(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe

[DAVID STOCKHOFF]

This discussion reminds me of conversations I've had about various kinds of market intervention: in markets, in politics, in culture, etc. 
The "liberals" of SF fandom seem to me to represent a free-ish market, in that fans who feel more strongly are more likely to vote than people who feel less strongly, but it's still one-person, one-vote. It's a more ideological, less sales-marketing-oriented "market" than the sales market itself. (Oddly, women like reading about great female characters, and so do men, and so on.)
What the Puppies are doing, despite their supposed conservatism, is intervening in this marketplace, because they believe it has been distorted and manipulated. So their response is to distort and manipulate it. Naturally. And naturally they don't see it that way. 


     On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:41 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
   
 

 To call the Hugos "politicized" is to miss the point: it is the Puppies who have truly politicized them, who have put up a slate with a political agenda. To say that they were slanted liberal before is not exactly untrue, but ignores the fact that fandom tends to slant liberal (as is likely when dealing with people who look toward the future rather than the past), and ignores, among other things, the nomination of Correia's own book just last year. Likewise to say that "good ol' space opera" isn't being nominated ignores the space opera of people like Ann Leckie, Lois McMaster Bujold, and so on - the Puppies probably *do* ignore them because they're gurlz in the boiz klubhouse. 
The Hugos have a long history of nominating a wide variety of -- admittedly, English language -- sf/f, and *that* is what the Puppies have attacked.
/rant I now return you to your previously scheduled discussion of Gene Wolfe.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern at gwern.net> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:
> They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's the
> perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree. See
> arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's
> never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be
> their most damning evidence. So what gives?

I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a
New Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It
doesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos
and associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious
cyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)
only really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.

R.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until
his unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene
has still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a
hard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate
Freedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_
*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare
the level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,
say, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through
all of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there
has been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of "Suzanne
Delage" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)
_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but
also finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.

Hence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative
since they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see
minimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the
relevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net




-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net


 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20150429/4d091691/attachment-0002.htm>