Senate "We Don't Want Your Kind as Fans" - Sad Puppies, Gamergate and SciFi

Enough. Stop.

Vivec's point was that we should ensure to protect the reputation of authors who have been unwillingly swept up in this by unasked for adulation by bigots. It's a good point, and one we should all agree with. That said, you guys have a disagreement about whether Abercrombie has acted consistently with it. Fine. Anyone whose glanced even casually at this thread knows your position now, Ender. Can we all move on with our lives? Or at least with this one thread?

 

Oh shut up Wocky.

I've several times spoken about the wider issues and instead of picking up on this you troll.

 

Well, we got nearly a page in there of actual discussion. I just some irony, given what the majority of posts have been, in a thread about a group of people feeling slighted and getting childish in response......

On the subject at hand my issue with what Correia said in the "explanation" linked to waaay back in the first post is that he is patting himself on the back for a self-fulfilling prophecy and manufacturing the argument. Because for all of the high ground that he wants to take and say that the "left wing" people lost their **** because of certain people being nominated, that's not exactly what happened. If he wanted to just prove that then he would have done what he did, but made all the moves and requests for voting a specific way privately so that if people did lose it for certain authors appearing in the list of nominations then it can be definitively shown that it was about who appeared. But things didn't pan out that way and there was the internet equivalent of poking a stick at someone and then saying "look, I told you they were violent" when they lash out. I'm not saying it in any way justifies the reaction, and those of the "left wing" group that have really should have been able to see what was happening and ensure any response they might want to make was done so with that in mind. What we have instead is a manufactured furore that is enflamed by a group of absolute d-bags deciding to jump on board as part of their misogynistic/racist/homophobic/whatever crusade through geek/gamer/counter-culture. And then because this is so much fun and is "contemporary" we have commentators on all sides writing articles and editorials about it from the top of their bully-pulpits throwing more invectives into the mix (or basically throwing explosives onto the fire).

And frankly anyone that is saying that modern SFF is just "this", or "that", or whatever and that there aren't enough books out there to cater to the various tastes then that person isn't looking hard enough. There are some great stories out there that are allegorical to contemporary issues and push at the boundaries of what we as a society believe. But there are also some great books that are pure fun and action, the equivalent of "Die Hard" in a book form. And there are some good romance novels in a SFF coating. And military porn of a SFF flavour.

If all of this is because one award that is given a certain amount of value isn't 'representative' of what the general consumers feel, can I just say the two words "Oscars" and "Emmys". Why should books, and SFF books in particular be any different? Because when the Grammys are the height of equality when it comes to awards shows and recognition of all types of artists, we have a really low bar to climb over.

 

I miss the times when sci-fi was not political, like Dune, Foundation or Fahrenheit 451.

 

I think we need to separate the Rabid Puppies and Vox Day from the Sad Puppies and Larry Correia/Brad Torgeson. The former group is not exactly one I'd associate with.

The latter group, the Sad Puppies, came in for a very different reason. Here's what Correa in his response to George R. R. Martin:

I think it's clear that Correia was shunned by certain fans - and told "your kind isn't wanted here." It's undeniable. But I think that he also was convinced that a great many fans didn't believe that was going on. So, he started Sad Puppies. Maybe the Hugos weren't rigged, but there definitely were whispering campaigns that targeted him and others like him.

I'll note something else from George R.R. Martin's post:

This kind of goes back to what I was trying to get at a bit:
I've been a Star Wars fan for close to 35 years now. I remember my first Star Wars collectible was one of those Kenner action figures - an Imperial stormtrooper that has long ago been lost. Lately, I feel over the past few years that I am being pushed out... being told "Your kind is not wanted here."

I want to be Star Wars fan... I want to discuss things with other Star Wars fans without having to give up who I am, or the values I hold. But if it becomes a choice... well, there's always the Honorverse, Star Trek, and Babylon 5.

 

Or super-religious like Narnia or the Midshipmen series. Or even the Incarnations of Immortality series.

Which is funny, since I love all of those series and they are... really not my cup of tea in everyday life for the former, and just a good yarn (even trying to bridge science and faith at the end) in the latter.

 

Because unlike the Emmys or Oscars, the Hugos are supposed to be awarded by the fans.

What happened was that a lot of conservative and libertarian sci-fi fans signed up as supporting members and made their nominations. So the question is... are conservatives and libertarians welcome as sci-fi fans, or not?

 

I believe Correia's excuse narrative about as much as I believe GamerGate is about ethics in game journalism, and I find it utterly laughable that more conservative sci fi fans feel "excluded" when I still have to wade through posts about how there shouldn't be gay characters in Star Wars because it would make things "too political" every single day.

 

Well, that's the fault of the people then. If something is truly "fan driven" -- as the Oscars, which keeps awarding Liberals, Conservatives, and Roman Polanskis alike are not -- then fans, with all of their whims on what they like including the creators, are the sole driving factor. Much like it's okay for the Dixie Chicks to speak out against Bush -- and them for people to not pay money to see them -- it's okay for both Paula Deen to be a racist POS and people to not want to spend money on her (or Duck Dynasty people) and for fans to not like authors / writers / creators with values that don't align with whatever their enlightened viewpoints may be.

It's not a free speech issue. It's a money issue. If there's no money in what these creators are publicly standing for, maybe they won't do it. This is called "voting with our wallets," which is what market-driven forces are supposed to do according to conservatives.

 

Sure they are, but no one is obliged to treat their ideas equally or fairly. Especially considering that most conservative and libertarian ideas are morally and socially repugnant.

 

Whatever happened to the days when people gave awards based on the actual quality of the work and not on their own pre-conceived ideas and agendas?


Oh, that's right, they never existed.

 

The quote from this guy is, at best, a huge pity party. Even if we take away all the underlying problems with this campaign, its premise is deeply paranoid and conspiratorial. It assumes that no one ever judges stories based on how they judge story quality.

Please consider the movie Frozen. Undeniably, its thematic messages contained elements that feminists approved of. But it was also a story that many people enjoyed in its own rights. They found the characters interesting, and the plot twists legitimately surprising. It was not popular solely among liberal elites on the costs, but people of all political ideologies all over the country. This wasn't somehow a fifth column of Gloria Steinem fans finally making their move. It was just people enjoying the movie regardless of the political implications of its thematic content.

In the same way, has it ever occurred to you that maybe people don't vote novels from conservative authors as the best of the year because people legitimately did not enjoy them as much? That's what makes this campaign fundamentally different. It's explicitly introducing politics as a separate consideration, where it has not been prior. That's not a positive development.

 

Actually, it's about ethics in ballot stuffing.

 

The problem with modern conservative authors is that they're terrible at not being too blatant in their writing. Let's take a look at the most popular modern conservative sci-fi series: The Carrera series

The synopsis of A Desert Called Peace

Five hundred years from now, humankind has found a link to a remarkably Earth-like planet and settled there, dividing –as humans will -- into dozens of nation-states. The Federated States of Columbia has consolidated power and risen against the oppression of Earth's corrupt Caliphate. But when Salafi madmen bent on a new jihad kill FSC Captain Patrick Hennessey's family in a cowardly attack, they create an enemy that will show even less mercy than they do.
A legendary warrior is born: Carrera, the scourge of Salafism. He will forge an army from the decrepit remains of a military in a failing state. He will find those who killed his family. He will destroy them utterly. And he will try like hell to not become exactly like the enemy he is fighting.

Evil Earth Caliphate vs strong conservative guy. Basically a conservatives power fantasy against Muslims.

Let's go to book five: Come and Take Them

Carerra. Relentless. Machiavellian. Without compunction. Victorious. Pity his enemies. Be thankful he is on the side of freedom from totalitarian domination.

On the colony planet of Terra Nova, soldier turned political leader Carerra has achieved his revenge, destroying those who killed his wife and children in a terrorist strike, and helping to establish a free country. But Carrera’s fight is not over.

War with the Tauran Union is inevitable. Carerra has been preparing his new country for this all-out conflict for years, intending to drive out the last vestige of foreign imperialism in Balboa, the Tauran Union Security Force. He doesn't care that he's outnumbered one hundred to one. He doesn't care that the Taurans are one thousand times wealthier. A true Machiavellian, Carrera is convinced that gold cannot always find good soldiers, but that good soldiers can always find gold. After all, his good soldiers have already found quite a bit. Moreover, he's been preparing for the war he intends to start and fight on his own terms, while the TU has been preparing for a progressive fantasy.

Yep, we move from evil Muslims to evil Progressives. Strong conservative myn is on the case, though, so hold on to your FREEDOM.

People aren't reading this because they want to read a good story; they're reading this to vicariously live out killing evil Muslims and Progressives. And that's the problem with modern conservative sci-fi. They're too blatant and the plot and plausibility starts suffering because of the ideology. Plenty of old conservative scifi are liked: Look at Orson Scott Cards novels and Robert Heinlein's. Think about it.

 

As far as I know "conservative" and "libertarians" are welcome as fans. Unless I missed the memo where I'm supposed to be excluding them from consideration as fans.

Adam is correct that this is about the ethics in ballot stuffing, since it cannot be about someone trying to say that without this kind of action that a "conservative" writer can't get nominated.

Because, well, Correia got nominated for Best Novel last year. And Torgersen for Best Novella and Best Novellete. So there obviously isn't some massive exclusion of 'writers like them'.

 

Lord of Vivec is that real? Self-published, I'm assuming? That's incredible.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Desert-Called...8774165&sr=8-1&keywords=a+desert+called+peace

 

. . .

Well, and I think even the readers understand what's happening here.

Emphasis mine. This is really, really sad.

 

My favorite is the publisher's review for one of them

Kratman (A Desert Called Peace) raises some disquieting questions about what it might take to win the war on terror in this military SF novel set in a future world with obvious parallels to our own. When Salafi fanatics launch a 9/11-style attack on the hated Federated States of Columbia, they end up killing the family of Col. Patricio Carrera. Carrera vows to destroy Salafism by any means necessary and raises an army in his wife's native land to provide that means. He takes the fight to Pashtia, where the planners of his family's doom are cowering. This disturbing but insightful narrative takes Nietzsche's aphorism about staring into the abyss and runs with it to its grim conclusion. As always, Kratman delights in offending left-wing sensibilities, but this will only enhance its appeal to his target audience, who will enjoy it for its realistic action sequences, strong characterizations and thoughts on the philosophy of war. (Nov.)

 

It's also great that the mere existence of characters that hail from a non-white ethnicity makes things too political for them, while something written explicitly as a polemic against "liberals" is acceptable.

 

So, really, conservative fiction fails for the same reason why conservative humor fails: they put their politics first at the expense of the story/joke.

 

Probably people on Tumblr

EDIT: For $40 you can register to become a voting member of WorldCon and vote for the Hugo. High recommend if you want to vote and get scifi ebooks and stuff during the year.

https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

 

Our story begins with Rex Manly as he battles the Army of Unification on the planet Comutopia. His fight is over a one world government where the means of distribution are taken from their rightful owners. See how he turns this seemingly idyllic paradise on its head with Manly Rangers, an elite fighting force attempting to free its unified citizens. And beside him is his housewife, Betsy Torpedoes, who lovingly feeds all of the Manly Rangers—and some say she gives them all a kiss for FREEDOM.

Seriously, I think a good subversion would be this guy that thinks he's fighting for freedom and is all butch and conservative, but he's actually the bad guy.