…were a huge loss for Tor and the SJW fascists, and a win for those interested in true “diversity.”
[Sunday morning update]
…to be asked for civility from the side that’s been emptying the slops bucket on our head ever since their favorites didn’t get the call is all too precious and rich. The people who were screaming at us that “Women are allowed to write science fiction too” apparently didn’t notice the women on this side and on the ballot (I know, we’re wrongwomen and wrongfans.) And the idiots who for years have said that this was all because Larry wanted a Hugo owe him a giant apology. Until I see that I’m all out of f*cks to give about their precious hurt feelings.
…I’ve never accused anyone of “stealing” the Hugos or of buying sock puppet memberships; other than saying that some of the nominees (and winners) in recent years have been long on social justice and short on worth (a value judgement but MY value judgement and that of a lot of fans who no longer use the Hugo as a buy recommendation), I’ve never impugned the character of any Hugo nominee/winner for being nominees/winners (I’ve pointed out bad behavior from some of them and an habit of wearing their own colon as a stylish hat in other circumstances. That’s different, but that’s frankly more descriptive than impugning);and I’ve never, not even in my worst moments accused anyone on the other side of thought crime (racist, sexist, homophobic, wrongthinker or eeeevil) or private vice (I’ve never once said I fear for my safety around them.)
I will employ civility when I see some. And some apologies, too for people like Larry.
I hope she doesn’t hold her breath.
Also, on this Easter, if you’re the praying type (or even if not) send her some best wishes for improving health.
I haven’t been reading a lot of SF over the last few years, so it would be a heck of a lot easier to work out what’s going on if the politics of the authors were mentioned.
Do the Hugo nominations reflect in any way what’s actually selling and getting good reader reviews?
They haven’t been, recently. That’s what the issue is.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. David Weber has never won (or been nominated as far as I know), even though some of his books have been on the NYT best sellers list. John Scalzi on the other hand, has also sold a lot of books and won the Hugo. So it’s hit and miss.
Oh, and where’s Weir in all this? Is The Martian not political enough to get votes from either side?
From what I’ve read, The Martian wasn’t eligible because it was original published as a indie in 2011 and not considered a original work for 2014. Or something like that
Apparently there was a lot of recommendations for it to be added to the Sad Puppies list
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/02/sad-puppies-3-the-slatening/
“And here’s the kicker. All those books are REALLY GOOD. No stunts, no gimmicks, no checking to see what social justice victim boxes they can mark, just the best damned books of the year (lots of suggestions for it, but the Martian wasn’t eligible).”
Thanks for that info
Meanwhile, IO9 is decrying how “politics” have taken over the Hugos this year.
The political neutrality of Gawker Media is well-established, don’t you know? Science fiction is simply a means to greater social justice.
Because nothing says diversity like five nominations for John C. Wright.
Because nothing says “Good storytelling” like five nominations for John C. Wright.
FIFY.
I haven’t read sci-fi in over a decade. I have listened to a few audiobooks, but with my commute, I listen to all types of books. But back in the days when I actually got a book and read it, I read some sci-fi.
With that caveat, it amazes me that Kevin J. Anderson just got nominated for a Hugo. How the hell did he get overlooked for this long?
Sounds like, for the first time in a decade or more, I might want to take a look at who won the Hugos. I pretty much stopped reading mainstream SF, and caring who won awards, when so much of it became ‘look, in the future, Communism will work!’
I pretty much stopped reading science fiction when the bookstores decided to group SF with Fantasy novels – the SF&F section was almost all fantasy books and hardly any SF.
I sometimes wonder why science fiction and fantasy are linked together, one’s about future science, the others about magic.
We need the World Science Fiction
and fantasyAwards.I sometimes wonder why science fiction and fantasy are linked together,…
Science fiction is a branch of fantasy.
one’s about future science, the others about magic.
That’s a distinction that can be hard to make in practice. Are time travel stories straight fantasy or are they science fiction? I would hesitate to label Wells’ The Time Machine as pure fantasy but time travel is probably not “future science”. And any number of science fiction writers have had plots where magic is explained in scientific terms.
Yes. Ever since the beginnings of the genre, a lot of stories classified as ‘science fiction’ have contained a heavy dose of fantasy. For example, ‘The Girl In The Golden Atom’, which I read a few years ago, has a hint of science and an awful lot of fantasy, but is considered a science fiction classic, not a fantasy classic.
I suspect the bigger problem is that, these days, most people think of elves, orcs or dragons whenever someone says ‘fantasy’, when the genre has traditionally been much wider than that.
Sword & sorcery outsells science fiction these days. Publishers and booksellers are chasing customers. I blame Gary Gygax and Joss Whedon, although as early as the ’80s Asimov placed responsibility for the fantasy boom with George Lucas.
SF is all about “what if ?”. Ride trend lines to what you think are absurd lengths (and find out that RAH was a hopeless optimist and piker when it came to “the crazy years”). I imagine ardent SF readers thought “???” when Alvin Toffler wrote “Future Shock” as they had been immunised years ago.
Along the way there is room for all sorts of fun including the occasional bit of fantasy. I’ve never cared for fantasy much but make exceptions for “The Broken Sword”, “Three Hearts and Three Lions” (it’s almost time, Holger Danske) and “The Merman’s Children” by the late, great Poul Anderson.
Of the newer crop of writers let me recommend Mike Flynn.
I hadn’t read any SF in a good 25 years until the movie version of Enders Game came out. I read the book after but didn’t really care for it. Then read the Wool series which was good until the end which I fell was rushed as if he was tired of writing and just wanted to finish. The same with “The Martian” it was good until the end when some very improbable things happened.
Of newer books I have enjoyed Red Rising and Golden Son, Terms of Enlistment and Lines of Departure were enjoyable as well. Thank goodness you can download samples on Kindle there are sooo many I tried and found wanting.
Its interesting reading Azimov or PKD and comparing the roles women play vs the newer authors which have them IMHO (or maybe better stated as “my chauvinistic opinion”) over represented in combat roles.
I expect No Award to win most of those categories this year.
Charles Stross has been a vocal nay-sayer re space resources and/or settlement. Much of Stross’ crowd believe limits to growth are imposed by earth’s finite resources.
Don’t know if Scalzi feels that way. But acceptance of logistic growth ceilings seems in synch with the politically correct party line.
Stross is a SJW to the extreme. He wanted to pull one of his stories out of an anthology because the editor didn’t include any female authors.
Stross is skeptical of space settlement, correctly arguing that in fact it’s going to be very, very, very hard to make the economics work. He does say that there might be resource extraction analogous to North Sea oil rigs. In spite of this he does have two novels of space settlement that don’t break the laws of physics at all which, using one weird trick.
Stross arguments may be found here.
He starts off by pointing out how hard it’d be to get to Proxima Centauri. That’s like arguing the early humans in the African Rift Valley couldn’t reach Hawaii.
Only after starting with an extremely silly argument does he address our closer neighbors. And these arguments are silly as well.
He correctly notes that humans and their life support are quite massive. But then he goes on to assume all propellent and life support mass must be lifted from the bottom of earth’s gravity well.
If we have extra-terrestrial robotic infrastructure sophisticated enough for resource extraction, why would all the propellent have to come from earth’s surface? Why would water to drink and air to breathe have to come from earth’s surface? Why in the hell would regolith for radiation shielding have to come from earth’s surface?
And given robotic resource extraction in space there would be some incentive to occasionally have canned meat on site. The North Sea oil rigs have human workers.
Given propellent depots and extra-terrestrial propellent, the max delta V for a given stage would be around 8 km/s. Delta V budgets for most spacecraft would be more like 3 to 5 km/s. Given lower delta V budgets and removing the extreme conditions of 8 km/s re-entry, largely reusable and very cheap spacecraft isn’t such an extreme prediction.
Stross asks why aren’t we going to earthly wastelands like the Gobi desert? Well, we are. As the more pleasant real estate and easy to reach resources are used up, humans will learn how to adapt and thrive in more difficult circumstances. That’s what we’ve been doing for most of human history.
Yes, but we’ve got a *lot* of empty real estate on Earth that’s much more hospitable than anywhere off world. Especially if you are willing to live underground.
But none of it isn’t subject to government jurisdiction. And none of it holds romance for settlers. This is a tired, old argument.
Off world real estate isn’t exactly free of government interference, as you probably know. If you want to claim a sovereign micro state, it’s probably much easier to do it on Earth.
Really? Undersea? In Antarctica?
Did I miss that?
Really?
Maybe technically. Certainly not legally.
Some very wealthy people are investing in space. Obviously these folks aren’t as smart as you and Charley Stross. Why can’t they see space investment is silly so long as there’s lots of empty wasteland here on earth?
Or maybe they believe expanding our horizons is a good investment for future generations.
Of particular interest are the Google guys. They’re investing in SpaceX, Planetary Resources, Lunar X-Prize and others. Google also purchased of the winners of a recent DARPA robotics contest as well as developing their own Google Cars. Semi-autonomous tele-robots could be a huge game changer for building infrastructure in places humans can’t presently reach.
Charley’s imagined show stoppers are built on bad assumptions. I believe these folks will be successful in taking down the fences that confine us. The abundance of earthly wastelands notwithstanding.
You could probably buy out the entire population of one of the smaller existing micro states for a fraction of the cost of a viable off world settlement.
I read one Stross and one Scalzi. Won’t do that any more.
I like everything I’ve read that Scalzi has written, (not including blog posts). I like some Stross, though for one of his books I did something I’d never done, before or since. I read to a few pages from the end, and never finished it. I just got bogged down and gave up. Usually I finish, or give up early. It was Accelerando.
I’m not sure that “You can choose anyone in these six categories for the Hugo, but it’s our slate or nothing” is a victory for liberty.
I’m considering joining and voting against the P.C. English lit crowd.
But I haven’t cared about the Hugos for years.
The current crop of writers aren’t worthy to buckle Clarke’s sandals or clean Asimov’s toilet.
Is there any contemporary science fiction written by numerate engineers or scientists? Stuff set in the inner solar system without magic dragons, faster than light ships, etc.? If so, I might even start reading science fiction again.
Well, there’s The Martian…
I think Richard Penn has been doing that, though I haven’t read his stuff.