I’ve been seeing a lot of new authors worrying about the prospect of going indie, or self-publishing. (A terminology note: “indie” used to mean “not part of the Big Five conglomerates.” Now it’s rapidly becoming identical to being a self-pubber.) I keep telling authors who go for SF&F that they should be prepared to self-publish; and part of that preparation is to understand the cost of everything that a publisher would provide. Continue reading
Tag Archive: Hugo Awards
This has been a very busy summer. Between work and family commitments, I’ve been running around so much that when I get back home I just really haven’t had the energy to blog. Heck, my work has been cutting into my vital goof-off time, and we all know how important that is. I didn’t have time to review a single item on the Hugo ballot this year like I’d expected, and I quite literally finalized my ballot only on the last day. I had to skip the fan and related work categories, too; I just didn’t have the time to finish those.
This last weekend was particularly hectic and stressful, to the point that reading about Hugo kerfluffles online was relaxing by comparison. I didn’t even think I should blog about it, but decided I could probably squeeze off a quick post.
The short version: I can’t say I’m surprised. In fact, I can’t even say I’m disappointed. Continue reading
Things have been very busy on my end, as I deal with a few major projects at my other job and launch a new collaborative blog site (more on that later), and also prepare for my presentations at AwesomeCon.
It’s been a few weeks since my last post on the Hugo Awards. I haven’t had much to say, because my only concern in this matter is on the subject of writing. I’m not interested in responding to every little thing that pops up, such as news articles that repeat lies, Big Five editors who make up new lies, fans who leave one-star, one-word Amazon reviews on Hugo-nominated works . . . I’ll leave that up to others. Sure, it gets me great traffic, but I’m interested in writing, reviews, and fun stuff to share. The Hugo Awards are too serious, yet too inconsequential in the long run, to just keep harping on the same points over and over and over and . . . you get the idea.
(Actually, if you want over-the-top Hugo humor, check out my friend Declan’s parody of the Sad Puppies people encountering SWATing and Worldcon. I make my own appearance in the latest installment. Apparently my house is made of Lego. I don’t find this repugnant.)
Anyway, long story short, I’m writing another Hugo post. This is because someone decided to leave a long comment on a previous post that requires a few more counterpoints than is easy to do in an answering comment. As such, I’m doing a full-on fisk, and invoking Brandolini’s Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.
The commenter’s name is pocketnaomi. As such, I’m assuming this person is a woman named Naomi, and will be addressing her that way. Continue reading
I’ll be on an Internet talk show, Dead Wrong Radio, this evening to talk about the Hugo Awards. Other guests include Brad Torgersen, Sarah Hoyt, and Tom Knighton, though we won’t be on at the same time.
The show is a (very) right-wing conservative podcast, but if you’re expecting me to go on a political tear, you’ll be disappointed. I save that for other shows (which is why I don’t post about them here) and for Facebook. The whole reason I’m backing Sad Puppies is because I believe that entertainment should not be beholden to politics. The show starts at 8:30 Eastern, and I’ll be on at 9.
Strangely, the show description refers to me as their “inhouse expert.” I’ve never been associated with this show before, so I’m not sure where they get that.
Mary Robinette Kowal is not the easiest person to disagree with. In the past, her response to a difference of opinion has been rather sharp. I know this, as I was the one she was speaking to. We used to correspond, but haven’t in years. I mention this not because I want to defame her in any way, but rather to point out that if she and I are agreeing on something, it’s something worth paying attention to.
I’m not feeling well today (nausea, exhaustion, pain — basically, my fibromyalgia is being rebellious), so I haven’t been doing much of anything except lie down and hope it passes soon.
Sometimes, when I’m in the right mood and there’s something on my mind, I start composing poetry. I guess today’s one of those days. So, hey, I guess I’ve got another Hugo-related post in me after all.
While once upon a time a fan
Would know a Hugo would impress
In recent years awards began
To seem to lack that same success
Awards for excellence now went
To only those who would express
A social scheme without dissent
And jump on those who might transgress
The story, see, cannot be king,
Not if we’re to fix the mess
For social justice is the thing
And never style or finesse
The value of a tale is found
Only when its words address
A lack of tolerance profound
And so dissent we must repress
These are, we’re told, quite vital jobs
To let society progress
But it just left us with some snobs
Whose way of life was to suppress
This made many puppies cry
And seek a cure for their distress
The best of fiction they could buy
But Hugo wins would just depress
But then one year they tried as one
To get the field to reassess
The old idea that tales are fun
And that’s what Hugos should express
Canine plans weren’t met with glee
But rather lies told by the press
Yet puppies everywhere agree
That they’ll keep trying nonetheless!
The week isn’t over, but it’s just getting crazier. Aside from the “No True Fan” argument, publications like Entertainment Weekly (though the editors almost immediately retracted the hit piece), Salon, the Telegraph, the Guardian, and more, as well as numerous websites like Cracked and various blogs, have been saying over and over that the Sad Puppies campaign is vile, vicious, vulgar, and villainous. It seems that the campaign that nominated works by liberal, female, non-white, and gay artists did so out of a strong desire for a right-wing utopia dominated by straight white men. Who knew?
But I’m not going to get into that right now. I’m going to leave that up to others. For now, if you want my opinion on the subject, I invite you to look at my previous blog posts. In “Piers Plowman and the Hugo Awards,” I discussed the problem of putting a message before the story. I followed that with a look at those who argue differently, with “G. K. Chesterton and the Social Fiction Warriors.” Finally, after the Hugo ballot was released, I talked about the effort to deny the validity of opinions, and what makes a fan a fan, in “You Are All Fake Geek Girls.”
According to the trackbacks and referrals I’ve been getting, these are all considered moderate opinions, and as unbiased as someone who’s taken a side can get. I’m flattered, everyone, and I’m glad the posts have been useful.
However, unless and until more specifically writing-related topics come up, I’m leaving it there. I’ve been enjoying the extra traffic, but my focus here, on this blog, is on writing and reviews. I’ve said as much as I can really think of about that in relation to the Hugos.
. . . well, almost. I still have to get on to reviewing Hugo nominees. I fully intend to crank out as many reviews of nominated material as I can get before the end of July, when the final ballot is due. I already have non-spoiler reviews of Jim Butcher’s Skin Game (nominated for Best Novel) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The LEGO Movie (both nominated for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form).
But, for now, I want to talk about the voting process. Continue reading
This weekend marks a particular event which pilgrims from all over the world have been waiting for. It’s a highly-anticipated event every year, and tomorrow evening, as darkness gathers, groups of the faithful shall come together, united by one desire.
I speak, of course, of the Hugo Awards nominee announcement. Easter’s the next day. Also, Easter involves less shouting, though admittedly it’s associated with at least one dead body.
The Hugo controversy is a hot topic every single year, and it’s only gotten louder in the last several cycles thanks to the campaign known as Sad Puppies. In case you missed my explanation from earlier this week, here’s a shiny and well-crafted link. That post details what the Hugo Awards are, why they matter, and how the controversy started. Or rather, the current controversy. As I said in that previous post, I was voting in the Hugos years ago, before I ever heard of this Larry Correia guy. Disputes happened a lot. That’s okay; I’d actually get worried if everyone was happy about the nominees.
The current dispute over the Hugo Awards boils down to this: books should be judged on their own merits, and good writing rather than ideology should win out. Any push for a book based on its politics, or the politics of its author, is to be treated with suspicion or even outright rejection.
The most interesting thing about this dispute is that both sides are saying the same thing. Continue reading