Now, I have no standing to tell Tor Books how it should run its business or interact with its customers. But I do find the difference between the two rival schools of thought on the matter to be pretty astonishing when you compare and contrast them. One of our customers recently sent us this note
An unsolicited endorsement….
Recently I took advantage of a “buy vol 1 and get vol 2 free” offer from Castalia House on a Friday. Saturday I opened my email to see two links to the books.
I clicked vol 1 and it downloaded, I clicked vol 2 and got the message “you have reached your download limit”..
I sent an email asking for the link to be reset, I expected to hear a reply on Monday.
But instead (on a Saturday), I received an email apologizing and asking me about the format I needed. I replied and within a few minutes received an email with vol 2 attached. (on a Saturday!)
That is the definition of good customer service.
I fear, however, that we completely failed to call him a neo-nazi or an unrepentant racist homophobe at any point in the process. Now, every company has different ideas about how to best interact with their customers, and I expect there is probably something to be said for hurling vituperative insults at people you would like to buy things from you. Precisely what that might be, I have no idea, but then, we’re relatively new to the publishing game. I know we have a lot to learn.
I guess I’m just a techno-caveman. I don’t understand these newfangled means of “marketing”, all this flashy “social media”, all these “tweets” and “follows” and “likes”.
Is it a sort of Soup Nazi spin? You know, “no books for you!” Does anyone know of any market research indicating precisely what insults tend to be most effective in improving brand loyalty?
And would “buy our bad-to-reprehensible books, racist neo-nazi homophobes!” be a good place to start?
Normally I try to improve my writing by reading lots of good quality writing, hoping that will come out in my own. But I’m wondering if any sort of list of bad, “don’t do this” examples (I mean in terms of writing quality, not ideological leanings) would come easily to mind for you that would be instructive for those of us who want to improve our own writing.
It would be very helpful, for me at least, to then see if any of those bad writing habits or tendencies reveal themselves in my own work, and train myself out of them.
I go back to the four elements of a book: CSSC. Characters, Story, Style, and Concepts. In decreasing order of importance, those are the most important elements.
Characters come first. The huge success of Rowling, Tolkien, Lewis, and Cooper stem from their heightened ability to create characters about whom we care. Therefore, the first example of what not to do should be those that suffer from poor characterization.
Go ahead, name three.
Story is the second most important element. You can have a pretty good book where the story makes no sense, so long as the characters are of sufficient interest. An even worse book would have poor characters and a generic or nonexistent story.
Name three more.
Style comes third. This is where we tend to most notably part company with the Pink SF crowd. They put style first, except when they put message above that. (Note: I did not say concept, but message. The latter is a subset of the former.) But if you’ve got poor characters, a generic or nonexistent story, and bad style, now it’s getting pretty grim.
And three more.
Concept includes everything from Very Important Message to worldbuilding. And if you’ve got poor characters, a generic or nonexistent story, bad style, and a Very Important Message in a generic world, you’re approaching the nadir, which in my opinion is best represented by Mercedes Lackey.
Read Arrows of the Queen if you want to know how best not to do it.
Talia, a young runaway, is made a herald at the royal court after she rescues one of the legendary Companions. When she uncovers a plot to seize the throne, Talia must use her empathic powers to save the queen.
A new reader has a boatload of questions. This is merely the first half. I’ll address the other half later this week:
First time e-mail correspondent here, as well as a reader of your blog for about a month-and-a-half now. My religious beliefs could best be described as “conflicted”, or “confused”, or “I’m not even 100% sure what I believe but I’m trying to find out”. My political ideologies and other personal beliefs are in a similar state of flux, and thus, all four of my questions are asked mostly out of curiosity, partly because I know you’ll give a good answer (Should you choose to respond), and partly because you (unlike quite a few people) cite your sources.
Oh, and I read The Irrational Atheist from front to back. Twice. Once when I was 14, the old man gave me TIA to read, because that was when I was really asking the hard questions about my childhood faith and wondering whether or not the godless teenagers that went to high school with me had a point or not, but it was a bit intellectually above me and I didn’t really absorb the arguments presented all that well. Now, at the tender age of 20, having read the book a second time, I can say with absolute confidence: They really, really didn’t. And having seen what passes for the intellectual atheist, I can also say with the same confidence: Whatever my religious beliefs turn out to be in the future, I certainly never want to turn out like THAT.
1. Given the rather thorny issue of homosexuality, this isn’t really one question but several related ones. I’ve read your beliefs that homosexuality is an evil, but not really much beyond that. (Others have claimed that you said it’s a birth defect, but I’m aware that’s not the case. I recognize a media smear campaign when I see one) So, I have a few questions to pin down exactly what you think about it:
a) Do you believe all evils are inherently equal? b) Do you feel that homosexuality equals coveting your neighbor’s possessions equals adultery equals murder? c)Is there a set hierarchy? d)Or does God judge such things on a case by case basis, acting in the role of The Universal Judge?
e)Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? The act itself clearly is, but the desire as well? Many gay people that I’ve personally spoken to claim they would have “opted out” if they had been given a choice in the matter, not necessarily out of any love for Jesus Christ (Although there are those that do), but a desire to be normal and get through the day unmolested. f) If the desire is not a choice, if it is something that is designated at birth, then how does this relate to the Christian view of homosexuality, which seems to view it as an active choice that the perpetrator can choose to stop doing at any time?
g) Do you know of any testimonial or historical evidence that indicates that a person who is gay can become straight by means of conversion, prayer, or worship of the Christian God? I am aware of testimony that such prayer and worship that has cured diseases, addictions, psychological issues, ended crippling pain, and even cured physical birth defects like limps or both legs being different lengths. Wouldn’t it then follow, that such a God would be capable of ending a homosexual desire to those who asked? Wouldn’t it then follow that such a God would WANT to do so, to remove evil desires from those who wish to have them removed?
h) Hypothetically speaking, if you had turned out to have a primarily (or even exclusive) male sexual preference, how do you believe this would have affected your belief and worship of Jesus Christ? i) Do you think you would attempt to be chaste? j) Would you still denounce the behavior as evil? k) Would you even renounce your worship of God altogether?
I have no idea what the young man’s reason for asking these questions might be and I don’t see any need for anyone to play any guessing games in that regard. After all, it could be anything from an inexplicable craving for Erasure to an overreliance on the philosophy of Macklemore. I will admit that I found it rather amusing to see how some reacted so badly to the “birth defect” comment, considering that it is the preferred alternative explanation to abnormal sexual orientation being a matter of choice. Any abnormality that renders a living being considerably less fit by virtue of presenting a reproductive handicap, be it physical or psychological, must be regarded as a material defect by anyone who subscribes to TENS, and if we are to believe that homosexuality is determined in the prenatal state, then “birth defect” is exactly what gay activists have been proclaiming homosexuality to be for decades. By literal definition from Wikipedia: “Congenital disorder, also known as congenital disease or birth defect, is a condition existing at or before birth regardless of cause.”
I’d think people would be more considerably concerned that one could also make an alarmingly strong case for high cognitive capacity being a congenital disorder in modern society on this basis, but then, we mustn’t deny the rainbow crowd their dramatics.
a) No. All evils are not equal, either in terms of their consequences or the way in which we are informed God regards them. b) No. In addition to the 10 Commandments being specified, Jesus explained that one Commandment was the most important one. c) There does not appear to be a strictly ordered A-Z hierarchy. d) Yes, as we are told God knows and judges what is in a man’s heart.
e) I believe all actions are choices, though not necessarily conscious and definitely not always rational. And I believe some inclinations are innate. But it’s not a binary situation, as our choices lead to consequential inclinations we would not possess had we made different choices. It’s quite clear, if you happen to know any homosexuals, that some come to their orientation very naturally, others choose it for a variety of reasons, and still others have it thrust upon them by others.
f) This is a misunderstanding of the Christian perspective. We all have evil inclinations. We all experience temptation. What tempts you does not tempt me, and vice-versa. But we are all responsible for resisting whatever temptations happen to call to us.
g) Yes, I have known people who no longer act on their homosexual inclinations and some who say they are no longer troubled by them. Not all of them are Christian, as it happens. I believe in a tantiscient God who can do whatever He decides to do. But we live on the Silent Planet, in a world that He does not rule, a world that is riddled with evil, and so it should be no surprise that evils and misfortunes continue to be inflicted upon us by its ruling power. That’s why we ask, why we pray, that His will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven, because for the most part it is not being done that way right now on Earth. (Note to Team Calvin: not now.) If it was, we wouldn’t need to ask for it.
h) Very little, considering that I was a hedonistic pagan agnostic with a Porsche and a record contract. Temptation is temptation. i) Yes. j) Yes. There are plenty of things that I would very much like to do that I have no problem describing as evil and rejecting on that basis. k) No chance.
There is a reason that Christianity is described as the hard and narrow path. It’s not easy. It’s not supposed to be easy. Don’t listen to the idiots who claim that Jesus Christ will solve all your problems and make you rich and cure your hangnails if you only say the magic words. They’re just scam artists trying to sell you something. Christianity isn’t Candyland, it is a very dark and terrible vision of a very scary place, of a universe that isn’t merely indifferent to you, but is actively seeking to destroy you, body and soul.
And if that doesn’t better reflect the reality we observe around us than every other philosophical and religious creed you’ve ever encountered, then I have to very seriously question whether you are paying attention to the world around you. To reject that reality because you really, really, really want to nail the hot little brunette in the miniskirt who is making eyes at you isn’t even wrong, it’s category error.
As for the issues of God’s inclination and ability to address orientational temptation, I think you would be much better off listening to this man on the subject than to me:
UPDATE: We’ve hit the 100 registrants max, so we won’t need anymore volunteers.
This is the test of Brainstorm Alpha After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
This is going to be a short test of the system I’m considering. If you want to help out by seeing if it works, register and we’ll give it a shot. Please keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing with the software.
In totally unrelated news, a member of the Ilk is looking for a church near Chicago. If you have any suggestions, comment below.
“Hoped I’d found a good church very close to my location (Lemont IL). Went yesterday, on Mother’s Day. The pastor began by focusing on women. Fine, a “topical theme”, there’s no shortage of good topics.
But, you can guess how things went. Had he pointed out any responsibility of a Christian lady, even one, I’d not be writing you. Instead, after a few Scriptural verses, he turned gleefully to some book titled “Christ Feminist”. And so on ad nauseum.”
Several people seem to very much want to explore the limits of sanity. Minion #38 painstakingly inscribed the following note on a bone that was left outside my chambers this morning.
In one of your replies to a commenter on today’s VP post entitled “Why kids hate nerds,” you mentioned that you dial down a lot of your thoughts before presenting them on your blogs, and that they would be more interesting if you could openly brainstorm. As a VFM and daily reader of both VP and AG, I couldn’t agree more. I rarely comment on your blogs, but I find your theories to be some of the most thought provoking ideas I’ve ever read. I’d love to hear more. Would you ever consider sharing more of your “crazy theories and random notions” somewhere other than on your blogs without as much of the dialing down required for a wider audience? Maybe via a members only message board, youtube channel, voice/chat server, or really any medium of your choosing?
I don’t object to the idea in principle, but I’m slightly reluctant to dabble in such things because I always want to provide unquestioned value for money. I have no problem with capitalism, obviously, but as should be obvious from the lack of advertising and tip jars and so forth, I’m not into the Patreon model either. You guys have been absolutely superb about supporting Castalia House for over a year now, and not only do I appreciate that, I’m perfectly aware that no well of goodwill is endless.
That being said, I also know that I would have leaped at the chance to take part in something like what is being suggested were the individual at the center someone like Umberto Eco. My interviews with him, John Julius Norwich, and Steve Keen have been some of the intellectual high points of my life.
My thought is that what might be interesting as well as useful would be a monthly members-only Skypecast, with a transcript that would be sent out to members afterward. Members could suggest topics and when possible, the topics would be listed ahead of time so that those interested could sign up and take part. I imagine it could be done for not much more than the price of a movie, although it might be desirable to not make it so inexpensive that too many people would take part. Memberships would be purchased through Castalia House, either one-time or annual with a discount.
Anyhow, if it’s of interest, feel free to throw out your own ideas here. I’m not saying that anything will be done at all because I am extremely busy. But given the amount of collective brainpower here, it wouldn’t be surprising if the concept proved to be worthwhile. The main questions, to my mind, are the number of members, the price of membership, and the frequency. The maximum number of Skype video is 10, and 25 for voice, while GoToMeeting Plus permits up to 100 video participants.
GJ calls for more of that of which there is not very much to give:
I’m a regular reader of your blog. As I’m not living in the West I’m not participating in Gamergate or conflicts with SJWs so I make the following observations from a distant perspective.
Just as you used not to understand Gammas well, it seems to me that you’re overestimating the initiative of the average person who is willing to fight on your side. You’ve made more than one posts encouraging readers that they too can be leaders in Gamergate. But your sociosexual theory indicates that because most people are followers (ie not Alphas, Betas, or Sigmas but Deltas) they are hardly going to do anything of their own initiative, rather follow an example set by someone they consider as a leader. As an illustration, a Sigma like yourself would hardly care about getting a Minion badge (except maybe for the purpose of demonstration of mass numbers), but many of your readers do, which implies that they still seek a hierarchy within which to operate.
This means that even in the decentralised 4GW nature of the fight firm leadership is still needed. The Hugo nominations were a great way to demonstrate numbers on your side and intimidate the opponent. But if you want the numbers of your supportive readers to be exerted on the Twitter arena, for example, it would appear that regular reminders, along with a more explicit and emphatic instructions (ie. more so than what you’ve already posted).
And here Rabid Puppies is about as much “leadership” as I can handle without feeling the need to enter a Tibetan monastery and spend the next seven years in mystic contemplation.
That was my favorite thing about the 4GW concept, the way in which it obviated the need for leadership. But GJ is probably right, there is a distinction between a lack of centralization and a lack of leadership. Fortunately, I have reason to know that more of you are taking the initiative in various ways; the Minion badges themselves are an example of this as they weren’t my idea or my creation.
Malwyn is still in a foul temper, but she did get another 100 of them out and the outflow is finally exceeding the incoming number of requests. So 130 down, another 180 or so to go.
All that being said, I am very proud of the Dread Ilk and Rabid Puppies. It may be a small-scale action on a tertiary front, but nevertheless, this has been one of the most effective actions against the SJWs in Western culture in decades.
Puff the Magic Dragon was talking very brave until it was suggested that he debate me himself.
Go ahead and debate Vox yourself, puff. If he’s the soft target you think he is, you should really be able to make him look foolish.
Debate what? What are his actual positions? That’s what this is all about. He puffs himself up into a controversial figure on the internet and when someone calls him out on it, you find out it was all smoke and mirrors. Is that supposed to be impressive? These issues aren’t as cut and dried as you people seem to think they are, and apparently neither does Vox. You guys have bought into the persona as much as those “rabbits” have.
Now, since Puff admitted that he is insufficiently knowledgeable to debate me on an economic subject, we will avoid economics despite it being one of my specialties. So, here are five actual positions that I offer Puff the Magic Dragon to debate me on. If he runs like Myers, Martin, Scalzi, and others, we will all know the value of his opinion.
That One Bright Start to Guide Them is a great book and The Wasp Factory is a dreadful one. Oh, wait, sorry, I agreed to debate that with Phil Sandifier on a left-wing SF podcast. Let’s start over.
That there are a series of continental-scale wars on the medium-term horizon that will be vicious, unconventional, and are likely to result in severe racial and national separatism.
That John Scalzi is a fraud.
That “The American Tolkien” is not a credible title for George R.R. Martin.
That “marital rape” is a logical, historical, and legal contradiction in terms.
That all modern human beings are not genetically equal.
That seems like a nice broad range of subjects from which to choose. I thought it was interesting to learn that for some people, the Pakman interview was informative in helping them understand my problem communicating with people:
For the record, Vox was correct about the common law. He did seem caught off guard about the fact that rape, even within marriage, is against the law in most states if not all. Pakman tried to use this as a “GOTCHA!” moment, and Vox looked confused, even though his point was not invalidated and his argument was still correct. The average person would come across thinking Vox was wrong, though.
This was actually the first time I really made sense of how Vox’s mind works. As an earlier commenter said, Vox is so far ahead that it seems to stump him that someone isn’t making the same logical jumps as quickly as he does — having to explain every step is very annoying.
It’s not always annoying (although it often is) but it is usually confusing. This is especially true when I am dealing with someone new because I have no idea at what point their ability to follow the train of logic is going to fail without warning. I was very confused when Pakman brought up US law in a bizarre attempt to rebut my reference to the historical Common Law. That’s rather like pointing out that the US lost in Vietnam to rebut a claim that the US invaded Normandy in World War II.
Where does one even go with that? Try to give him a basic primer on the historical basis for US law? Tell him that he’s an ignorant MPAI member and leave it at that? The best thing would have been to point out that his reference to US law was irrelevant and to observe that the post to which he referred was written in response to an Indian court upholding section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, except I didn’t recall that at the time because I had no idea I was going to be asked about a short three-paragraph blog post from over a year ago.
Rhetorically speaking, I suppose the best thing to do if I’m concerned about my self-image is to say “so what” and unmask the fact that he can’t follow the train of thought. But I try to be a polite guest. Perhaps I will need to rethink that policy if the host is an ambush artist; virtually none of the interviews I’d given in the past attempted to play gotcha without giving me fair warning about what the subjects would be beforehand.
I highlighted the irrelevance of his appeal to US law by reminding him that I don’t live in the USA. Which I have no doubt sounded like a non sequitur to many, only the non sequitur was Pakman’s. But I can’t help it if a lot of people didn’t understand that, because I can’t simultaneously fill in the gaps in their knowledge and defend myself against a dishonest, time-limited ambush at the same time.
It’s always fascinating how some people have an amazing ability to detect racism no matter how clearly the absence of racism by literally every definition is explained to them. From a discussion on Eric Flint’s blog:
I may as well go all-in here: In comments above Vox Day has repeatedly been called a “racist,” perhaps dozens of times. Have any of you ASKED him what his position is on racial differences? Have any of you READ what he has to say about racial differences? No? Then those of you who call him “racist” are simply a mob. In an attempt to educate, here is what Mr. Day wrote recently in a comment on Brad Torgersen’s blog; it was in response to the following statement by someone else (not Brad): “Vox Day believes that white people and Asians (and clearly Hispanics, since Beale is one, at least in part) are superior to black people, and he believes this inferiority of blacks is innate, genetic.”
Here is what Mr. Day wrote in response:
“Correction: I don’t have any reason to believe any one human population sub-group is intrinsically superior to any other population sub-group. That being said, both science and logic quite clearly indicate that no two population sub-groups are identical, and therefore every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric. “It makes no more difference that you like or dislike this fact than if you disapprove of the speed of light or the rate of Earth gravity. “I assert that an unborn female black child with a missing chromosome and an inclination to homosexuality is equal in human value and human dignity and unalienable, God-given rights to a straight white male in the prime of his life and a +4 SD IQ. How many of my dishonest critics will do the same? “That doesn’t mean that I think it is wise to ask that particular child, when she is grown, to design the next plane on which I intend to fly. Or even to work in the air traffic control tower. “I deal in reality as determined by history, science, and logic. And I care no more about what an equalitarian fantasist thinks about me or anything else than I do about the mentally deranged babbling in the psych ward. The world is as it is, not as we might wish it to be. If you can’t understand that, then I am among the least of your problems.”
So query: Do the above statements validate the multiple assertions above that Mr. Day is a “racist”? (Disclaimer: I’ve never met the man, nor talked to him; I have exchanged perhaps a couple of emails when I challenged a statement he made. But I do despise mindless online mobs screaming “racist!”) Reply
Gav says: April 21, 2015 at 10:39 AM
A moment’s thought shows that his premise is completely ridiculous. Choose people A, B, C such that A & C are from one group and B from another, but A is taller than B is taller than C. So now I’ve got a metric (height) where group 1 is both superior and inferior to group 2 on the height metric. (For a real-life example, choose Robert Wadlow and his father for A & C, and Michael Jordan for B).
You have to be not only racist but also stupid to believe that “every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric.”
Mike says: April 21, 2015 at 12:21 PM
This is a result of false equivocation between individuals and categories. Yes, the mean of the heights of all adult men if taller than the mean of the heights of all adult women, but that doesn’t mean all men are taller than all women.
It ends up being a big problem in the scientific study of people. Some people have political/personal reasons to try to see one group as better than another, while other people have similar reasons to try to see no groups as being any different from each other. Both camps accuse the other side of being unscientific and ignoring the data.
Really there is no conflict between the idea that one group may, on average, have a measurable difference than another group, and also the idea that the variance of individuals withing the groups may be much larger than the difference between the groups. But due to confirmation bias, people tend to ignore whatever part of that equation it is convenient for them to ignore. Reply Eric Flint says: April 21, 2015 at 12:33 PM
The problem goes deeper than that, because there’s an intrinsic bias in the categories someone chooses in the first place. For instance, if you choose to compare “the race of whites” to “the race of blacks” you are assuming not only that such races exist but that they are the proper basis for comparison. But why should that be true? Due to the way the human race evolved, there is more genetic variation among Africans than there is between any given group of Africans and any non-African segment of humanity. The reason people think all Africans belong to the same “race” is because they share certain literally superficial features: skin color, hair and some facial features. But why should those criteria be used as the basis to define a “race” in the first place? Why not, for instance, choose the average distribution of blood types? In which case you wind up with a “racial map” of humanity that is completely different from a “racial map” drawn according to skin color, hair and facial features.
My point is that there is an inherent bias in the way the question is posed in the first place, which makes any answer to the question automatically questionable. What defines a “racist” in the first place, intellectually speaking, is the firm conviction that “races” as defined sociologically have an actual biological reality which is more basic than any other possible differentiation. For which there is not a shred of actual evidence. It is a faith-based conviction. That’s a polite say of saying it’s just bigotry. Reply Mike says: April 21, 2015 at 1:59 PM
Yes, I agree. There very definitely are biological races, if you define that as subsets of the overall human gene pool where certain collections of genes are much more prevalent than they are in the general population. But there is so much nonsense and xenophobia and misunderstanding involved that it’s a real nightmare to try to approach these questions without stepping on any land mines.
I recommend a really interesting book called “The Sports Gene” that gives some great examples of how this can be done properly (IMO), and also some examples of where it has been done very much improperly. Reply 335522 says: April 21, 2015 at 2:13 PM
With all due respect to all of you, I believe you’re missing the point. Please read the third paragraph by Vox Day that begins “I assert that an unborn female black child….” And then answer the question that I posed at the end, please (it being notable that not one of the responses addresses it).
The following quote from that exchange is an astonishing assertion that clearly demonstrates both the intellectual inferiority as well as the logical incapacity of the SJWs:
“You have to be not only racist but also stupid to believe that “every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric.”
Quite to the contrary, you have to be utterly stupid and wholly irrational to deny that assertion, or else possess hitherto-unknown evidence demonstrating that every human population sub-group is absolutely and entirely equal across the board. Every single group has an average, a mean, and a median, regardless of the metric chosen. None of those three statistics are likely to be precisely equal to the average, the mean, and the media of any other group.
At no point have I EVER claimed, suggested, implied, hinted, or intimated that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of one human population group is superior to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of another one. And anyone who claims that I ever have is either lying or simply too dim to bother even attempting to talk down to.
The idea that “races” don’t exist is simply antiscientific dogma. They might as well deny that “species” and “groups” exist while they’re at it.
A new reader wonders where the best place to start reading my fiction is:
I’ve been enjoying your blog, and wanted to know – what would be the best book of yours for a new reader to start with? I’m a big sci-fi fan, but haven’t actually read your fiction yet. If it matters, my tastes are a bit older – Orson Scott Card, William Gibson, Arthur C. Clarke, etc. Terry Brooks and Tolkien when it comes to fantasy. Might be good to have a “new reader” link.
My first instinct is to say QM: AMP for those who lean SF and AMB, followed by ATOB, for those who lean fantasy. But I also think the author is among the least reliable authorities in this regard, so I’ll leave it up to the Ilk to sort it out in the comments. If you all can reach a consensus, I’ll post it here and create a New Reader link in the sidebar.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume no one thinks that either REBEL MOON or THE RETURN OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION is the optimal starting point.
And on the Sad Puppy front, Mad Genius Dave Freer just asks the question that I did about the Toad of (formerly) Tor, only he asks it about the Guardian as well.
The chances of a ‘hit’ piece, intended to denigrate, on an American populist author with little impact on his British scene, in a publication that tends to Ahrt, are slim. The chance of it happening the very day that the Hugo Nomination shortlist is released, targeting an audience who might possibly go to LonCon, but probably would not have heard of Larry Correia? In other words, to poison minds well before they saw their voter packets…
The chance that this happened purely by accident – about the same as a fully armed nuclear missile turning into a Sperm whale a few seconds before impact.
Let’s get to a second fact. Just the facts. A year later, TNH launched a furious tirade on her blog, ‘Making Light’… attacking the Sad Puppies for sweeping the Hugo Noms. Threatening to bring down retribution for being nominated. Now coming from such a powerful person in Traditional Publishing, and one with… shall we say wide influence (the links are… telling) this is fairly serious bullying. Abuse of power.
But the important thing is WHEN IT HAPPENED.
It happened BEFORE the embargo was lifted.
These facts lead inexorably to a question so simple and so obvious I can’t see how anyone can miss it asking it:
HOW DID DAMIAN WALTER AND TERESA NIELSEN HAYDEN KNOW LARRY AND THE SAD PUPPIES HAD BEEN NOMINATED WHEN IT WAS EMBARGOED?
I think this pair of tweets from 2013 will explain a lot. Notice the connection between David Barnett, John Scalzi, and Damien Walter. And then notice who publishes David Barnett. Still dubious about a quiet circle of conspiracy centered around Tor Books?
JD has a suggestion which makes superficial sense, although I tend to doubt it will accomplish anything given the inability of rhetorical minds to change based on information:
I got an idea reading your latest post about George R. R. Martin baiting the hook. Martin just reiterates the same litany of labels/misrepresentations that people love to affix to you but I seriously doubt he has spent any time on your blog or twitter feed looking for the relevant posts and quotes to read for himself- so maybe it would be useful to put them all together in one convenient place for all to read. I am suggesting you put together a FAQ relating to Sad/Rabid Puppies and yourself in general that you put front and center on your blog. I think it could serve a variety of purposes. (It would be a fun little museum of SJW’s lies and misrepresentations about you and would be more fun to browse than a freak show at the circus.)
I have spent a fair amount of time lately around the web and social media reading what your detractors say about you and Sad/Rabid puppies. Whether it is blog, Reddit, Twitter, etc., they trot out the same accusations: “he said black people are savages, he thinks it’s okay to throw acid in women’s faces, he got kicked out of the SFWA because he used the SFWA communication channels to spread racism, he is a white-supremacist, he is a Christian dominionist, he has said that he hates women, he is trying to destroy the Hugos, he gamed the Hugos…”
I know you have addressed these kinds of things as you have encountered them, but I think it would be helpful to put them all in one place, especially now that the mainstream media is taking notice of the Hugo situation. Quote the SJW’s accusation, link to the relevant blog entries if applicable, define yourself in your own words, and most importantly- make people accountable for twisting your words and misrepresenting you. I’m sure the Ilk wouldn’t mind helping you collect and catalogue the slanders against you.
As I said, I’m skeptical, but it can’t hurt. To address the specific accusations:
I did not say black people are savages. I said one black individual, N.K. Jemisin, was a half-savage. I was wrong. She is, we are reliably informed by Ms Jemisin herself, a full savage. In addition to falsely claiming that I am “a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole”, the charming Ms Jemisin has also claimed “a) that Heinlein was racist as *fuck*, and b) most of science fiction fandom was too.” It’s mildly amusing to see science fiction fandom fall all over itself to call me racist in defense of the woman who has openly, and repeatedly, declared that they are racists.
I do not think it is okay to throw acid in women’s faces for any reason. I do think the Taliban are rational and that their policy of mutilating and murdering those who threaten their way of life reflects their objectives and their ruthlessness rather than an inability to think rationally. The fact that they have successively defeated the Red Army and NATO in Afghanistan tends to support my case.
I was not kicked out of SFWA for any reason. The SFWA Board voted to expel me, but the membership never followed suit as required by the bylaws at the time. And no reason was given by the SFWA Board for its vote. The real reason was that Patrick Nielsen Hayden and John Scalzi refused to pay their dues to SFWA and presented the board with choice between me and a Senior Editor at Tor Books as well as its three-time former president.
I am not a white supremacist. I am a Native American with considerable Mexican heritage. Mexican Revolutionary heritage to be precise. I am not a supremacist of any kind, but I would be better described as an East Asian supremacist. I tend to prefer Western European culture, specifically Italian culture, but I am an East Asian Studies major, I lived and studied in Japan, and I still speak some Japanese.
I could not unreasonably be described as a small-d Christian dominionist, but I am more accurately described as a Western Civilizationist. I believe that any civilized Western society will be a Christian one or it will cease to be civilized… if it manages to survive at all. The explosion of Christianity throughout Asia versus Western postchristianity is one reason I think the future favors Asian civilization in the long term. I think Europe is in the process of going back to being the historical sideshow it was prior to the 1500s.
I am not trying to destroy the Hugo Awards. I am indifferent to their fate.
I did not game the 2014 Hugo Awards. After being falsely accused of doing so by numerous parties, I decided to demonstrate the absurdity of the accusation by gaming the 2015 Awards. I trust my innocence with regards to the 2014 Awards is now clear and I look forward to receiving apologies from those who falsely accused me.
Anything else? I tend to doubt knowing the relevant facts will affect many opinions, for the obvious reason that if you are inclined to write someone off completely because you heard they once called someone a “half-savage”, you are providing a very strong indication that your mind is limited to the rhetorical level.
Indeed, the fact that the same ungrammatical excerpt chopped out of the middle of a sentence keeps being trotted out again and again should alert the dialectical mind to the probability that there simply isn’t very much, if any, there there. The complete sentence, which for obvious reasons is almost never quoted, much less quoted in context, is this:
“Being an educated, but ignorant half-savage, with little more understanding of what it took to build a new literature by “a bunch of beardy old middle-class middle-American guys” than an illiterate Igbotu tribesman has of how to build a jet engine, Jemisin clearly does not understand that her dishonest call for “reconciliation” and even more diversity within SF/F is tantamount to a call for its decline into irrelevance.”
But it is entirely obvious that we’re not dealing with dialectical minds capable of logic, we’re dealing with rhetorical minds that are swayed solely by emotion. Such minds can be changed, but not by facts and reason. The more successful we are, and the more staunchly we stand, the more of them that will come over to our side for a whole host of “reasons” that will neither make sense to us nor withstand logical scrutiny.
What does a right-wing fundamentalist southern Baptist do that’s “civilized”? – fuck his sister? Sodomize pigs and goats? Masturbate with his own gun? Beat his wife with a copy of the Bible? Dress in white sheets while spewing the kind of racist garbage that Hitler would be proud of? Too bad your mum didn’t abort you. At least you’re an old fuck who will die before me, so I can laugh over how few people come to your funeral.
