Hugo stats: Best Fan Writer

happycamestrosPhew! If I do this one I can get ahead of Chaos Horizon who are doing are far better job of this than I am.

So why look at Best Fan Writer? Well of all the categories this was the one that had a different dynamic than the others. The winner was the non-Puppy nominated whose nominations was primarily on the basis of this one report: http://laurajmixon.com/2014/11/a-report-on-damage-done-by-one-individual-under-several-names/

Continue reading “Hugo stats: Best Fan Writer”

Fascism, Australia, Refugees and other things

lemongrabYesterday an extraordinary thing happened in Australia. For reasons that aren’t entirely clear the Australian Border Force announced that it would, in conjunction with Victorian* police, would be roaming the center of Melbourne and checking whether people ‘who crossed their path’ where in Australia legitimately. Now to make matters more like exactly what they sound like, the Australian Border Force is a newish agency cobbled together by the current government to protect Australia’s borders, and because that might not yet sound sufficiently creepy, they have black military style uniforms and are armed.

So, yes, literally black-uniformed armed paramilitaries roaming Melbourne demanding to see the papers of people they suspect to be insufficiently Australian.

Luckily the announcement led to mass protests and the whole things was cancelled when somebody finally realized that overtly imitating fascism is not the way to win friends and influence people.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-28/operation-fortitude-cancelled/6733008

Continue reading “Fascism, Australia, Refugees and other things”

JCW’s Joe Doakes Challenge

Our occasional blog-muse, John C Wright has offered a challenge.

After listing Hugo Award winners for Best Novel in two time periods he says this:

Here is the Joe Doakes Challenge, for those bold enough to take it. Get out a pencil and make a not, for both lists, these three things:

(1) Which works possess the basic craftsmanship of our guild, i.e. a solid but imaginative story well told. Note also which have dull or hateful characters, little or no plot, or rely on gimmicks or nostalgia for their appeal.

(2) How many are among the softest of SF subgenres, such as alternate history or magical realism.

(3) How many are larded with a pretentious but sophomoric profundity or attempted relevance by presenting heavy-handed message fiction rather than science fiction. Is the number rising or falling?

How many of these stories do you love? Count and note the number.

Compare the two numbers. Based on this count, how often is the Hugo Award a sign of approval, or a leper’s bell warning a reader of sound sense and a craving for imagination to stay away?

Lets Go! I’m going to look just at the books I know well.
1996 Neal Stephenson: THE DIAMOND AGE – 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope 3 message fiction? Nope.
1997 Kim Stanley Robinson: BLUE MARS – 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope 3 message fiction? Nope.
2000 Vernor Vinge: A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope 3 message fiction? Nope.
2001 J. K. Rowling: HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE 1: Craft – Plot, Excellent, writing a bit mixed, 2 – soft SF/F? YA fantasy but overtly fantasy 3 message fiction? Nope.
2002 Neil Gaiman: AMERICAN GODS 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Fantasy but borders on magical realism 3 message fiction? Nope.
2005 Susanna Clarke: JONATHAN STRANGE & MR NORRELL 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope – strong fantasy 3 message fiction? Nope.
2008 Michael Chabon: THE YIDDISH POLICEMEN’S UNION 1: Craft – Masterful, a demonstration of how to write 2 – soft SF/F? Alternate reality 3 message fiction? Nope.
2009 Neil Gaiman: THE GRAVEYARD BOOK 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope – strong fantasy 3 message fiction? Nope.
2010 Paolo Bacigalupi: THE WINDUP GIRL1: Craft – Good, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope – strong near future tech 3 message fiction? Nope.
2010 tied with China Miéville: THE CITY & THE CITY 1: Craft – Excellent, author’s best writing 2 – soft SF/F? sort of passed through magical ralism and out the other side 3 message fiction? Who knows? There could be a secret message in it…
2014 Ann Leckie: ANCILLARY JUSTICE 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope, Space Opera 3 message fiction? Nope.
2015 Cixin Liu: THE THREE-BODY PROBLEM 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope, alien invasion story 3 message fiction? Nope.

Hey! That was fun.

Oops! Forgot the other half:

1953 Alfred Bester: THE DEMOLISHED MAN 1: Craft – Good, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope – future society with ESP 3 message fiction? Nope.
1960 Robert A. Heinlein: STARSHIP TROOPERS 1: Craft – Good, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope – future space war 3 message fiction? In places
1961 Walter M. Miller, Jr.: A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Nope – future history 3 message fiction? Maybe in places
1962 Robert A. Heinlein: STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND 1: Craft – Good, 2 – soft SF/F? A bit soft, aliens are in the context but primarily a social satire 3 message fiction? Social satire – so yes
1963 Philip K. Dick: THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Softish – alternate history 3 message fiction? Nope
1966 Frank Herbert: DUNE 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Space Epic 3 message fiction? Nope
1967 Robert A. Heinlein: THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Space Epic 3 message fiction? Libertarians seem to like it.
1969 John Brunner: STAND ON ZANZIBAR 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Space Epic 3 message fiction? Nope
1970 Ursula K. Le Guin: THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Alien society 3 message fiction? Not really – radical themes but no specific message.
1971 Larry Niven: RINGWORLD 1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Alen exploration 3 message fiction? Not really
1972 Philip José Farmer: TO YOUR SCATTERED BODIES GO  1: Craft – Excellent, 2 – soft SF/F? Alen exploration 3 message fiction? Not really

Crunching

editorvotes

[UPDATE: there is better number crunching here https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/2015-hugo-stats-initial-analysis/ but I think my numbers are coming out similar. Oh and I lost a whole chunk from the bottom – do scroll past the table in the middle!]

Dave Freer asked me a question over at Mad Genius while we were arguing about Brad Torgersen’s poor behavior.

Just what do you see happening with the 2016 nominations and votes, as a direct result of 2015 and with the figures we now have?

What are the numbers telling us about the voting and the consequences for next year? Put another way what signals are there that we can use to characterize voter behavior and how will that impact in future years? Beyond that what impact did the various players have?

The tricky thing is that the voting was massively dominated by non-Puppies and the non-Puppies are difficult to analyze. On neither side during the kerfuffle was there much internecine conflict. The only obvious flash point was Laura Mixon’s nomination for Best Fan Writer on the basis of her analysis of the behavior of ‘RequiresHate’ – a person whose behavior among the SF/F community had been the cause of much dissension independent of the Puppy Kerfuffle. However this did not translate into the non-Puppies forming rival camps.

Instead both sides tended to unite within themselves against a perceived common threat. For the non-Puppies threat is best understood as two-fold; slate nomination undermining the Hugo Awards and Vox Day. For the Puppies the threat was also two fold: perceived World Con cliques shutting them out and liberal/leftist media/cliques demonizing them. NOTE: to understand the behavior of the two groups it isn’t necessary a this point to decide which of those four narratives had any factual merit. What matters was the perceived threat. Groups with diverse cultures and ideologies can show great unity when there is a common threat and so we didn’t see inner conflicts during the conflict even when allies overtly contradicted each other in terms of objectives or stated purposes.

I suggest there are these major groups at play in the numbers:

Continue reading “Crunching”

OK that is actually funny

Vox Day sort of replied to my answer to Dave Freer (just to make that whole exchange even more weird).

His plan is otters! Also I get a promotion!

http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/what-will-vox-do.html

“The real burning question is, ‘what will Vox Day attack next?’”
– Charles Stross

“What will happen in 2016. We both know the question is what will Vox Day do? The Sad Puppy plans are secondary to what ever Vox Day does. I assume he will try to run some kind of disruption campaign but what kind we won’t know until next year.”
– Camestros Felapton

Of course, I am not at liberty to reveal the Rabid Puppy 2 strategy, in part because we are still in the first two stages of the OODA loop, observing and orienting. (Sorry, Tom, I couldn’t resist.) But in the interest of further demoralizing the already-retreating enemy, I’m not reluctant to reveal one of the new weapons in our arsenal.

That’s right. The Evil Legion of Evil is training a corps of Amphibious Assault Otters. Armed with acid-filled squirt guns and supported by a crack squad of Attack Manatees, they will emerge from the rivers and literally melt the faces of the SJWs attempting to burn bridges as they continue to retreat. Good day, sir! I said good day!

[SIGH] Why is it that the more overtly awful ones are the funny ones?

Still reading: The Last Superstition-A refutation of the new atheism

Still going with this book by conservative philosopher Edward Feser. It has continued in much the same way as the introduction. Mix in the middle chapters is an OK treatment of Plato’s theory of forms, an outline of Aristotle’s metaphysics and a moderate chunk of Thomas Aquinas. Still lots of carping about Richard Dawkins et al, which would actually be funnier if it was more snarky. Unfortunately Feser seems to be hitting ‘petulant’ more often than really good digs.

Often this attempt at digs detracts from his argument and even makes himself look either foolish or prone to weak reasoning. For example he brings up the repeated counter arguments by atheist writers to William Paley’s watchmaker argument for the existence of god (or at least of a creator/designer):

Why atheists are so fixated on Paley I cannot say, unless it is precisely because he is such an easy target: If he didn’t exist, atheists would have had to invent him or find some other straw man to beat.

While only a few sentences before Feser has correctly noted that Paley is popular with Intelligent Design theorists and creationists. Yet this apparently professional philosopher is at lost to understand why a notable biologist and theorist of evolution whose primary conflict with theists is not the tiny section of Christianity trying to revive Thomist scholasticism but with the heavily funded evangelical campaign to impose creationism in classroom. For the creationist (and off shoot Intelligent Design movement) Paley’s argument is not a straw man but a recurring theme.

However all of that is just an annoying diversion from the guts of his argument and it doesn’t bode well. In short the upshot will be that God (and unless things taken a surprising diversion) and everything else Feser happens to believe is a necessary truth like Pythagoras’ Theorem or 2+2 equaling 4 (Feser’s two main examples). He has mentioned Frege and Russell, so Feser can’t be wholly ignorant of the foundational crises in mathematics from the 19th century onward but it really doesn’t look like his notion of a neccesary truth will be any more sophisticated than that he found some of Aquinas’s arguments quite convincing. Formal deduction takes a bit more work than that and Aquinas didn’t have the tools and Feser doesn’t look like he has the background and it will all be question-begging hooey anyway.

Dave and Me have a Chat

Over at Mad Genius:

//julieapascal
August 24, 2015 at 3:02 pm

About the quotes for if glyer or minions show up. Even full quotes can deliberately mislead.//

That is true but linking to the actual posts so people can read what was read in full is important. Much better than what you just saw Bard Torgersen do with people’s words on his own blog.

Cames, I hope you haven’t been drinking Chardonnay again. That’s why I stopped bothering to dissect your attempt at deconstruction last time. Firstly, you’re wrong – putting the link is a clever deception, which usually succeeds in implying that yes, you are being sweetness, honesty and light. Few bother to check, a fact I can confirm on the basis of click-throughs. Secondly as such behavior is common in puppy-kicker circles, before you start digging in TorgersOn’s eye — let’s see the evidence for where you’ve dug in the eyes of your friends. Come now. Show us.

I can’t say I have ever directly encountered somebody directly replacing somebody’s comment with something utterly different other than on Brad’s blog. I am certain you wouldn’t do it or GRRM or Scalzi or Sarah Hoyt and I know John C Wright wouldn’t do it. The only case I’ve encountered is Brad Torgersen doing it. If it has happened elsewhere on a pro- or anti-puppy blog then I am happy to say that it is wrong but I can’t condemn what I haven’t seen. I’m disappointed Brad took the low road – I can see why he is upset but putting his words in my mouth is unethical on multiple levels.

You are wrong. Mr. Scalzi has done so in the past: that’s the main reason I stopped reading his blog some years back. Not to people being rude, as I understand Mr. Torgersen has done, but to people who plainly and firmly disagreed with him.

In which case John Scalzi was wrong to do so. Delete or ban. If Brad doesn’t want my comment on his blog that is his perogative. Putting his words in my mouth is not what someone with honor would do.

He was infamous for it – But no use you telling _us_ he was wrong. Tell him. Good luck! But it was a common little game, Cames. Making Light, Hines etc. all thought it hilarious. Same with the ‘disemvoweling’. I had never heard of anyone on our side doing so. I have gone in and deleted part of a message – some fairly disgusting abuse directed at one of the ladies posting here, with a moderator warning in place that the poster would be banned if he ever stepped a micron over the line. I have also deleted content, left the post in place, with a moderator message that the poster had ignored the previous behavior warning about abuse and was now banned – Kevin Standlee IIRC. I left that there as a message to his fellow travelers that I try to be patient and tolerant but there are limits. That’s me, to date. I’m not Brad and I suggest you ask him why.

//I had never heard of anyone on our side doing so. //

Well now you have and you can see how Brad has behaved on his own website.

//But no use you telling _us_ he was wrong. Tell him.//

If you like. Give me a specific incident and if it was Scalzi doing what Brad Torgersen has done (effectively) then I’ll happily tell John Scalzi he was wrong.
How about you?

Camestros, that was before we started taking screenshots and archiving them, which is now common practice because the precise form of sealioning you’re engaging in. You’re not -unlike many of your fellow puppy-kickers — dim-witted – you know precisely what you’re doing, and so do I, and I have no need to put up with it. Do not imply I lie (or Holly lies) and require me to ‘prove’ to you, ever again. If you want to accuse anyone here of lying the burden of providing proof, specific instances lies on you. If I came to your website I would accept the same (and tried to do so). That will, however not be happening again. So: Don’t mention it in any shape, form or allusion, without first providing a screenshot of your telling John Scalzi that he should not engage in it. Don’t slither or try any Gallo squirms either. This is your one and final warning. Don’t do it again. Got me? Take up the issue with Brad on his website in person if you wish to. I will not have ‘you and him fight’. I’m not repeating that either. Final warning.

As you are capable of rational thought I’d like to ask you a question that is actually pertinent. Just what do you see happening with the 2016 nominations and votes, as a direct result of 2015 and with the figures we now have?

[My Reply Here] Sorry Dave but I didn’t imply you were lying, what I asked you for is to give me an example that I could actually discuss with John Scalzi. You aren’t dim witted – what are you asking me to do? Tell John Scalzi off about some vague accusation? Say “John don’t do that thing you did that time that I didn’t see to that person I don’t know and whose name I can’t remember on a date we don’t know?”

“This is your one and final warning. Don’t do it again. Got me?” No, I don’t get you Dave. You say I should tell Scalzi off but you won’t tell me about what exactly. Have you thought this through?  You want me and him to fight – but won’t say what about! (And what exactly are you threatening me with?)

What will happen in 2016. We both know the question is what will Vox Day do? The Sad Puppy plans are secondary to what ever Vox Day does. I assume he will try to run some kind of disruption campaign but what kind we won’t know until next year. What the non-puppies will do is read, review, share and nominate willy-nilly. If you guys do the same then we are on the same side in principle if not when it comes to specific choices.

The True History of the Great Puppy Kerfuffle of 2015 CE

[Most recent version is here: https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/the-puppy-kerfuffle-timeline/ ]

As with the earlier versions… caveats apply.

This is literally a narrative as it is a story shown over time with a plot and complications but it is also a subjective mapping of headspace. It looks more serious than my map but the same caveats apply – it is how I perceive the kerfuffle and while it is made out of truthful bricks (I believe) the structure itself is a fabricated thing. Same warnings about false balance apply and also the timeline has the issue of stirring up old arguments.

Suggestions and corrections are welcome within the limit of not wanting to re-kerfuff old kerfuffles and certainly not wanting to re-open old wounds.

Major sources: Mike Glyer’s puppy round ups ( http://file770.com/?page_id=22881), Jim C Hines’s article http://www.jimchines.com/2015/06/puppies-in-their-own-words/ , The Hugo Awards blog http://www.thehugoawards.org/, and the blogs of Larry Correia, Vox Day, Brad Torgersen and John C Wright.

Continue reading “The True History of the Great Puppy Kerfuffle of 2015 CE”