author doesn’t know how to write is absurd on it’s face. Though not as absurd as the claim that your taste in literature constitutes some sort of ‘objective’ criteria for merit.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, this conversation has inspired me to reread Monster Hunter International, and I’m really enjoying it much more than your raving.
I’m thinking that, were I to buy a recent dictionary, I might find your photo illustrating the entry for “literary snob”. You seem to be such a good example of one.
Your desperate conviction that a best selling author doesn’t know how to write is absurd on it’s face. Though not as absurd as the claim that your taste in literature constitutes some sort of ‘objective’ criteria for merit.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, this conversation has inspired me to reread Monster Hunter International, and I’m really enjoying it much more than your raving.
I’m thinking that, were I to buy a recent dictionary, I might find your photo illustrating the entry for “literary snob”. You seem to be such a good example of one.
Your desperate conviction that a best selling author doesn’t know how to write is absurd on it’s face. Though not as absurd as the claim that your taste in literature constitutes some sort of ‘objective’ criteria for merit.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, this conversation has inspired me to reread Monster Hunter International, and I’m really enjoying it much more than your raving.
Trashophilia seems completely unknown to Brett. Admittedly it is more prominent among cinephiles (= film snobs) than their literary cousins (apart from Dark and Stormy Night contests).
Btw, I have found an almost literal precursor of the famous passage in a Roman epic* from the 1st century AD just this week. 😉
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thebaid_%28Latin_poem%29
Trashophilia seems completely unknown to Brett. Admittedly it is more prominent among cinephiles (= film snobs) than their literary cousins (apart from Dark and Stormy Night contests).
Btw, I have found an almost literal precursor of the famous passage in a Roman epic* from the 1st century AD just this week. 😉
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thebaid_%28Latin_poem%29
Trashophilia seems completely unknown to Brett. Admittedly it is more prominent among cinephiles (= film snobs) than their literary cousins (apart from Dark and Stormy Night contests).
Btw, I have found an almost literal precursor of the famous passage in a Roman epic* from the 1st century AD just this week. 😉
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thebaid_%28Latin_poem%29
Summary: You’re a ranting literary snob. Screw off. The end.
I guess there is no way to judge quality in argumentation, either, so Brett’s is as good as anyone else’s.
Summary: You’re a ranting literary snob. Screw off. The end.
I guess there is no way to judge quality in argumentation, either, so Brett’s is as good as anyone else’s.
Summary: You’re a ranting literary snob. Screw off. The end.
I guess there is no way to judge quality in argumentation, either, so Brett’s is as good as anyone else’s.
Well, there IS a way to judge quality in literature. Several, as a matter of fact.
Sales is one of those. You’re just rejecting it in favor of criteria that more closely align with your personal tastes, than the tastes of most SF fans.
Well, there IS a way to judge quality in literature. Several, as a matter of fact.
Sales is one of those. You’re just rejecting it in favor of criteria that more closely align with your personal tastes, than the tastes of most SF fans.
Well, there IS a way to judge quality in literature. Several, as a matter of fact.
Sales is one of those. You’re just rejecting it in favor of criteria that more closely align with your personal tastes, than the tastes of most SF fans.
@Hartmut
Well, at least it wasn’t Silius Italicus. Now there’s a writer that the Sad Puppies and Brett should really cherish and adopt as an honorary maligned mediocrity deserving of a prize just because they say so!
@Brett
Since you seem convinced that Larry Correia knows how to write, why don’t you share three passages from his work and explain what makes him a good writer? Or is asking you to actually make a positive case for your er..dog …in this fight cruel and unusual intellectual stimulation?
@Hartmut
Well, at least it wasn’t Silius Italicus. Now there’s a writer that the Sad Puppies and Brett should really cherish and adopt as an honorary maligned mediocrity deserving of a prize just because they say so!
@Brett
Since you seem convinced that Larry Correia knows how to write, why don’t you share three passages from his work and explain what makes him a good writer? Or is asking you to actually make a positive case for your er..dog …in this fight cruel and unusual intellectual stimulation?
@Hartmut
Well, at least it wasn’t Silius Italicus. Now there’s a writer that the Sad Puppies and Brett should really cherish and adopt as an honorary maligned mediocrity deserving of a prize just because they say so!
@Brett
Since you seem convinced that Larry Correia knows how to write, why don’t you share three passages from his work and explain what makes him a good writer? Or is asking you to actually make a positive case for your er..dog …in this fight cruel and unusual intellectual stimulation?
“Sales is one of those. You’re just rejecting it in favor of criteria that more closely align with your personal tastes, than the tastes of most SF fans.”
No, sales do not measure quality. They measure popularity. You really should try and grasp these fairly obvious distinctions. As was pointed out to you, people buy a lot of product from Burger King, but if you suggested that they were purchasing a gourmet meal with fries your own relatives would start looking for a good asylum where you could live out your days without harming anyone else or yourself.
As to these other criteria of quality that you claim to have identified, put your money where your mouth is. Share some of Correia’s writing with us and explain to us where his genius lies. Can you do more than throw insults and play the victim, Brett?
“Sales is one of those. You’re just rejecting it in favor of criteria that more closely align with your personal tastes, than the tastes of most SF fans.”
No, sales do not measure quality. They measure popularity. You really should try and grasp these fairly obvious distinctions. As was pointed out to you, people buy a lot of product from Burger King, but if you suggested that they were purchasing a gourmet meal with fries your own relatives would start looking for a good asylum where you could live out your days without harming anyone else or yourself.
As to these other criteria of quality that you claim to have identified, put your money where your mouth is. Share some of Correia’s writing with us and explain to us where his genius lies. Can you do more than throw insults and play the victim, Brett?
“Sales is one of those. You’re just rejecting it in favor of criteria that more closely align with your personal tastes, than the tastes of most SF fans.”
No, sales do not measure quality. They measure popularity. You really should try and grasp these fairly obvious distinctions. As was pointed out to you, people buy a lot of product from Burger King, but if you suggested that they were purchasing a gourmet meal with fries your own relatives would start looking for a good asylum where you could live out your days without harming anyone else or yourself.
As to these other criteria of quality that you claim to have identified, put your money where your mouth is. Share some of Correia’s writing with us and explain to us where his genius lies. Can you do more than throw insults and play the victim, Brett?
Brett does have a valid point about “genre”, but I’d formulate it a bit differently.
“Good fiction writing” has many components; the relative weight that is placed on these components varies from genre to genre.
You could write a beautifully crafted story, with deep characterization, subtle metaphors, and brilliant dialog. But if it doesn’t involve a misdeed and efforts to “solve the crime”, you won’t be in the running for an award for mystery writing. And, strangely enough, fans of mystery stories put more weight on the details of the mystery and its solution than they do on some of those other “literary” factors, because NONE of the stories are perfect in every way, and choices must be made.
Brett’s point about “sales” is evidence of popularity, but Hugos are given by popularity in a small, peculiar(!), highly motivated subset of the overall readership.
Brett does have a valid point about “genre”, but I’d formulate it a bit differently.
“Good fiction writing” has many components; the relative weight that is placed on these components varies from genre to genre.
You could write a beautifully crafted story, with deep characterization, subtle metaphors, and brilliant dialog. But if it doesn’t involve a misdeed and efforts to “solve the crime”, you won’t be in the running for an award for mystery writing. And, strangely enough, fans of mystery stories put more weight on the details of the mystery and its solution than they do on some of those other “literary” factors, because NONE of the stories are perfect in every way, and choices must be made.
Brett’s point about “sales” is evidence of popularity, but Hugos are given by popularity in a small, peculiar(!), highly motivated subset of the overall readership.
Brett does have a valid point about “genre”, but I’d formulate it a bit differently.
“Good fiction writing” has many components; the relative weight that is placed on these components varies from genre to genre.
You could write a beautifully crafted story, with deep characterization, subtle metaphors, and brilliant dialog. But if it doesn’t involve a misdeed and efforts to “solve the crime”, you won’t be in the running for an award for mystery writing. And, strangely enough, fans of mystery stories put more weight on the details of the mystery and its solution than they do on some of those other “literary” factors, because NONE of the stories are perfect in every way, and choices must be made.
Brett’s point about “sales” is evidence of popularity, but Hugos are given by popularity in a small, peculiar(!), highly motivated subset of the overall readership.
@snarki
Yes/no/maybe. It seems to me that you are changing the discussion from one of effective writing to one of generic requirements. You can fulfill the basic demands of a corpse, a detective and the discovery of the criminal without actually writing a good murder mystery. Likewise, you can include beef, bread and vegetables without producing a good meal and end up with a Burger King product instead. Good writing goes beyond getting your generic ducks in a row, to the extent that it’s even possible these days.
@snarki
Yes/no/maybe. It seems to me that you are changing the discussion from one of effective writing to one of generic requirements. You can fulfill the basic demands of a corpse, a detective and the discovery of the criminal without actually writing a good murder mystery. Likewise, you can include beef, bread and vegetables without producing a good meal and end up with a Burger King product instead. Good writing goes beyond getting your generic ducks in a row, to the extent that it’s even possible these days.
@snarki
Yes/no/maybe. It seems to me that you are changing the discussion from one of effective writing to one of generic requirements. You can fulfill the basic demands of a corpse, a detective and the discovery of the criminal without actually writing a good murder mystery. Likewise, you can include beef, bread and vegetables without producing a good meal and end up with a Burger King product instead. Good writing goes beyond getting your generic ducks in a row, to the extent that it’s even possible these days.
I’m guessing, though, that the Hugos aren’t going to romance novels, even if they’re really well written. I’m also guessing that SF fans like SF, so an award for SF works would align with the tastes of SF in that respect.
What I’d like to know is how Brett knows what the tastes are of most SF fans as related to who should be getting awards, rather than who one might bother reading. Someone who reads, say, 10 SF novels a year reads all 10, but doesn’t necessarily like all of them equally, and even those such a fan liked most might not be the same ones that same fan would think worthy of an award.
Brett just doesn’t seem to be like that, and doesn’t seem to think most SF fans are like that (or should be like that?).
I’m guessing, though, that the Hugos aren’t going to romance novels, even if they’re really well written. I’m also guessing that SF fans like SF, so an award for SF works would align with the tastes of SF in that respect.
What I’d like to know is how Brett knows what the tastes are of most SF fans as related to who should be getting awards, rather than who one might bother reading. Someone who reads, say, 10 SF novels a year reads all 10, but doesn’t necessarily like all of them equally, and even those such a fan liked most might not be the same ones that same fan would think worthy of an award.
Brett just doesn’t seem to be like that, and doesn’t seem to think most SF fans are like that (or should be like that?).
I’m guessing, though, that the Hugos aren’t going to romance novels, even if they’re really well written. I’m also guessing that SF fans like SF, so an award for SF works would align with the tastes of SF in that respect.
What I’d like to know is how Brett knows what the tastes are of most SF fans as related to who should be getting awards, rather than who one might bother reading. Someone who reads, say, 10 SF novels a year reads all 10, but doesn’t necessarily like all of them equally, and even those such a fan liked most might not be the same ones that same fan would think worthy of an award.
Brett just doesn’t seem to be like that, and doesn’t seem to think most SF fans are like that (or should be like that?).
Brett wrote:
I’m thinking that, were I to buy a recent dictionary, I might find your photo illustrating the entry for “literary snob”. You seem to be such a good example of one.
Your desperate conviction that a best selling author doesn’t know how to write is absurd on it’s [sic] face. Though not as absurd as the claim that your taste in literature constitutes some sort of ‘objective’ criteria for merit.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, this conversation has inspired me to reread Monster Hunter International, and I’m really enjoying it much more than your raving.
This comment seems to be turning the dial up to 11. Would appreciate it if you would move it back down. Thanks.
Brett wrote:
I’m thinking that, were I to buy a recent dictionary, I might find your photo illustrating the entry for “literary snob”. You seem to be such a good example of one.
Your desperate conviction that a best selling author doesn’t know how to write is absurd on it’s [sic] face. Though not as absurd as the claim that your taste in literature constitutes some sort of ‘objective’ criteria for merit.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, this conversation has inspired me to reread Monster Hunter International, and I’m really enjoying it much more than your raving.
This comment seems to be turning the dial up to 11. Would appreciate it if you would move it back down. Thanks.
Brett wrote:
I’m thinking that, were I to buy a recent dictionary, I might find your photo illustrating the entry for “literary snob”. You seem to be such a good example of one.
Your desperate conviction that a best selling author doesn’t know how to write is absurd on it’s [sic] face. Though not as absurd as the claim that your taste in literature constitutes some sort of ‘objective’ criteria for merit.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, this conversation has inspired me to reread Monster Hunter International, and I’m really enjoying it much more than your raving.
This comment seems to be turning the dial up to 11. Would appreciate it if you would move it back down. Thanks.
consumers don’t generally give awards to artists based solely on sales or popularity – popularity and sales are their own awards.
consumers don’t generally give awards to artists based solely on sales or popularity – popularity and sales are their own awards.
consumers don’t generally give awards to artists based solely on sales or popularity – popularity and sales are their own awards.
Let’s recall here that the Hugo is not meant to be a prize awarded automatically for number of books sold.
This, after all, is why we have something called “best-selling author” that gets slapped on the covers of some books. Because even advertising copywriters realize that “award-winning” and “best-selling” are two different things. And the Hugo is an award for writing well, not for just selling lots of copies.
Let’s recall here that the Hugo is not meant to be a prize awarded automatically for number of books sold.
This, after all, is why we have something called “best-selling author” that gets slapped on the covers of some books. Because even advertising copywriters realize that “award-winning” and “best-selling” are two different things. And the Hugo is an award for writing well, not for just selling lots of copies.
Let’s recall here that the Hugo is not meant to be a prize awarded automatically for number of books sold.
This, after all, is why we have something called “best-selling author” that gets slapped on the covers of some books. Because even advertising copywriters realize that “award-winning” and “best-selling” are two different things. And the Hugo is an award for writing well, not for just selling lots of copies.
“Would appreciate it if you would move it back down. Thanks.”
Sure, but let me explain why I did that.
Lester Dent has been attacked on this thread as a bad writer. Lester Dent, who in a week could write a novel that would still be in publication decades after his death. Who did so often enough that he’s got more books still in publication and being enjoyed than the average Hugo winner probably will. A bad writer.
Larry Correia has been attacked as a bad writer. Due to this thread, I’m re-reading Monster Hunter International. This will be the third time I’ve read it. It’s still enjoyable. That’s kind of my personal gold standard for literary quality: Not whether you enjoy a book the first time you read it, but whether you keep enjoying it after you can quote lines from it, and the plot is no mystery. Larry has no trouble passing that test.
I recall English lit, being forced to read technically proficient pieces of crap that were no fun at all to read. I’ve never gone back to re-read any of them.
“Would appreciate it if you would move it back down. Thanks.”
Sure, but let me explain why I did that.
Lester Dent has been attacked on this thread as a bad writer. Lester Dent, who in a week could write a novel that would still be in publication decades after his death. Who did so often enough that he’s got more books still in publication and being enjoyed than the average Hugo winner probably will. A bad writer.
Larry Correia has been attacked as a bad writer. Due to this thread, I’m re-reading Monster Hunter International. This will be the third time I’ve read it. It’s still enjoyable. That’s kind of my personal gold standard for literary quality: Not whether you enjoy a book the first time you read it, but whether you keep enjoying it after you can quote lines from it, and the plot is no mystery. Larry has no trouble passing that test.
I recall English lit, being forced to read technically proficient pieces of crap that were no fun at all to read. I’ve never gone back to re-read any of them.
“Would appreciate it if you would move it back down. Thanks.”
Sure, but let me explain why I did that.
Lester Dent has been attacked on this thread as a bad writer. Lester Dent, who in a week could write a novel that would still be in publication decades after his death. Who did so often enough that he’s got more books still in publication and being enjoyed than the average Hugo winner probably will. A bad writer.
Larry Correia has been attacked as a bad writer. Due to this thread, I’m re-reading Monster Hunter International. This will be the third time I’ve read it. It’s still enjoyable. That’s kind of my personal gold standard for literary quality: Not whether you enjoy a book the first time you read it, but whether you keep enjoying it after you can quote lines from it, and the plot is no mystery. Larry has no trouble passing that test.
I recall English lit, being forced to read technically proficient pieces of crap that were no fun at all to read. I’ve never gone back to re-read any of them.
I should add that I’ll never be able to un-read that weird story about the dying guy hallucinating that he’s trapped on an island that’s really his teeth. And I don’t appreciate that.
I should add that I’ll never be able to un-read that weird story about the dying guy hallucinating that he’s trapped on an island that’s really his teeth. And I don’t appreciate that.
I should add that I’ll never be able to un-read that weird story about the dying guy hallucinating that he’s trapped on an island that’s really his teeth. And I don’t appreciate that.
Okay, I have to read *that*. Brett, what is the name of it?
I read all kinds of stuff including stuff I can easily identify as “trash” while I am reading it. I think the Hugos actually are a popularity award. It’s not that the writing is objectively better, it’s that a bunch of people voting for it liked it real well. That said, there is certainly a possibility for puppy faves to win in this popularity contest, and in the past many of them have. The whole framing suggestion that “they don’t write’em like they uster” is simply not true. They write’em and we read’em and sometimes they win prizes.
That’s not what this is about. it’s about bullying and about shoving people on what they thought was everybody’s playground. Brett, look at the reports of where the puppy nominations came from; they were much less of a popularity contest than the Hugo nominations.
Okay, I have to read *that*. Brett, what is the name of it?
I read all kinds of stuff including stuff I can easily identify as “trash” while I am reading it. I think the Hugos actually are a popularity award. It’s not that the writing is objectively better, it’s that a bunch of people voting for it liked it real well. That said, there is certainly a possibility for puppy faves to win in this popularity contest, and in the past many of them have. The whole framing suggestion that “they don’t write’em like they uster” is simply not true. They write’em and we read’em and sometimes they win prizes.
That’s not what this is about. it’s about bullying and about shoving people on what they thought was everybody’s playground. Brett, look at the reports of where the puppy nominations came from; they were much less of a popularity contest than the Hugo nominations.
Okay, I have to read *that*. Brett, what is the name of it?
I read all kinds of stuff including stuff I can easily identify as “trash” while I am reading it. I think the Hugos actually are a popularity award. It’s not that the writing is objectively better, it’s that a bunch of people voting for it liked it real well. That said, there is certainly a possibility for puppy faves to win in this popularity contest, and in the past many of them have. The whole framing suggestion that “they don’t write’em like they uster” is simply not true. They write’em and we read’em and sometimes they win prizes.
That’s not what this is about. it’s about bullying and about shoving people on what they thought was everybody’s playground. Brett, look at the reports of where the puppy nominations came from; they were much less of a popularity contest than the Hugo nominations.
Also, too, you’d think popularity was some sort of disqualifier for winning a Hugo, going by Brett. That’s not the case just because there is any consideration at all of writing quality.
Also, too, you’d think popularity was some sort of disqualifier for winning a Hugo, going by Brett. That’s not the case just because there is any consideration at all of writing quality.
Also, too, you’d think popularity was some sort of disqualifier for winning a Hugo, going by Brett. That’s not the case just because there is any consideration at all of writing quality.
Brett, have you read the Torgersen story I’ve linked to? What did you think of *that*?
The best-selling fiction juggernaut of the last few years, without question, is Fifty Shades of Gray and its sequels. These books are so popular that they’ve actually re-shaped the thinking of people in the publishing industry.
Writing quality and popularity have very little to do with each other.
Of current SF best-sellers, Station Eleven is the one that is eligible for a Hugo — but it’s not on the ballot and probably wouldn’t have been, because it’s too “literary”.
Brett, have you read the Torgersen story I’ve linked to? What did you think of *that*?
The best-selling fiction juggernaut of the last few years, without question, is Fifty Shades of Gray and its sequels. These books are so popular that they’ve actually re-shaped the thinking of people in the publishing industry.
Writing quality and popularity have very little to do with each other.
Of current SF best-sellers, Station Eleven is the one that is eligible for a Hugo — but it’s not on the ballot and probably wouldn’t have been, because it’s too “literary”.
Brett, have you read the Torgersen story I’ve linked to? What did you think of *that*?
The best-selling fiction juggernaut of the last few years, without question, is Fifty Shades of Gray and its sequels. These books are so popular that they’ve actually re-shaped the thinking of people in the publishing industry.
Writing quality and popularity have very little to do with each other.
Of current SF best-sellers, Station Eleven is the one that is eligible for a Hugo — but it’s not on the ballot and probably wouldn’t have been, because it’s too “literary”.
The thing to remember about sales figures is that they can, and generally do, reflect a lot more than quality. They can reflect brand loyalty (which frankly is not far from what Brett was describing with his comments on genre). They can reflect marketing and advertising. They can reflect the quality of the cover art. Sales are not a good measure of anything but popularity among the consumer public. An award that purports to be based on quality will not put popularity as the deciding criteria for its decision, and when the body voting for/deciding the award is not the same as the consumer public, sales figures become an even worse measure of popularity.
Perhaps it’s worth making a distinction between good authors and good writers? I’ve always found this useful. Orson Scott Card is, IMO, a very good writer and a terrible author. He takes dubious stories with cliches, unreasonable coincidence, and inconsistent characters, and assembles them masterfully. Or to take a swing more in the direction of Brett’s Lester Dent example, consider P.G. Wodehouse. Wodehouse is widely acknowledged as an excellent writer, and I heartily agree; his dexterity with written English was magnificent. However, the degree to which he was prolific undermined his talent as an author: his plots are shallow, frothy things which have been (IMO rightly) criticized as sometimes being nothing more than the same characters in largely similar situations with the names changed. I haven’t read enough Torgerson to reasonably judge his abilities as an author, and they may be considerable. But as a writer, he’s lacking. If you value authorship – the ability to come up with an engaging story arc – over writing – the ability to communicate clearly and evocatively in prose – then you’d be more forgiving to such a quality balance. If you value writing over authorship, it’ll be a hard sell. I personally fall into the latter category. Nothing wrong with one or the other, but they do make for different sorts of reading publics.
The thing to remember about sales figures is that they can, and generally do, reflect a lot more than quality. They can reflect brand loyalty (which frankly is not far from what Brett was describing with his comments on genre). They can reflect marketing and advertising. They can reflect the quality of the cover art. Sales are not a good measure of anything but popularity among the consumer public. An award that purports to be based on quality will not put popularity as the deciding criteria for its decision, and when the body voting for/deciding the award is not the same as the consumer public, sales figures become an even worse measure of popularity.
Perhaps it’s worth making a distinction between good authors and good writers? I’ve always found this useful. Orson Scott Card is, IMO, a very good writer and a terrible author. He takes dubious stories with cliches, unreasonable coincidence, and inconsistent characters, and assembles them masterfully. Or to take a swing more in the direction of Brett’s Lester Dent example, consider P.G. Wodehouse. Wodehouse is widely acknowledged as an excellent writer, and I heartily agree; his dexterity with written English was magnificent. However, the degree to which he was prolific undermined his talent as an author: his plots are shallow, frothy things which have been (IMO rightly) criticized as sometimes being nothing more than the same characters in largely similar situations with the names changed. I haven’t read enough Torgerson to reasonably judge his abilities as an author, and they may be considerable. But as a writer, he’s lacking. If you value authorship – the ability to come up with an engaging story arc – over writing – the ability to communicate clearly and evocatively in prose – then you’d be more forgiving to such a quality balance. If you value writing over authorship, it’ll be a hard sell. I personally fall into the latter category. Nothing wrong with one or the other, but they do make for different sorts of reading publics.
The thing to remember about sales figures is that they can, and generally do, reflect a lot more than quality. They can reflect brand loyalty (which frankly is not far from what Brett was describing with his comments on genre). They can reflect marketing and advertising. They can reflect the quality of the cover art. Sales are not a good measure of anything but popularity among the consumer public. An award that purports to be based on quality will not put popularity as the deciding criteria for its decision, and when the body voting for/deciding the award is not the same as the consumer public, sales figures become an even worse measure of popularity.
Perhaps it’s worth making a distinction between good authors and good writers? I’ve always found this useful. Orson Scott Card is, IMO, a very good writer and a terrible author. He takes dubious stories with cliches, unreasonable coincidence, and inconsistent characters, and assembles them masterfully. Or to take a swing more in the direction of Brett’s Lester Dent example, consider P.G. Wodehouse. Wodehouse is widely acknowledged as an excellent writer, and I heartily agree; his dexterity with written English was magnificent. However, the degree to which he was prolific undermined his talent as an author: his plots are shallow, frothy things which have been (IMO rightly) criticized as sometimes being nothing more than the same characters in largely similar situations with the names changed. I haven’t read enough Torgerson to reasonably judge his abilities as an author, and they may be considerable. But as a writer, he’s lacking. If you value authorship – the ability to come up with an engaging story arc – over writing – the ability to communicate clearly and evocatively in prose – then you’d be more forgiving to such a quality balance. If you value writing over authorship, it’ll be a hard sell. I personally fall into the latter category. Nothing wrong with one or the other, but they do make for different sorts of reading publics.
‘I’m more and more convinced that Sad Puppies is onto something, and the Hugos have been captured by literary snobs, if this is the way you really think’
The way he or she thinks doesn’t have anything to do with the Hugos. Correia was nominated before the Sad Puppies thing. When he got nominated again last year as part of SP2, which annoyed rather than enraged, his was regarded as one of the least objectionable. So snobbish.
‘I’m more and more convinced that Sad Puppies is onto something, and the Hugos have been captured by literary snobs, if this is the way you really think’
The way he or she thinks doesn’t have anything to do with the Hugos. Correia was nominated before the Sad Puppies thing. When he got nominated again last year as part of SP2, which annoyed rather than enraged, his was regarded as one of the least objectionable. So snobbish.
‘I’m more and more convinced that Sad Puppies is onto something, and the Hugos have been captured by literary snobs, if this is the way you really think’
The way he or she thinks doesn’t have anything to do with the Hugos. Correia was nominated before the Sad Puppies thing. When he got nominated again last year as part of SP2, which annoyed rather than enraged, his was regarded as one of the least objectionable. So snobbish.
Of current SF best-sellers
Holy crap, Frank Herbert’s “Dune” is still on that list! That is some staying power.
Of current SF best-sellers
Holy crap, Frank Herbert’s “Dune” is still on that list! That is some staying power.
Of current SF best-sellers
Holy crap, Frank Herbert’s “Dune” is still on that list! That is some staying power.
The Differences Between Commercial and Literary Fiction
The Differences Between Commercial and Literary Fiction
The Differences Between Commercial and Literary Fiction
BTW, I’m not sure that there’s really much objection to the SP/RP nominees being on the Hugo ballot per se.
The objection is the hacking of the nomination rules, resulting in the SP/RP crowding out (nearly) all of the other non-SP/RP nominees, and what such hackery means for future Hugo awards.
BTW, I’m not sure that there’s really much objection to the SP/RP nominees being on the Hugo ballot per se.
The objection is the hacking of the nomination rules, resulting in the SP/RP crowding out (nearly) all of the other non-SP/RP nominees, and what such hackery means for future Hugo awards.
BTW, I’m not sure that there’s really much objection to the SP/RP nominees being on the Hugo ballot per se.
The objection is the hacking of the nomination rules, resulting in the SP/RP crowding out (nearly) all of the other non-SP/RP nominees, and what such hackery means for future Hugo awards.
Just to separate out the imagined from the actual record of the thread,
Brett wrote:
Lester Dent has been attacked on this thread as a bad writer.
NV wrote (after(!) your comment)
Or to take a swing more in the direction of Brett’s Lester Dent example, consider P.G. Wodehouse.
Concerning Correia, you may have more of a point, but you don’t get to insult people just because someone said an author you like is a bad writer.
Just to separate out the imagined from the actual record of the thread,
Brett wrote:
Lester Dent has been attacked on this thread as a bad writer.
NV wrote (after(!) your comment)
Or to take a swing more in the direction of Brett’s Lester Dent example, consider P.G. Wodehouse.
Concerning Correia, you may have more of a point, but you don’t get to insult people just because someone said an author you like is a bad writer.
Just to separate out the imagined from the actual record of the thread,
Brett wrote:
Lester Dent has been attacked on this thread as a bad writer.
NV wrote (after(!) your comment)
Or to take a swing more in the direction of Brett’s Lester Dent example, consider P.G. Wodehouse.
Concerning Correia, you may have more of a point, but you don’t get to insult people just because someone said an author you like is a bad writer.
I want to note for the record that the question here has not been that Correia is a bad writer, but rather that he isn’t a good enough writer to deserve a Hugo award. The Puppies’ case, such as it is, basically claims that the Puppies are writers who deserve the award and have been denied by a conspiracy. That they have no evidence of a conspiracy except their own assertions is part of why they come across as obnoxious, dishonest and arrogant. I will also note that Brett has been challenged to provide examples of Correia’s work that he thinks are of good quality and explain why he believes them to be such. So far, Brett has failed to do so, which suggests that either he has not, in fact, read the work in question, or has no confidence in his ability to identify and defend passages of a high enough quality. Bluster and personal remarks can only cover up so much of a bad case.
The Puppies and their spokesmen can’t have it both ways. Either their work is good enough to stand the test of debate, like everyone else’s, in which case they need to show us what makes that work good enough, or, if the work is not, in fact, good enough, they need to acknowledge the fact and stop fabricating conspiracies and lashing out in a hateful manner.
So far, their behavior and refusal to defend their chosen work on its merits tell me that this is a controversy whipped up by a clique with no genuine concern for the quality of writing, but a vast sense of aggrieved, unearned privilege.
If there is any good news in all of this, it is that the white male privilege clique is fading out, both in sci-fi and fantasy, and, more important, across the US and the world as a whole. I believe that at some point we shall look back, shake our heads and laugh, perhaps with some embarrassment, at the idiocies perpetrated by this clique in its efforts to drag us all back to an mostly imagined past where men were men, fiction was badly written and two-bit bullies were lords of all they surveyed. Those days died for a reason and we are all well rid of them.
It’s a shame that in the short term decent people will have to clean up the Puppies’ mess and repair the harm that they have done to institutions that had served the community quite well over time and were gradually coming into line with the rest of civilization in matters of race, gender and awareness of a wider world. Still, I imagine most of us are used to cleaning up the filth left behind by the angry and the privileged. One more “deposit” by the Puppies ultimately won’t matter very much over the course of time. As another writer, who never won the Hugo, once observed:
“When I look back on the perils which have been overcome, upon the great mountain of waves through which the gallant ship has driven, when I remember all that has gone wrong, and remember also all that has gone right, I feel sure we have no need to fear the tempest. Let it roar, and let it rage. We shall come through.”
I want to note for the record that the question here has not been that Correia is a bad writer, but rather that he isn’t a good enough writer to deserve a Hugo award. The Puppies’ case, such as it is, basically claims that the Puppies are writers who deserve the award and have been denied by a conspiracy. That they have no evidence of a conspiracy except their own assertions is part of why they come across as obnoxious, dishonest and arrogant. I will also note that Brett has been challenged to provide examples of Correia’s work that he thinks are of good quality and explain why he believes them to be such. So far, Brett has failed to do so, which suggests that either he has not, in fact, read the work in question, or has no confidence in his ability to identify and defend passages of a high enough quality. Bluster and personal remarks can only cover up so much of a bad case.
The Puppies and their spokesmen can’t have it both ways. Either their work is good enough to stand the test of debate, like everyone else’s, in which case they need to show us what makes that work good enough, or, if the work is not, in fact, good enough, they need to acknowledge the fact and stop fabricating conspiracies and lashing out in a hateful manner.
So far, their behavior and refusal to defend their chosen work on its merits tell me that this is a controversy whipped up by a clique with no genuine concern for the quality of writing, but a vast sense of aggrieved, unearned privilege.
If there is any good news in all of this, it is that the white male privilege clique is fading out, both in sci-fi and fantasy, and, more important, across the US and the world as a whole. I believe that at some point we shall look back, shake our heads and laugh, perhaps with some embarrassment, at the idiocies perpetrated by this clique in its efforts to drag us all back to an mostly imagined past where men were men, fiction was badly written and two-bit bullies were lords of all they surveyed. Those days died for a reason and we are all well rid of them.
It’s a shame that in the short term decent people will have to clean up the Puppies’ mess and repair the harm that they have done to institutions that had served the community quite well over time and were gradually coming into line with the rest of civilization in matters of race, gender and awareness of a wider world. Still, I imagine most of us are used to cleaning up the filth left behind by the angry and the privileged. One more “deposit” by the Puppies ultimately won’t matter very much over the course of time. As another writer, who never won the Hugo, once observed:
“When I look back on the perils which have been overcome, upon the great mountain of waves through which the gallant ship has driven, when I remember all that has gone wrong, and remember also all that has gone right, I feel sure we have no need to fear the tempest. Let it roar, and let it rage. We shall come through.”
I want to note for the record that the question here has not been that Correia is a bad writer, but rather that he isn’t a good enough writer to deserve a Hugo award. The Puppies’ case, such as it is, basically claims that the Puppies are writers who deserve the award and have been denied by a conspiracy. That they have no evidence of a conspiracy except their own assertions is part of why they come across as obnoxious, dishonest and arrogant. I will also note that Brett has been challenged to provide examples of Correia’s work that he thinks are of good quality and explain why he believes them to be such. So far, Brett has failed to do so, which suggests that either he has not, in fact, read the work in question, or has no confidence in his ability to identify and defend passages of a high enough quality. Bluster and personal remarks can only cover up so much of a bad case.
The Puppies and their spokesmen can’t have it both ways. Either their work is good enough to stand the test of debate, like everyone else’s, in which case they need to show us what makes that work good enough, or, if the work is not, in fact, good enough, they need to acknowledge the fact and stop fabricating conspiracies and lashing out in a hateful manner.
So far, their behavior and refusal to defend their chosen work on its merits tell me that this is a controversy whipped up by a clique with no genuine concern for the quality of writing, but a vast sense of aggrieved, unearned privilege.
If there is any good news in all of this, it is that the white male privilege clique is fading out, both in sci-fi and fantasy, and, more important, across the US and the world as a whole. I believe that at some point we shall look back, shake our heads and laugh, perhaps with some embarrassment, at the idiocies perpetrated by this clique in its efforts to drag us all back to an mostly imagined past where men were men, fiction was badly written and two-bit bullies were lords of all they surveyed. Those days died for a reason and we are all well rid of them.
It’s a shame that in the short term decent people will have to clean up the Puppies’ mess and repair the harm that they have done to institutions that had served the community quite well over time and were gradually coming into line with the rest of civilization in matters of race, gender and awareness of a wider world. Still, I imagine most of us are used to cleaning up the filth left behind by the angry and the privileged. One more “deposit” by the Puppies ultimately won’t matter very much over the course of time. As another writer, who never won the Hugo, once observed:
“When I look back on the perils which have been overcome, upon the great mountain of waves through which the gallant ship has driven, when I remember all that has gone wrong, and remember also all that has gone right, I feel sure we have no need to fear the tempest. Let it roar, and let it rage. We shall come through.”
” but rather that he isn’t a good enough writer to deserve a Hugo award.”
Again, “Correia’s first novel, Monster Hunter International, despite being self-published, reached the Entertainment Weekly bestseller list in April 2008,”
Nope, not good enough to win a Hugo? You really want me to say it again? Ok, I will:
Literary snob.
And that’s my last comment on this, I leave absurdly early in the morning tomorrow for Michigan, in the hope of getting to see my sister one last time before she dies. So it’s off to bed.
” but rather that he isn’t a good enough writer to deserve a Hugo award.”
Again, “Correia’s first novel, Monster Hunter International, despite being self-published, reached the Entertainment Weekly bestseller list in April 2008,”
Nope, not good enough to win a Hugo? You really want me to say it again? Ok, I will:
Literary snob.
And that’s my last comment on this, I leave absurdly early in the morning tomorrow for Michigan, in the hope of getting to see my sister one last time before she dies. So it’s off to bed.
” but rather that he isn’t a good enough writer to deserve a Hugo award.”
Again, “Correia’s first novel, Monster Hunter International, despite being self-published, reached the Entertainment Weekly bestseller list in April 2008,”
Nope, not good enough to win a Hugo? You really want me to say it again? Ok, I will:
Literary snob.
And that’s my last comment on this, I leave absurdly early in the morning tomorrow for Michigan, in the hope of getting to see my sister one last time before she dies. So it’s off to bed.
Best of luck getting there on time Brett; and deepest sympathies.
Best of luck getting there on time Brett; and deepest sympathies.
Best of luck getting there on time Brett; and deepest sympathies.
Brett has all my sympathy in this difficult time.
I have lost a lot of relatives. Sometimes you don’t even know what you’re losing until later. My daughter, for instance, despite her now-you-see-her-now-you-don’t lifestyle, turned out to be the linchpin of our family, which came apart in unexpected ways after her death.
Anybody: Does anyone know the name of the horrific-sounding story Brett referred to above? (This one: “the dying guy hallucinating that he’s trapped on an island that’s really his teeth”) I really want to see it. Just for the probably awful experience.
You know, the problem with the puppies’ and Brett’s assertion that the puppy slates represent a more democratic level of popularity is that they have recorded the support their nominations received from their partisans, and it turns out that what they have said about popularity just is not true.
Brett has all my sympathy in this difficult time.
I have lost a lot of relatives. Sometimes you don’t even know what you’re losing until later. My daughter, for instance, despite her now-you-see-her-now-you-don’t lifestyle, turned out to be the linchpin of our family, which came apart in unexpected ways after her death.
Anybody: Does anyone know the name of the horrific-sounding story Brett referred to above? (This one: “the dying guy hallucinating that he’s trapped on an island that’s really his teeth”) I really want to see it. Just for the probably awful experience.
You know, the problem with the puppies’ and Brett’s assertion that the puppy slates represent a more democratic level of popularity is that they have recorded the support their nominations received from their partisans, and it turns out that what they have said about popularity just is not true.
Brett has all my sympathy in this difficult time.
I have lost a lot of relatives. Sometimes you don’t even know what you’re losing until later. My daughter, for instance, despite her now-you-see-her-now-you-don’t lifestyle, turned out to be the linchpin of our family, which came apart in unexpected ways after her death.
Anybody: Does anyone know the name of the horrific-sounding story Brett referred to above? (This one: “the dying guy hallucinating that he’s trapped on an island that’s really his teeth”) I really want to see it. Just for the probably awful experience.
You know, the problem with the puppies’ and Brett’s assertion that the puppy slates represent a more democratic level of popularity is that they have recorded the support their nominations received from their partisans, and it turns out that what they have said about popularity just is not true.
Yes, Brett, the very best of luck for you and your family tomorrow.
Yes, Brett, the very best of luck for you and your family tomorrow.
Yes, Brett, the very best of luck for you and your family tomorrow.
So Brett, this list basically delineates the greatest writers of all time?
Really?
My sincere condolences re your sister. God speed.
So Brett, this list basically delineates the greatest writers of all time?
Really?
My sincere condolences re your sister. God speed.
So Brett, this list basically delineates the greatest writers of all time?
Really?
My sincere condolences re your sister. God speed.
Thanks for the list, bobbyp!
Read 1,2,3,8 (sucked), 9 (sucked), 10 (boring), 17, 20 (never again), 21, 22, 26(zzzz), 30 (never again), 34 (ditto), WTF is 39 doing on this list?, 41 about a bazillion times, aloud, in funny voices, 44, 45, 52, 56, 59 (although the death metaphor is disturbing), 60, 62, 63 sucked hard, 70 awesome, 78 several times, 91,
Thanks for the list, bobbyp!
Read 1,2,3,8 (sucked), 9 (sucked), 10 (boring), 17, 20 (never again), 21, 22, 26(zzzz), 30 (never again), 34 (ditto), WTF is 39 doing on this list?, 41 about a bazillion times, aloud, in funny voices, 44, 45, 52, 56, 59 (although the death metaphor is disturbing), 60, 62, 63 sucked hard, 70 awesome, 78 several times, 91,
Thanks for the list, bobbyp!
Read 1,2,3,8 (sucked), 9 (sucked), 10 (boring), 17, 20 (never again), 21, 22, 26(zzzz), 30 (never again), 34 (ditto), WTF is 39 doing on this list?, 41 about a bazillion times, aloud, in funny voices, 44, 45, 52, 56, 59 (although the death metaphor is disturbing), 60, 62, 63 sucked hard, 70 awesome, 78 several times, 91,
Be safe, Brett.
Be safe, Brett.
Be safe, Brett.
Snarki,
No Raymond Chandler. That really chapped my hide.
Shakespeare? Dostoyevsky? Kafka? Twain? Austen? Faulkner? Hemingway? Phfft. Nobodies I guess.
But Black Beauty! Now there’s writing! /snark
Snarki,
No Raymond Chandler. That really chapped my hide.
Shakespeare? Dostoyevsky? Kafka? Twain? Austen? Faulkner? Hemingway? Phfft. Nobodies I guess.
But Black Beauty! Now there’s writing! /snark
Snarki,
No Raymond Chandler. That really chapped my hide.
Shakespeare? Dostoyevsky? Kafka? Twain? Austen? Faulkner? Hemingway? Phfft. Nobodies I guess.
But Black Beauty! Now there’s writing! /snark
Well, no particular hurry now, though I’ve still got a rental car to pick up in a couple hours.
Correia made the best sellers list self-published, which is roughly equivalent to some dude jumping out of the bleachers at the Olympics track and field, lapping most of the runners, and ending up with the Bronze.
And then being told he’s lousy at running.
Don’t know that I’d describe a list of best sellers as “the greatest writers of all time”, but, yeah, I’d say only a literary snob would say, “Pfft! Those clowns don’t know how to write!”
Well, no particular hurry now, though I’ve still got a rental car to pick up in a couple hours.
Correia made the best sellers list self-published, which is roughly equivalent to some dude jumping out of the bleachers at the Olympics track and field, lapping most of the runners, and ending up with the Bronze.
And then being told he’s lousy at running.
Don’t know that I’d describe a list of best sellers as “the greatest writers of all time”, but, yeah, I’d say only a literary snob would say, “Pfft! Those clowns don’t know how to write!”
Well, no particular hurry now, though I’ve still got a rental car to pick up in a couple hours.
Correia made the best sellers list self-published, which is roughly equivalent to some dude jumping out of the bleachers at the Olympics track and field, lapping most of the runners, and ending up with the Bronze.
And then being told he’s lousy at running.
Don’t know that I’d describe a list of best sellers as “the greatest writers of all time”, but, yeah, I’d say only a literary snob would say, “Pfft! Those clowns don’t know how to write!”
Why are the Bible and the Koran missing on that list? Or does the giving away for free of both spoil the sales numbers?
Of course there are also those books one ‘must’ own even without intention to ever read them. There was the immortal dispute between Thomas and Heinrich Mann about who of them was a ‘classic’. Thomas claimed the title because his books stood on about every bookshelf in the country while Heinrich claimed that people bought his brother’s books only to put them on the shelves* while his own books were bought to be read. For a true literary snob the latter would have been a disqualifier by itself. Kipling got never recognized by German liteary authorities BECAUSE his stuff was readable and popular. To my knowledge Kipling and Rider Haggard were friends. The latter’s work is quite readable trash (turned into B movies, some good, some bad), Kipling’s is quite readable art (for the most part). Btw, allegedly Disney asked his people, in preparation for The Jungle Book, NOT to read the book (if true, it shows).
*one would not be sufficient. Thoams loved hyperlong sentences filling overlong books
Why are the Bible and the Koran missing on that list? Or does the giving away for free of both spoil the sales numbers?
Of course there are also those books one ‘must’ own even without intention to ever read them. There was the immortal dispute between Thomas and Heinrich Mann about who of them was a ‘classic’. Thomas claimed the title because his books stood on about every bookshelf in the country while Heinrich claimed that people bought his brother’s books only to put them on the shelves* while his own books were bought to be read. For a true literary snob the latter would have been a disqualifier by itself. Kipling got never recognized by German liteary authorities BECAUSE his stuff was readable and popular. To my knowledge Kipling and Rider Haggard were friends. The latter’s work is quite readable trash (turned into B movies, some good, some bad), Kipling’s is quite readable art (for the most part). Btw, allegedly Disney asked his people, in preparation for The Jungle Book, NOT to read the book (if true, it shows).
*one would not be sufficient. Thoams loved hyperlong sentences filling overlong books
Why are the Bible and the Koran missing on that list? Or does the giving away for free of both spoil the sales numbers?
Of course there are also those books one ‘must’ own even without intention to ever read them. There was the immortal dispute between Thomas and Heinrich Mann about who of them was a ‘classic’. Thomas claimed the title because his books stood on about every bookshelf in the country while Heinrich claimed that people bought his brother’s books only to put them on the shelves* while his own books were bought to be read. For a true literary snob the latter would have been a disqualifier by itself. Kipling got never recognized by German liteary authorities BECAUSE his stuff was readable and popular. To my knowledge Kipling and Rider Haggard were friends. The latter’s work is quite readable trash (turned into B movies, some good, some bad), Kipling’s is quite readable art (for the most part). Btw, allegedly Disney asked his people, in preparation for The Jungle Book, NOT to read the book (if true, it shows).
*one would not be sufficient. Thoams loved hyperlong sentences filling overlong books
“I don’t remember reading about nipple clamps in the Bible.”
(from the classic work of staggering genius, 50 Shades Of Grey.)
“I don’t remember reading about nipple clamps in the Bible.”
(from the classic work of staggering genius, 50 Shades Of Grey.)
“I don’t remember reading about nipple clamps in the Bible.”
(from the classic work of staggering genius, 50 Shades Of Grey.)
If you read the note at the beginning of that ‘best seller’ list, it excludes religious texts that are often distributed for free.
And sure, there are nipple clamps in the Bible; but the terms got mistranslated for centuries because of that whole “leave out the vowels in written hebrew” thing. They kept the “free my *** from bondage!” thing, though.
If you read the note at the beginning of that ‘best seller’ list, it excludes religious texts that are often distributed for free.
And sure, there are nipple clamps in the Bible; but the terms got mistranslated for centuries because of that whole “leave out the vowels in written hebrew” thing. They kept the “free my *** from bondage!” thing, though.
If you read the note at the beginning of that ‘best seller’ list, it excludes religious texts that are often distributed for free.
And sure, there are nipple clamps in the Bible; but the terms got mistranslated for centuries because of that whole “leave out the vowels in written hebrew” thing. They kept the “free my *** from bondage!” thing, though.
So why are there any awards for books at all that aren’t simply based on sales? Is everything that sells more better? Is this a standard that applies to anything at all, not just books?
If you want to judge books by their sales, why do you care at all about awards that are based on something else? Wouldn’t all of those simply be manifestations of literary snobbery to be dismissed out of hand, and whatever discussion surrounding them be elitist rantings not worthy of engagement?
If you were one of the first people to read a book that later went on to be a best-seller, would you come to like it once the sales numbers were in, retroactively thinking it was “good” even if you thought it sucked when you read it, before it sold a bunch of copies?
Or do you actually form opinions about books not based only on their sales, just like the literary snobs who discuss whether or not a given book is worthy of consideration for a particular award?
So why are there any awards for books at all that aren’t simply based on sales? Is everything that sells more better? Is this a standard that applies to anything at all, not just books?
If you want to judge books by their sales, why do you care at all about awards that are based on something else? Wouldn’t all of those simply be manifestations of literary snobbery to be dismissed out of hand, and whatever discussion surrounding them be elitist rantings not worthy of engagement?
If you were one of the first people to read a book that later went on to be a best-seller, would you come to like it once the sales numbers were in, retroactively thinking it was “good” even if you thought it sucked when you read it, before it sold a bunch of copies?
Or do you actually form opinions about books not based only on their sales, just like the literary snobs who discuss whether or not a given book is worthy of consideration for a particular award?
So why are there any awards for books at all that aren’t simply based on sales? Is everything that sells more better? Is this a standard that applies to anything at all, not just books?
If you want to judge books by their sales, why do you care at all about awards that are based on something else? Wouldn’t all of those simply be manifestations of literary snobbery to be dismissed out of hand, and whatever discussion surrounding them be elitist rantings not worthy of engagement?
If you were one of the first people to read a book that later went on to be a best-seller, would you come to like it once the sales numbers were in, retroactively thinking it was “good” even if you thought it sucked when you read it, before it sold a bunch of copies?
Or do you actually form opinions about books not based only on their sales, just like the literary snobs who discuss whether or not a given book is worthy of consideration for a particular award?
Oscars are based on ticket sales, right? just as Grammys are based on record sales.
clearly any other criteria would be invalid.
Oscars are based on ticket sales, right? just as Grammys are based on record sales.
clearly any other criteria would be invalid.
Oscars are based on ticket sales, right? just as Grammys are based on record sales.
clearly any other criteria would be invalid.
Brett I don’t know if you’ll see this. On the recent renovation thread you posted about preferring to do the work yourself where possible, because you know you’ll do it to your standards, which are higher than you’d get from those who are doing it to make a buck.
The analogy’s got issues, but I think it’s fundamentally sound.
Brett I don’t know if you’ll see this. On the recent renovation thread you posted about preferring to do the work yourself where possible, because you know you’ll do it to your standards, which are higher than you’d get from those who are doing it to make a buck.
The analogy’s got issues, but I think it’s fundamentally sound.
Brett I don’t know if you’ll see this. On the recent renovation thread you posted about preferring to do the work yourself where possible, because you know you’ll do it to your standards, which are higher than you’d get from those who are doing it to make a buck.
The analogy’s got issues, but I think it’s fundamentally sound.
I would argue that it’s cooked completely.
Popularity is not, not, not an indicator of quality. McDonald’s, which was mentioned upthread, has more revenue worldwide than any other restaurant. Does that mean that it’s objectively good food? I would say that it doesn’t mean that. It just means that people like it, just as people liked pet rocks and hula hoops and EZ Bake Ovens.
So: if it’s not a popularity contest, don’t award it according to popular vote. Have people who are qualified to judge its quality. Which, by the way, is not me. I think if you have read and understood some subset of the greatest works of literature (NOT according to popularity; else having read the works of Rowling and Tolkein should qualify), then you’ve got a fair claim to having an opinion in the matter of quality.
Giving a vote to anyone ponying up e.g. $40, though, is asking to have your precious award co-opted.
I have no thoughts on VD. I understand he’s not for everybody.
I also have no thoughts on Correia or Torgersen, neither of whom I have read. I have read Michael Z. Williamson, and it’s fun stuff. But it won’t ever be the classics. It’s not written for that kind of consumer.
I would argue that it’s cooked completely.
Popularity is not, not, not an indicator of quality. McDonald’s, which was mentioned upthread, has more revenue worldwide than any other restaurant. Does that mean that it’s objectively good food? I would say that it doesn’t mean that. It just means that people like it, just as people liked pet rocks and hula hoops and EZ Bake Ovens.
So: if it’s not a popularity contest, don’t award it according to popular vote. Have people who are qualified to judge its quality. Which, by the way, is not me. I think if you have read and understood some subset of the greatest works of literature (NOT according to popularity; else having read the works of Rowling and Tolkein should qualify), then you’ve got a fair claim to having an opinion in the matter of quality.
Giving a vote to anyone ponying up e.g. $40, though, is asking to have your precious award co-opted.
I have no thoughts on VD. I understand he’s not for everybody.
I also have no thoughts on Correia or Torgersen, neither of whom I have read. I have read Michael Z. Williamson, and it’s fun stuff. But it won’t ever be the classics. It’s not written for that kind of consumer.
I would argue that it’s cooked completely.
Popularity is not, not, not an indicator of quality. McDonald’s, which was mentioned upthread, has more revenue worldwide than any other restaurant. Does that mean that it’s objectively good food? I would say that it doesn’t mean that. It just means that people like it, just as people liked pet rocks and hula hoops and EZ Bake Ovens.
So: if it’s not a popularity contest, don’t award it according to popular vote. Have people who are qualified to judge its quality. Which, by the way, is not me. I think if you have read and understood some subset of the greatest works of literature (NOT according to popularity; else having read the works of Rowling and Tolkein should qualify), then you’ve got a fair claim to having an opinion in the matter of quality.
Giving a vote to anyone ponying up e.g. $40, though, is asking to have your precious award co-opted.
I have no thoughts on VD. I understand he’s not for everybody.
I also have no thoughts on Correia or Torgersen, neither of whom I have read. I have read Michael Z. Williamson, and it’s fun stuff. But it won’t ever be the classics. It’s not written for that kind of consumer.
People often confuse “I liked it” with “good”. I happen to be a fan of several military sci-fi authors. In fact, I have bought multiple copies (for myself first bound then electronic, and as gifts for others) of more than one book by one of the supposedly shut-out authors.
I would not, not even the ones I have given multiple copies of gifts, nominate any for a Hugo. They were QUITE enjoyable. I’ve read them many times. I gave them to friends who would enjoy them.
They weren’t award winning, though, no matter how much I liked them.
Not that it matters. The real problem here is that the SP/RP exploited a failure mode in the nominations process and basically ‘took over’ several categories.
The fact that a small minority can control the entirety of the nominations in a category is an obvious failure mode — whether it’s some dark conspiracy of leftists or the obvious Rabid Puppy hack.
The solution is simple: Fix the flaw.
You can tell how serious the Sad and Rabid puppies are by seeing how they react to something like switching to reweighted average voting, which would rid the Hugos of ANY slate — whether of darkly conspiring liberals or conservatives fighting the good fight, and instead ensure that the nominees reflected the general tastes of the Worldcon members who bother filling out the nomination form.
Perhaps the Sad Puppies will surprise me. The Rabid Puppies would, of course, claim the Hugos are not officially and openly rigged against them (rather than having altered the voting rules to prevent slate votes of ANY type). But then, the Rabid Puppies are Vox Day purchasing himself some Hugos.
Perhaps the Sad Puppies are, in fact, quite serious and not doing this out of some weird culture war imperative. (Although judging by the comments on the Sad Puppies blogs, it appears to be far less about Ethics In Sci-Fi Awards and far more “I HATE SCALZI!”)
People often confuse “I liked it” with “good”. I happen to be a fan of several military sci-fi authors. In fact, I have bought multiple copies (for myself first bound then electronic, and as gifts for others) of more than one book by one of the supposedly shut-out authors.
I would not, not even the ones I have given multiple copies of gifts, nominate any for a Hugo. They were QUITE enjoyable. I’ve read them many times. I gave them to friends who would enjoy them.
They weren’t award winning, though, no matter how much I liked them.
Not that it matters. The real problem here is that the SP/RP exploited a failure mode in the nominations process and basically ‘took over’ several categories.
The fact that a small minority can control the entirety of the nominations in a category is an obvious failure mode — whether it’s some dark conspiracy of leftists or the obvious Rabid Puppy hack.
The solution is simple: Fix the flaw.
You can tell how serious the Sad and Rabid puppies are by seeing how they react to something like switching to reweighted average voting, which would rid the Hugos of ANY slate — whether of darkly conspiring liberals or conservatives fighting the good fight, and instead ensure that the nominees reflected the general tastes of the Worldcon members who bother filling out the nomination form.
Perhaps the Sad Puppies will surprise me. The Rabid Puppies would, of course, claim the Hugos are not officially and openly rigged against them (rather than having altered the voting rules to prevent slate votes of ANY type). But then, the Rabid Puppies are Vox Day purchasing himself some Hugos.
Perhaps the Sad Puppies are, in fact, quite serious and not doing this out of some weird culture war imperative. (Although judging by the comments on the Sad Puppies blogs, it appears to be far less about Ethics In Sci-Fi Awards and far more “I HATE SCALZI!”)
People often confuse “I liked it” with “good”. I happen to be a fan of several military sci-fi authors. In fact, I have bought multiple copies (for myself first bound then electronic, and as gifts for others) of more than one book by one of the supposedly shut-out authors.
I would not, not even the ones I have given multiple copies of gifts, nominate any for a Hugo. They were QUITE enjoyable. I’ve read them many times. I gave them to friends who would enjoy them.
They weren’t award winning, though, no matter how much I liked them.
Not that it matters. The real problem here is that the SP/RP exploited a failure mode in the nominations process and basically ‘took over’ several categories.
The fact that a small minority can control the entirety of the nominations in a category is an obvious failure mode — whether it’s some dark conspiracy of leftists or the obvious Rabid Puppy hack.
The solution is simple: Fix the flaw.
You can tell how serious the Sad and Rabid puppies are by seeing how they react to something like switching to reweighted average voting, which would rid the Hugos of ANY slate — whether of darkly conspiring liberals or conservatives fighting the good fight, and instead ensure that the nominees reflected the general tastes of the Worldcon members who bother filling out the nomination form.
Perhaps the Sad Puppies will surprise me. The Rabid Puppies would, of course, claim the Hugos are not officially and openly rigged against them (rather than having altered the voting rules to prevent slate votes of ANY type). But then, the Rabid Puppies are Vox Day purchasing himself some Hugos.
Perhaps the Sad Puppies are, in fact, quite serious and not doing this out of some weird culture war imperative. (Although judging by the comments on the Sad Puppies blogs, it appears to be far less about Ethics In Sci-Fi Awards and far more “I HATE SCALZI!”)
Why do they call them the Sad Puppies?
That can’t have been a name they adopted for themselves.
Why do they call them the Sad Puppies?
That can’t have been a name they adopted for themselves.
Why do they call them the Sad Puppies?
That can’t have been a name they adopted for themselves.
it is.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/sad-puppies
it is.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/sad-puppies
it is.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/sad-puppies
“But if you took Monster Hunter International, or your typical Doc Savage story, and rewrote it in the literary style of Lord Dunsany, it just wouldn’t work.”
Wouldn’t that be “At the Mountains of Madness”?
“But if you took Monster Hunter International, or your typical Doc Savage story, and rewrote it in the literary style of Lord Dunsany, it just wouldn’t work.”
Wouldn’t that be “At the Mountains of Madness”?
“But if you took Monster Hunter International, or your typical Doc Savage story, and rewrote it in the literary style of Lord Dunsany, it just wouldn’t work.”
Wouldn’t that be “At the Mountains of Madness”?
Brett: As my people say, I will hold you and your sister in the Light.*
*And as my family say, “That way God can see you better.”
Brett: As my people say, I will hold you and your sister in the Light.*
*And as my family say, “That way God can see you better.”
Brett: As my people say, I will hold you and your sister in the Light.*
*And as my family say, “That way God can see you better.”
Not sure if this has been covered, but Gary Farber noted on FB that VD, aka Theodore Beale, is the son of this august personage.
Not sure if this has been covered, but Gary Farber noted on FB that VD, aka Theodore Beale, is the son of this august personage.
Not sure if this has been covered, but Gary Farber noted on FB that VD, aka Theodore Beale, is the son of this august personage.
the human comedy never fails to entertain.
the human comedy never fails to entertain.
the human comedy never fails to entertain.
but, yeah, I’d say only a literary snob would say, “Pfft! Those clowns don’t know how to write!”
50 Shades Of Grey was also self-published, initially. it has sold 60 million copies. in the UK, it has sold more than all the books in the entire Harry Potter series.
which means it rightfully deserves all the awards.
but, yeah, I’d say only a literary snob would say, “Pfft! Those clowns don’t know how to write!”
50 Shades Of Grey was also self-published, initially. it has sold 60 million copies. in the UK, it has sold more than all the books in the entire Harry Potter series.
which means it rightfully deserves all the awards.
but, yeah, I’d say only a literary snob would say, “Pfft! Those clowns don’t know how to write!”
50 Shades Of Grey was also self-published, initially. it has sold 60 million copies. in the UK, it has sold more than all the books in the entire Harry Potter series.
which means it rightfully deserves all the awards.
If you want S&M porn, Anne Rice did it better.
Not that I know this through firsthand experience, mind you.
If you want S&M porn, Anne Rice did it better.
Not that I know this through firsthand experience, mind you.
If you want S&M porn, Anne Rice did it better.
Not that I know this through firsthand experience, mind you.
…actually, a LOT better.
Again, not that I have read any of e.g. The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty.
I have however read Dave Barry’s review of 50 Shades, and it doesn’t seem to rise to any level of literature at all.
…actually, a LOT better.
Again, not that I have read any of e.g. The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty.
I have however read Dave Barry’s review of 50 Shades, and it doesn’t seem to rise to any level of literature at all.
…actually, a LOT better.
Again, not that I have read any of e.g. The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty.
I have however read Dave Barry’s review of 50 Shades, and it doesn’t seem to rise to any level of literature at all.
Anne Rice did it better
literary snob!
Anne Rice didn’t sell 60,000,000 copies. so, whatsername who wrote 50 Shades Of Grey is objectively the better author.
Anne Rice did it better
literary snob!
Anne Rice didn’t sell 60,000,000 copies. so, whatsername who wrote 50 Shades Of Grey is objectively the better author.
Anne Rice did it better
literary snob!
Anne Rice didn’t sell 60,000,000 copies. so, whatsername who wrote 50 Shades Of Grey is objectively the better author.
Dave Barry’s review of 50 Shades,
awesome 🙂
Dave Barry’s review of 50 Shades,
awesome 🙂
Dave Barry’s review of 50 Shades,
awesome 🙂
I take that as high, albeit secondhand praise. As in: I have not earned it.
Much as the 50 shades dudette has failed to.
Hey, E.L. James may have missed her calling!
I take that as high, albeit secondhand praise. As in: I have not earned it.
Much as the 50 shades dudette has failed to.
Hey, E.L. James may have missed her calling!
I take that as high, albeit secondhand praise. As in: I have not earned it.
Much as the 50 shades dudette has failed to.
Hey, E.L. James may have missed her calling!
“whatsername who wrote 50 Shades Of Grey” is, objectively, the richer author. However, dispite the prejudices of some, market success is not the only measure of quality.
“whatsername who wrote 50 Shades Of Grey” is, objectively, the richer author. However, dispite the prejudices of some, market success is not the only measure of quality.
“whatsername who wrote 50 Shades Of Grey” is, objectively, the richer author. However, dispite the prejudices of some, market success is not the only measure of quality.
Russel: Thanks for the kind words. I do want to emphasize that SF and Fanfic really are two different worlds and we shouldn’t conflate the two. Fanfic is often set in the “real world”; the entire fanfic subgenre of “MAU” (Modern Alternate Universe) takes the characters the author loves and puts them someplace with which the writer and reader are likely much more familiar: a new school, freshman university or one’s first job; quite literally the situation with which the writer herself is wrestling. These are kids trying to figure out “how to adult” and by writing a story about how their favorite character does it, they’re trying to figure out how to do it themselves.
SF-nal AUs are a dead genre; few people read them, and fewer write them. Unless the source material is SF already, in which case any alternative universe is frowned upon. It’s popular to move fantasy and historical characters to “now”; moving them into SF, or trying to place SFnal characters into a present-day situation, doesn’t seem to move the audience. I’ve never been sure why.
Russel: Thanks for the kind words. I do want to emphasize that SF and Fanfic really are two different worlds and we shouldn’t conflate the two. Fanfic is often set in the “real world”; the entire fanfic subgenre of “MAU” (Modern Alternate Universe) takes the characters the author loves and puts them someplace with which the writer and reader are likely much more familiar: a new school, freshman university or one’s first job; quite literally the situation with which the writer herself is wrestling. These are kids trying to figure out “how to adult” and by writing a story about how their favorite character does it, they’re trying to figure out how to do it themselves.
SF-nal AUs are a dead genre; few people read them, and fewer write them. Unless the source material is SF already, in which case any alternative universe is frowned upon. It’s popular to move fantasy and historical characters to “now”; moving them into SF, or trying to place SFnal characters into a present-day situation, doesn’t seem to move the audience. I’ve never been sure why.
Russel: Thanks for the kind words. I do want to emphasize that SF and Fanfic really are two different worlds and we shouldn’t conflate the two. Fanfic is often set in the “real world”; the entire fanfic subgenre of “MAU” (Modern Alternate Universe) takes the characters the author loves and puts them someplace with which the writer and reader are likely much more familiar: a new school, freshman university or one’s first job; quite literally the situation with which the writer herself is wrestling. These are kids trying to figure out “how to adult” and by writing a story about how their favorite character does it, they’re trying to figure out how to do it themselves.
SF-nal AUs are a dead genre; few people read them, and fewer write them. Unless the source material is SF already, in which case any alternative universe is frowned upon. It’s popular to move fantasy and historical characters to “now”; moving them into SF, or trying to place SFnal characters into a present-day situation, doesn’t seem to move the audience. I’ve never been sure why.
Elf:
SF-nal AUs are a dead genre
Huh? Surely The Lunar Chronicles are “SF-nal AUs”, of fairy tales — and they are BIG sellers.
I personally *loved* Julian Comstock (=Julian the Apostate), too, and thought it didn’t get as much praise as it deserved. And then there’s Fitzpatrick’s War (=Alexander the Great).
Not to mention the Honor Harrington — Napoleonic Wars IN SPACE! — thing.
Elf:
SF-nal AUs are a dead genre
Huh? Surely The Lunar Chronicles are “SF-nal AUs”, of fairy tales — and they are BIG sellers.
I personally *loved* Julian Comstock (=Julian the Apostate), too, and thought it didn’t get as much praise as it deserved. And then there’s Fitzpatrick’s War (=Alexander the Great).
Not to mention the Honor Harrington — Napoleonic Wars IN SPACE! — thing.
Elf:
SF-nal AUs are a dead genre
Huh? Surely The Lunar Chronicles are “SF-nal AUs”, of fairy tales — and they are BIG sellers.
I personally *loved* Julian Comstock (=Julian the Apostate), too, and thought it didn’t get as much praise as it deserved. And then there’s Fitzpatrick’s War (=Alexander the Great).
Not to mention the Honor Harrington — Napoleonic Wars IN SPACE! — thing.
NV: I think workmanlike is being very generous: it reads to me like sub-par fanfic, clumsy and unpracticed writing.
NV: I think workmanlike is being very generous: it reads to me like sub-par fanfic, clumsy and unpracticed writing.
NV: I think workmanlike is being very generous: it reads to me like sub-par fanfic, clumsy and unpracticed writing.
Workmanlike probably is too generous, yes.
I tried to muster the willpower to go back and finish that awful piece, but what I’d read so thoroughly dispelled my suspension of disbelief in its attempts to be “authentic” that I just. Can’t. Even. In particular, I came back to the ridiculous female sidekick “Chesty”; the author may be/have been a senior NCO in the US military, and he’s trying really, really hard to wink and nudge to that effect, but he somehow managed in that necessarily long military career to avoid getting the first damned clue about the typical experiences of a female servicemember. His choice to make Chief Warrant Officer “Chesty” a passive, voiceless, “non-PC-just-one-of-the-boys”, lie-down-and-take-it spineless wet noodle rang so false that I wanted to throw the story down in disgust. Given that it’s digital, it obviously denied me even that small pleasure…
Workmanlike probably is too generous, yes.
I tried to muster the willpower to go back and finish that awful piece, but what I’d read so thoroughly dispelled my suspension of disbelief in its attempts to be “authentic” that I just. Can’t. Even. In particular, I came back to the ridiculous female sidekick “Chesty”; the author may be/have been a senior NCO in the US military, and he’s trying really, really hard to wink and nudge to that effect, but he somehow managed in that necessarily long military career to avoid getting the first damned clue about the typical experiences of a female servicemember. His choice to make Chief Warrant Officer “Chesty” a passive, voiceless, “non-PC-just-one-of-the-boys”, lie-down-and-take-it spineless wet noodle rang so false that I wanted to throw the story down in disgust. Given that it’s digital, it obviously denied me even that small pleasure…
Workmanlike probably is too generous, yes.
I tried to muster the willpower to go back and finish that awful piece, but what I’d read so thoroughly dispelled my suspension of disbelief in its attempts to be “authentic” that I just. Can’t. Even. In particular, I came back to the ridiculous female sidekick “Chesty”; the author may be/have been a senior NCO in the US military, and he’s trying really, really hard to wink and nudge to that effect, but he somehow managed in that necessarily long military career to avoid getting the first damned clue about the typical experiences of a female servicemember. His choice to make Chief Warrant Officer “Chesty” a passive, voiceless, “non-PC-just-one-of-the-boys”, lie-down-and-take-it spineless wet noodle rang so false that I wanted to throw the story down in disgust. Given that it’s digital, it obviously denied me even that small pleasure…
My opinion of “The Exchange Officer” (which I sincerely hope I am one of the few people in human history to have read more than once) is that it is profoundly uninteresting, written in a flat, unimaginative style and devoid of any meaningful content. If this is what conservatives find entertaining, I may find a twinge of pity for them in my SJW heart.
My opinion of “The Exchange Officer” (which I sincerely hope I am one of the few people in human history to have read more than once) is that it is profoundly uninteresting, written in a flat, unimaginative style and devoid of any meaningful content. If this is what conservatives find entertaining, I may find a twinge of pity for them in my SJW heart.
My opinion of “The Exchange Officer” (which I sincerely hope I am one of the few people in human history to have read more than once) is that it is profoundly uninteresting, written in a flat, unimaginative style and devoid of any meaningful content. If this is what conservatives find entertaining, I may find a twinge of pity for them in my SJW heart.
If popularity can’t confer legitimacy on Democratic elected officials, it can’t do so for Hugo wanna-bes, either.
If popularity can’t confer legitimacy on Democratic elected officials, it can’t do so for Hugo wanna-bes, either.
If popularity can’t confer legitimacy on Democratic elected officials, it can’t do so for Hugo wanna-bes, either.