Another Quasi-Update from GRRM (FEB 2021)

[Platypus]

On Feb 2, 2021, GRRM posted a long, sad, grim post on his NAB entitled "Reflections on a Bad Year". There is a tone of bitterness. It does, however contain a sort of progress update on WINDS, which you may count as good or bad news, depending on how you look at things.

"I wrote hundreds and hundreds of pages of THE WINDS OF WINTER in 2020". This is "the best year I've had on WOW since I began it." This is maybe because of the "isolation", or maybe just "on a roll". But "I still have hundreds of pages to write to bring the novel to a satisfactory conclusion". That's what 2021 is for, "I hope. But no promises, for fear that "assholes" will get their hopes up and "crucify" GRRM.

Well I don't want to get anyone's hopes up, for fear that they will crucify GRRM. So I make a bare minimum estimate of his progress so as not to be disappointed. If it is wrong, we can all be pleasantly surprised.

Let's take the roughly 200 confirmed pages left over from ADWD (which includes the 168 his publisher received in 2013), add 400 pages ("hundreds and hundreds" must mean at least 400, yes?). So let's say he has at least 600 pages written and 1100 (eleven "hundreds") to go before he can reach a satisfactory conclusion, all of which he "hopes" he will achieve in 2021.

Is that TOO pessimistic? Am I carrying things too far? I'm certainly willing to make adjustments, if any words from GRRM can be taken as literally indicating he has written more than this at any time.

There was a rumor, on reddit, some years ago, from a poster who claimed to have family in publishing, that GRRM had submitted in 2016 an 800-page partial ms to his publisher. I half-believed this rumor at the time, only because it was far less than wishful thinking at the time would have made it. Those reporting the rumor tried to save themselves from the bad news by speculating that the 800 pages was in addition to the 200 left over from TWOW and the 168 pages previously submitted to his publisher, for a grand total of 1,168. But when GRRM submits a "partial" it includes everything so far.

I'm not sure I believe the rumor any more. Maybe it was a "partial" for "FIRE AND BLOOD. What seemed like bad news at the time, seems too-good-to-be-true today. But, in an effort not to be too pessimistic, I will pretend to believe it for the sake of argument, and examine the implications. This might imply that GRRM now has 800+400 = 1200 pages written. Perhaps anticipates he must write 500 or 700 or 900 more (and then edit down) in order to bring the novel to a satisfactory conclusion.

Still too pessimistic? The above still assumes he made no progress at all in 2017, 2018 and 2019. But I'm aware of no evidence that he has. I am now, at least, reasonably certain that he made no meaningful progress in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 while he was trying to finish the WORLD BOOK. As for 217 and 2018, the other years, maybe he was too busy finishing FIRE AND BLOOD.

But I'm fairly confident that "I hope" is code for "never gonna happen", and that we won't see TWOW in 2021. Such "hope" statements go hand in hand with his hopes that his manuscript will be finished for him by magical elves, and his hope that science will solve human mortality. I retain a distant hope that we may see TWOW some day, but it won't be 2021.

Given the tone of his post, I cannot believe he is nearly as close to being done as he was with ADWD at the end of 2010, when he submitted a 1417 page manuscript to his publisher, only to write about 280 more before bumping some chapters to TWOW and publishing in July 2011.

Note that GRRM did not speak (as in prior years when he hinted at a vague target of 1500 pages) of any specific target page count, but merely of a satisfactory conclusion. And how many pages are necessary to reach a satisfactory (interim) conclusion? I can easily believe that 3000 pages might be required, and still leave room for another volume of equal size to come. But dare I fantasize that that's what is really going on? That GRRM now has 2500 pages written and thinks he needs to write another 500? I can't see it. If things were going that well, we'd have more hints of it from GRRM, unless his character has wholly changed in recent years. Perhaps, again, I should be a pessimist now lowered his ambitions and is aiming for 1000 pages. That way, I won't be disappointed but pleasantly surprised.

He's still going on about "monkeys on his back". No specifics, but he discusses it further in a later blog post. I guess he just keeps inviting them on. I'm not judging, but it must be true.

May God bless GRRM, and grant him long life and health. But I think GRRM ought to find religion, thank God for the years God has given him, pray for a few years or decades more, look forward to a blessed ressurrection in the Kingdom, and thank his fans for his success and all the blessings life has bestowed upon him. It might be better than going out cursing his fans for still caring, and howling "oh untimely death" like a Shakespeare villain, and fantasizing about being the first to receive the soon-to-be-invented immortality tech. Nor do I approve of his bitterness at the "assholes" who get their hopes up too high after a 10-year wait. If he really feels that way, he should just tell us all how grim the situation really is, and we can all move on.

[Butterbumps@Home]

I will lazily top-post a reply, things are pretty busy over here but hope you are (and anyone else still checking on on the group is) well.

I can't really add anything but sad agreement to this, it seems pretty thoroughly thought-out and I very much doubt we'll see a Winds of Winter in 2021. It will be a pleasant surprise if we do, for sure (I was pleasantly surprised by Fire and Blood, both by the fact that it existed at all and the fact that I found it an enjoyable read) ... but I doubt we will.

Martin seems to be increasingly under fire from the younger generation of speculative fiction readers, the Hugos and Worldcon in general was a clusterfuck, and that's probably embittering him.

And was Winds of Winter meant to be the final book in the series? I mean, I know that was said, but is that still the plan? I'd be just as happy waiting for yet another book, than for the series to end abruptly (or, dare I say, just be a dull copy of the TV series). If we want to hold out for a 3000 page monster of a final book, that's also fine. Optimistic, to be sure, but fine.

Interesting times. Again, hope you're well. Good to see some spark of life on the group.



- B@h
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Platypus]

I'm well enough, Butterbumps. Thanks for the kind thoughts, and the same to you.

On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 7:45:26 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> Martin seems to be increasingly under fire from the younger generation of speculative fiction readers, the Hugos and Worldcon in general was a clusterfuck, and that's probably embittering him.

I'm not sure if it is youth culture, online culture, university culture, corporate culture, or a mix of the 4.

> And was Winds of Winter meant to be the final book in the series? I mean, I know that was said, but is that still the plan?

As far as I know the plan such as it is, is still to finish the series in a pair of 1,500 page books, "The Winds of Winter" followed by "A Dream of Spring". Total 3,000 pages. Given how the tale keeps growing in the telling, I have long suspected that he will need more than that. I'm guessing that when GRRM now speaks of bringing the "novel" to an "satisfactory conclusion", he merely has in mind an appropriate cut-off point between "The Winds of Winter" and the next volume (however many will be needed), that will feel like the completion of some kind of arc, and not merely a string of random episodes. But who knows at this point.

I will take this opportunity for some errata on my previous post, where my thoughts were completely garbled:

> > Perhaps, again, I should be a pessimist now lowered his ambitions and is aiming for 1000 pages.

By "pessimist now lowered" I meant to say "pessimist and guess that he has now lowered".

> > No specifics, but he discusses it further in a later blog post. I guess he just keeps inviting them on.

By "he discusses it", I meant to say "he says he will discuss it". No such blog post has yet appeared
I ignore my many horrid typos where my intended meaning can at least be guessed at.

[Butterbumps@Home]

lauantai 13. helmikuuta 2021 klo 1.39.03 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:

> I'm well enough, Butterbumps. Thanks for the kind thoughts, and the same to you.

Excellent, good to hear and thanks.

> On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 7:45:26 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
>
> > Martin seems to be increasingly under fire from the younger generation of
> > speculative fiction readers, the Hugos and Worldcon in general was a
> > clusterfuck, and that's probably embittering him.
>
> I'm not sure if it is youth culture, online culture, university culture, corporate
> culture, or a mix of the 4.

Probably a mix. Sadly I'm a bit burned out and busy right now although I'd love to analyse this further. I think a lot of it is a sign of the times. Things are progressing and moving on, and the old guard aren't really ready for it (and arguably they don't need to be, they just need to embrace their dwindling relevance along with the rest of the older generations), so they retreat into nostalgia and self-glorification - and the new guard will tend to blow that out of proportion and read hostility or intent behind it rather than a sort of wistful regret. Who knows.

I'm a pretty staunch supporter of Martin and his writing, whatever makes him happy to work on is fine with me and I appreciate what he has given us so far - as I believe you've said before. However, I am also keenly aware that he is an Author Boomer, who got himself nicely set up back in the day when there wasn't much competition and now he can take a shit on a piece of paper and get it published effortlessly. It erodes my respect somewhat.

I'm also aware that today there are more and more people demanding that minorities and otherwise oppressed and underprivileged writers get a seat at the table. That's a good thing. Admittedly, as an independent author I am sitting at an infinite table, so see no difficulty in adding an endless number of voices. It doesn't take readers away from me, because people read multiple things. When it comes to publishing contracts, awards, and stuff like that, I guess there is a finite space and then we need to be more aware that diversity is more of a thing now than it was in Martin's, let alone Heinlein's heyday.

I relish the competition and the new voices. I'm not worried about losing my spot to a formerly silenced or sidelined author. Good stories will out. I get the impression, however, that the Author Boomer generation would prefer to just keep on going without the added competition. Even if they still benefit massively from their established privilege.

> > And was Winds of Winter meant to be the final book in the series?
> > I mean, I know that was said, but is that still the plan?

Ahh, even as I wrote this I knew it was wrong. There were meant to be two more, like you said.

> As far as I know the plan such as it is, is still to finish the series in a pair of 1,500
> page books, "The Winds of Winter" followed by "A Dream of Spring".

Right, this. Exactly.

> Total 3,000 pages. Given how the tale keeps growing in the telling, I have long
> suspected that he will need more than that. I'm guessing that when GRRM now
> speaks of bringing the "novel" to an "satisfactory conclusion", he merely has
> in mind an appropriate cut-off point between "The Winds of Winter" and the
> next volume (however many will be needed), that will feel like the completion
> of some kind of arc, and not merely a string of random episodes. But who
> knows at this point.

Well, I agree with you on this estimation - and I still think I'm fine with it. Of course, the longer we continue with a decade or more between books, and the more books get added to the tail end of the series, the less likely it is that Martin will live to finish them. I won't dwell on that because it's just not nice ... but it is a fact. I don't think he owes us that - if it's his life's work, it's his life's work and we are just fortunate to share it - and naturally I hope that he lives to 110 and finishes the Song of Ice and Fire at a healthy, happy 90-something. Or whatever.

We will never be as disappointed in him as he will be in himself at his failure to finish the story. He either wants to finish it, in which case I sympathise, or he doesn't want to - and there's not a lot we can do about that. Except to make it worse for him.

> > > No specifics, but he discusses it further in a later blog post. I guess he just keeps inviting them on.
>
> By "he discusses it", I meant to say "he says he will discuss it". No such blog
> post has yet appeared

*nod*

> I ignore my many horrid typos where my intended meaning can at least be
> guessed at.

Always the way, no harm done. Just doing my best to ramble down some of my own thoughts.

[Platypus]

On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 5:09:19 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> Probably a mix. Sadly I'm a bit burned out and busy right now although I'd love to analyse this further. I think a lot of it is a sign of the times.

[snip]

Perhaps I should drop the topic, since you are feeling burnt out. But I will venture a few comments, some of which you might half-agree with.

I have not read enough recent Hugo-nominated materials to have informed opinions. I suspect that a political process (even a relatively democratic one) is no way to determine the value of literature. The Hugos were always about hype, politics, and promotion. Its selection process, hyped as a fan-democracy, might more accurately be called a vote-buying system, in which the most organized groups (originally the publishers) would have the most disproportionate influence. The Sad Puppies played by the existing rules by organizing a slate, and as far as I can tell did nothing wrong. But it too was about hype, politics and promotion. Now that the Puppies have been defeated it is still about hype, politics, and promotion. Has the process produced any worthwhile literature recently? I don't know. Maybe you can suggest some worthwhile Hugo winners for me to try..

I'm guessing the Hugo winners were not worth much even in the Good Old Days or the Bad Old Days or whatever you want to call them. DUNE stands out as one winner that may have actually deserved it (but I've only read it once, and long ago). PKD has done good work but his MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE (which is not bad) probably won just because it had Nazis in it.

I am maybe not so staunch a defender of GRRM as you are. Nonetheless, I don't think his stature (such as it is) is in any way diminished because a now-dominant Hugo crowd is trying to tell him he is no longer welcome. We all have our opinions, and the Hugo crowd can have theirs. But maybe GRRM will learn his lesson, and stay away from the whole Hugo mess next year, and write a chapter instead. And if he can't do that, maybe he should just find some better friends to hang out with.

What I remember most from the last Hugo awards ceremony was a woman winning an award, not for anything worthwhile she had written, but for a speech at another awards ceremony where she (figuratively) spit in the face of those giving her the award fully expecting to be cheered on (which she was), Another award winner, in similar spirit, uses her acceptance speech to lash out at English-speaking people generally, and GRRM in particular, for pronouncing her name as one would expect given how it is spelled. Nor does she tell us how she wants her name pronounced, I guess that would spoil the game. Call me old fashioned, but it seems to me that, if you cannot respectfully thank those giving the award you should just turn it down, rather than accepting the honor while biting the hand that feeds you. This does not bode well for the quality of the other award winners that I have not had time or inclination to read.

Do the crowd I saw at the Hugo awards really represent the youth of today? Do they really represent the wave of the future? Or will they be the first against the wall when the next purity purge comes? They turned hard on GRRM, even though he tried had hard to be an ally during the Sad Puppies hullabaloo. Maybe their turn will come next.

But who knows. I cannot claim my finger is on the pulse. But I don't worship Progress and I don't worship History. I am Christian.
Christians do not expect to be popular, nor expect that the tide of History is going to run our way.

And yes, old people should be humble about their relevance, and can have no claim to infallibility. But, on the other hand, they have no particular obligation to surrender to the crowd, nor to lie down and die upon demand. Suicide can be a sin, and so can be the intellectual suicide that manifests as conforming ones views to the shifts of the winds. Maybe old folks can't be sure they know better than young folks, but that does not mean they have to the duty to say anything other than what they actually think. Old folks be dead soon enough anyhow, and History will roll on without them. The young folk will always rebel, and the next generation will always be different, but perhaps the next generation will be better served if the oldsters say what they actually believe rather than what the oldsters think the youngsters want to hear.

Some sports referee once said "I call them as I see them, and I see them as they are." The latter half of this statement was an arrogant boast, but the first half was no more than his duty. An honest referee does not conform his calls to appease to the crowd.

[Butterbumps@Home]

keskiviikko 17. helmikuuta 2021 klo 19.54.53 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:

> > Probably a mix. Sadly I'm a bit burned out and busy right now although
> > I'd love to analyse this further. I think a lot of it is a sign of the times.
>
> [snip]
>
> Perhaps I should drop the topic, since you are feeling burnt out.

Not at all, I'll take a swing!

> But I will venture a few comments, some of which you might
> half-agree with.

Absolutely, and appreciated.

> I have not read enough recent Hugo-nominated materials to have
> informed opinions. I suspect that a political process (even a relatively
> democratic one) is no way to determine the value of literature.

Absolutely agreed. It's a popularity contest, and - especially in the social media age - an exercise in viral campaigning. This is how Chuck Tingle, funny as he is, gets nominated.

> The Hugos were always about hype, politics, and promotion. Its
> selection process, hyped as a fan-democracy, might more accurately
> be called a vote-buying system, in which the most organized groups
> (originally the publishers) would have the most disproportionate
> influence. The Sad Puppies played by the existing rules by organizing
> a slate, and as far as I can tell did nothing wrong. But it too was about
> hype, politics and promotion. Now that the Puppies have been
> defeated it is still about hype, politics, and promotion.

Agreed.

> Has the process produced any worthwhile literature recently? I
> don't know. Maybe you can suggest some worthwhile Hugo
> winners for me to try..

Sadly no, I became disillusioned with the whole process and haven't paid much attention to it. I have a big enough to-read pile as it is. The mob behaviour and the overall social dynamic of it has always been interesting to me, but when you're talking about an award ceremony where they give away shiny statue rocket ships, I want some goddamn sci-fi please.

> I'm guessing the Hugo winners were not worth much even in the
> Good Old Days or the Bad Old Days or whatever you want to call
> them. DUNE stands out as one winner that may have actually
> deserved it (but I've only read it once, and long ago). PKD has
> done good work but his MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE (which is
> not bad) probably won just because it had Nazis in it.

It's consistently touted as the brand that defined Asimov, Clarke, et al. But I fell in love with those stories long before I had the slightest clue the Hugo Awards were a thing. In fact I barely even knew they were a thing before Worldcon came to Helsinki and a bunch of my friends put my books on the ballot. Then I was flattered and fascinated, but ultimately have returned to not really caring. For me, Worldcon is more about walking through a big geeky hall and meeting good people with whom I have a lot in common. I think that feeling ends at the Hugos ceremony hall.

> I am maybe not so staunch a defender of GRRM as you are.
> Nonetheless, I don't think his stature (such as it is) is in any way
> diminished because a now-dominant Hugo crowd is trying to tell
> him he is no longer welcome. We all have our opinions, and the
> Hugo crowd can have theirs. But maybe GRRM will learn his
> lesson, and stay away from the whole Hugo mess next year,
> and write a chapter instead. And if he can't do that, maybe he
> should just find some better friends to hang out with.

I think you're probably right, he's always branded himself a Hugos outsider / loser anyway, and the people who tore him down over this were never fans of his anyway as he represents an establishment they hate. Through no fault of his own - like you say, he's been on their side in the past, and it's not his fault he's a straight white cis man. But it is what it is.

> What I remember most from the last Hugo awards ceremony was
> a woman winning an award, not for anything worthwhile she had
> written, but for a speech at another awards ceremony where she
> (figuratively) spit in the face of those giving her the award fully
> expecting to be cheered on (which she was),

Don't remember that one although there are some odd categories.

> Another award winner, in similar spirit, uses her acceptance
> speech to lash out at English-speaking people generally, and
> GRRM in particular, for pronouncing her name as one would
> expect given how it is spelled. Nor does she tell us how she
> wants her name pronounced, I guess that would spoil the
> game.

This was an issue, but it's really murky as to who fucked up there. Ultimately I think it was a logistical problem with the New Zealand organisers. They had sound files telling the presenters how to pronounce the non-Anglo names, but they didn't get out in time or nobody listened to them and the result was a fuck up.

> Call me old fashioned, but it seems to me that, if you cannot
> respectfully thank those giving the award you should just
> turn it down, rather than accepting the honor while biting
> the hand that feeds you. This does not bode well for the
> quality of the other award winners that I have not had
> time or inclination to read.

To me there is a balancing act between not really liking the award or the spirit or history of it, and loving the fact that you had readers and supporters who went to the trouble of nominating you. You should be graceful and grateful for their sake even if not for the sake of the establishment.

Also, once you're through the popularity contest phase, your work is actually getting judged by a panel of authoritative readers and reviewers of the genre. So that should count for something. I guess that panel is no more immune to politics than the masses in the popularity phase, but there it is.

> Do the crowd I saw at the Hugo awards really represent the youth
> of today? Do they really represent the wave of the future? Or will
> they be the first against the wall when the next purity purge
> comes? They turned hard on GRRM, even though he tried had
> hard to be an ally during the Sad Puppies hullabaloo. Maybe
> their turn will come next.

Nothing is more certain. There is no permanence and stability here. Things will continue to shift and change, the older generation will be left behind even if some things are held onto and preserved.

> But who knows. I cannot claim my finger is on the pulse. But
> I don't worship Progress and I don't worship History. I am
> Christian. Christians do not expect to be popular, nor expect
> that the tide of History is going to run our way.

Hmm. Well, okay.

> And yes, old people should be humble about their relevance, and
> can have no claim to infallibility. But, on the other hand, they have
> no particular obligation to surrender to the crowd, nor to lie down
> and die upon demand. Suicide can be a sin, and so can be the
> intellectual suicide that manifests as conforming ones views to
> the shifts of the winds. Maybe old folks can't be sure they know
> better than young folks, but that does not mean they have to the
> duty to say anything other than what they actually think. Old folks
> be dead soon enough anyhow, and History will roll on without
> them. The young folk will always rebel, and the next generation
> will always be different, but perhaps the next generation will be
> better served if the oldsters say what they actually believe rather
> than what the oldsters think the youngsters want to hear.

Well said. There is a balance to be struck, I think, between saying things "like they are" and accepting the fact that things have actually changed. Up to a certain point, a person's attitudes and opinions can change - but at a certain age, most people's personal development reaches calcification point and then they will no longer take on new ideas and attitudes. That's a valuable thing to remember - both as an old person in training, and as a young person trying to take lessons and wisdom from the previous generations.

> Some sports referee once said "I call them as I see them, and I see
> them as they are." The latter half of this statement was an arrogant
> boast, but the first half was no more than his duty. An honest
> referee does not conform his calls to appease to the crowd.

An honest referee should also be aware that the rules of the game can change. Just because they ref'd their first game in the 1940s doesn't mean the game is still played that way.

[Platypus]

On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> It's consistently touted as the brand that defined Asimov, Clarke, et al.

I haven't read Clarke, though perhaps I should. Of Asimov I read I ROBOT and (some of?) FOUNDATION, neither of which won Hugo awards IIRC.

> This was an issue, but it's really murky as to who fucked up there. Ultimately I think it was a logistical problem with the New Zealand organisers. They had sound files telling the presenters how to pronounce the non-Anglo names, but they didn't get out in time or nobody listened to them and the result was a fuck up.

The person to blame, in my book, was Kuang. She displayed breathtaking narcissism. If she did not know who to blame that was all the more reason for not lashing out. Her complaint does not even rise to the level of being a "First World Problem". If it bothers her so much that people sometimes mispronounce her name, she should change it to "Guoang" or whatever, and maybe she'll have more luck. An author can use whatever pen name she wants, with no legal hassle. Many an Irishman who did not want "Sean" mispronounced has gone with "Shawn" or even "John".

> To me there is a balancing act between not really liking the award or the spirit or history of it, and loving the fact that you had readers and supporters who went to the trouble of nominating you. You should be graceful and grateful for their sake even if not for the sake of the establishment.

If you don't like the award you can turn it down, and let someone who would like to have the award accept it instead. If you do accept the award, because you would like to have the award, you can say thank you for the award. You can also thank the people who voted for you. You can thank the dude they recruited to present the award to you, or at least not go out of your way to attack him. I see no reason why an acceptance speech for an award needs to be the time for vitriolic history lesson against the very award you are accepting. Save that for another day.

> > Christians do not expect to be popular, nor expect
> > that the tide of History is going to run our way.
> Hmm. Well, okay.

We have these prophesies that Evil will do a whole lotta winning before it loses. Call religion a delusion if you must, but in some cases such delusions (if that's what they are) can help immunize you against other popular delusions, such as the delusion that Might Makes Right, that Popularity is Truth, or even that the crowd that is currently on the upswing is "On the Side of History" (whatever that means). Belief in a Higher Power can help vaccinate against temptations to worship the Powers and Princes of the present day.

> An honest referee should also be aware that the rules of the game can change. Just because they ref'd their first game in the 1940s doesn't mean the game is still played that way.

It goes without saying that a sports referee should know the rules of the game. That was assumed. The easy part of the referee's job is knowing what the rules are.

[Platypus]

I'd like to add that most authors would LOVE to have Kuang's problem ... people mispronouncing her name while recommending her book, and giving her lots of free publicity. It also seems to me that her complaint against GRRM basically boils down to the fact that he pronounces his "a" as if he were a guy from the NYC metropolitan area (which he is) instead of like a posh upper-class Brit. Kuang is a bigger snob than Henry Higgins. Henry Higgins may have looked down on Eliza Doolittle for not being able to pronounce his name "properly", but at least he did not shamelessly masquerade as an oppressed victim while doing so.

[Butterbumps@Home]

sunnuntai 21. helmikuuta 2021 klo 22.20.02 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:

> > This was an issue, but it's really murky as to who fucked up there. Ultimately I think it was
> > a logistical problem with the New Zealand organisers. They had sound files telling the
> > presenters how to pronounce the non-Anglo names, but they didn't get out in time or
> > nobody listened to them and the result was a fuck up.
>
> The person to blame, in my book, was Kuang.

Hmm, I'm going to just disagree with you on that.

> She displayed breathtaking narcissism. If she did not know who to blame that
> was all the more reason for not lashing out.

Given the tone of the rest of the Good Ole Boy presentation and the white ceiling the Hugos (Lovecraft, Campbell, and other difficult artists being centrepieces) and Worldcon in general is coming to terms with in the first place, I think her "lashing" was justified. And I have no idea of the difficulties she faces, added to the difficulties all authors face in getting their work into the public eye.

> Her complaint does not even rise to the level of being a "First World
> Problem". If it bothers her so much that people sometimes mispronounce
> her name, she should change it to "Guoang" or whatever, and maybe
> she'll have more luck. An author can use whatever pen name she wants,
> with no legal hassle. Many an Irishman who did not want "Sean"
> mispronounced has gone with "Shawn" or even "John".

No. You're on your own with this one.

> > To me there is a balancing act between not really liking the award or the
> > spirit or history of it, and loving the fact that you had readers and
> > supporters who went to the trouble of nominating you. You should
> > be graceful and grateful for their sake even if not for the sake of the
> > establishment.
>
> If you don't like the award you can turn it down, and let someone who
> would like to have the award accept it instead. If you do accept the
> award, because you would like to have the award, you can say thank
> you for the award.

On the other hand, if you have an acceptance speech to make, why not make it in service of a cause you believe in? It's not exactly a new idea.

> You can also thank the people who voted for you.

Oh, she did that.

> You can thank the dude they recruited to present the award to you,
> or at least not go out of your way to attack him. I see no reason why
> an acceptance speech for an award needs to be the time for vitriolic
> history lesson against the very award you are accepting. Save that
> for another day.

I disagree. You're on a stage, you have an audience. Make a fucking speech.

> > > Christians do not expect to be popular, nor expect
> > > that the tide of History is going to run our way.
> >
> > Hmm. Well, okay.
>
> We have these prophesies that Evil will do a whole lotta winning before
> it loses. Call religion a delusion if you must, but in some cases such
> delusions (if that's what they are) can help immunize you against
> other popular delusions, such as the delusion that Might Makes Right,
> that Popularity is Truth, or even that the crowd that is currently on the
> upswing is "On the Side of History" (whatever that means). Belief in a
> Higher Power can help vaccinate against temptations to worship the
> Powers and Princes of the present day.

Pratchett wrote that belief in small lies, like [Father Christmas], can prepare a human to believe in the big lies that make society function. Like justice and fairness.

> I'd like to add that most authors would LOVE to have Kuang's problem ... people
> mispronouncing her name while recommending her book, and giving her
> lots of free publicity.

I'd love to have her *or* Martin's problem at this point.

> It also seems to me that her complaint against GRRM
> basically boils down to the fact that he pronounces his "a" as if he were
> a guy from the NYC metropolitan area (which he is) instead of like a posh
> upper-class Brit. Kuang is a bigger snob than Henry Higgins. Henry Higgins
> may have looked down on Eliza Doolittle for not being able to pronounce
> his name "properly", but at least he did not shamelessly masquerade as
> an oppressed victim while doing so.

Again, disagree.



- B@w
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Platypus]

On Monday, March 1, 2021 at 8:23:01 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> Given the tone of the rest of the Good Ole Boy presentation and the white ceiling the Hugos (Lovecraft, Campbell, and other difficult artists being centrepieces) and Worldcon in general is coming to terms with in the first place, I think her "lashing" was justified.

What do Campbell and Lovecraft have to do with a spoiled upper-class elitist lashing out at a New Jersey native for pronouncing a name with the wrong kind of vowel accent? Kuang did not even mention Campbell or Lovecraft in her little petty lash-out.

Since you mention Lovecraft, let me say that I'm a huge fan of supernatural horror in general, and of Lovecraft in particular. Yes, I know Lovecraft was (judging by his private letters) a racist, an atheist, a materialist, a moral nihilist, and (despite his humiliating poverty) a class snob. Like many a materialist and moral nihilist, he had little in the way of a moral anchor to stop him from flirting with many of the more repulsive ideas that were trendy in his day. I don't share Mr. Lovecraft opinions, but none of this prevents me from admiring his horror fiction. He apparently wrote fiction not to express what he believed but to escape from what he believed. And even if I did not personally enjoy his horror fiction (but I do!) that would not change the fact that he has had a huge influence. Robert Bloch, Stephen King, GRRM, and many many more all owe him a huge debt.

Lovecraft also lived and died in poverty. He was a powerless starving artist, not some good old boy using his institutional power to keep the black man down. He received very little recognition during his lifetime. He came to be recognized after his death, due to the number of people who enjoyed and appreciated his stories. His success was not based upon silly rants from his private letters.

Did GRRM even mention Lovecraft during his awards presentation? I don't recall that he did. I know Robert Silverberg mentioned that he was born before Lovecraft died. Because Silverberg is really really old, you know. But of course GRRM is apparently a fan of Lovecraft, judging from the number of Lovecraftian references in ASOIAF.

I know less about Campbell, but I very much appreciate his story short "Who Goes There?" which is apparently influenced by Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness". "Who Goes There?" also served as the basis of one of my favorite horror films.

Campbell's influence as an editor means rather less to me, since he is largely credited with the discovery of authors I either do not know or do not like. I am certainly under no obligation to agree with, or even know about, any of his personal opinions, nor am I obliged to share his tastes. I don't own Mr. Campbell, so I'm not going to disown him either. But from the little I know, he seems to be have been just a wee bit more broad-minded than many of the narrow-minded bigots pointing the finger at him and howling FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST!

But do me a favor, and tell me in your own words what Campbell's crimes are supposed to have been, who his victims were, and where the bodies are buried. Because all that still seems more than a little fuzzy in my mind. If he is charged with keeping the black man down, then please let me know what worthy black authors were damaged by Campbell's alleged failure to support them. No doubt these forgotten black sci fi/horror/fantasy authors have since received posthumous recognition after dying in poverty like Mr. Lovecraft. But what I have mostly seen seen are some authors of dubious merit promoting themselves by making unverifiable accusations against Mr. Campbell after he is no longer alive and able to defend himself.

Whatever Campbell's sins, he is very much part of the history of the Hugos. Must history be erased? Also, he's been safely in his grave for half a century. Must I really pass judgment on the soul of a dead man to appease a howling mob? As we Christians like to say, his soul is now in the hands of a Greater Judge.

Personally, I'm not aware of much racial or other diversity in the speculative fiction field. Among supernatural fiction writers, I very much enjoyed "The Conjure Woman" by Charles W. Chestnut, and "The Wolf Leader" by Alexandre Dumas. Going further back, some of my favorite ARABIAN NIGHTS stories, such as "The Tale of Sidi Nouman" were collected by Galland from Hanna Diab, a Syriac monk. William Beckford was apparently gay, and Vernon Lee is now supposed to have been a lesbian. All, however, wrote before Campbell's time, and Campbell cannot be blamed for their relative lack of recognition. But what can I do? I love horror fiction, especially early horror, and the authors I love are mostly white men with a smattering of white women. Even Lafcadio Hearn, a Japanese citizen (who penned some awesome Japanese themed stories), was ethnically European, though his sources (and his wife, and children) were Japanese. I enjoyed Japanese anime and manga in my younger days, but I might be a bit old for it now. Feel free to make suggestions to help me broaden my horizons.

> And I have no idea of the difficulties she faces, added to the difficulties all authors face in getting their work into the public eye.

You also indicated that you had no idea that her work was any good. At least you failed to mention Kuang's name when I asked you for recommendations. Why, then, should you assume her work deserves more attention rather than less?

From what I hear, she was sufficiently well off attend 3 different elite colleges, as well as to study abroad in China. Her claim to fame is, I understand, a rewrite of Chinese history, masquerading as a fantasy trilogy, and starring a gender swapped Mao Tse Tung as her protagonist, and with thinly disguised stand-ins for the Japanese as the sub-human antagonists. It sounds vaguely political. It also sounds vaguely racist. But I have not read it. Maybe it is better than the foregoing summary makes it sound.

And here she is with an ASTOUNDING AWARD for best new artist, while a thousand other starving artists go unrecognized. And she gives an acceptance speech where she whines and feels sorry for herself.

But you can find, on Kuang's wikipedia page, a link to sort of dragon story she wrote, read by Levar Burton. Personally, I did not care for it. It might be better, though, without Levar Burton's SLOW reading, or his "monsters are not real" interpretation. I figured out 5 minutes in that it was a story about human sacrifice, and then the narrator spends the rest of the story talking about her feelings. Also, call me culturally biased, but if one is going to write a story about human sacrifice, should you not be just a wee bit more firmly against it? The themes reminded me, though, of "Til We Have Faces" by CS Lewis, which is also about an jealous sister and human sacrifice to a mysterious god/monster (which in turn is based on older myths). I wonder if Kuang read Lewis' story, or arrived at the theme independently. I guess the latter.

> On the other hand, if you have an acceptance speech to make, why not make it in service of a cause you believe in? It's not exactly a new idea.

> I disagree. You're on a stage, you have an audience. Make a fucking speech.

Answers like those above seem to ignore the heart of our disagreement, which is that you approve of what she chose to say, and I do not. But yes, I will also defend her right to free speech, even when disagreeing with her.

> I'd love to have her *or* Martin's problem at this point.

I have already said I think Martin should spend more time thanking for his blessings and less time cursing for his grievances. Why should I have a different opinion on Kuang?

[Butterbumps@Home]

keskiviikko 3. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 6.36.32 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:

> What do Campbell and Lovecraft have to do with a spoiled upper-class elitist
> lashing out at a New Jersey native for pronouncing a name with the wrong
> kind of vowel accent? Kuang did not even mention Campbell or Lovecraft in
> her little petty lash-out.

M'kay, this turned into a rant I wasn't expecting. I was talking about the overall tone of the awards and the convention.

> Since you mention Lovecraft, let me say that I'm a huge fan of supernatural
> horror in general, and of Lovecraft in particular.

Oh me too!

> Yes, I know Lovecraft was (judging by his private letters) a racist, an atheist,
> a materialist, a moral nihilist, and (despite his humiliating poverty) a class
> snob. Like many a materialist and moral nihilist, he had little in the way of a
> moral anchor to stop him from flirting with many of the more repulsive
> ideas that were trendy in his day. I don't share Mr. Lovecraft opinions, but
> none of this prevents me from admiring his horror fiction.

Fair enough, I feel the same way. I think there are complexities in separating the art and the artist and there comes a time when just acknowledging the artist's shittiness isn't enough, but it is an important step. And for an artist like Lovecraft, I'm at about the same point you are re: acknowledging his dated (laughable term, given he's long dead) opinions.

> He apparently wrote fiction not to express what he believed but to
> escape from what he believed. And even if I did not personally enjoy
> his horror fiction (but I do!) that would not change the fact that he
> has had a huge influence. Robert Bloch, Stephen King, GRRM, and
> many many more all owe him a huge debt.

Absolutely.

> Campbell's influence as an editor means rather less to me, since he
> is largely credited with the discovery of authors I either do not know
> or do not like. I am certainly under no obligation to agree with, or
> even know about, any of his personal opinions, nor am I obliged to
> share his tastes. I don't own Mr. Campbell, so I'm not going to disown
> him either.

I'm not really interested in him and I'm glad they renamed the award. He doesn't deserve that kind of recognition. We can't rewrite the past - and we shouldn't! - but we can write the future from this starting point. Why cling onto this stuff?

> But from the little I know, he seems to be have been just a wee bit
> more broad-minded than many of the narrow-minded bigots
> pointing the finger at him and howling FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST!

Ahh, he was more broad-minded than his evil progressive critics!

*snort*

Campbell wrote screeds supporting segregation and carried that through very openly in his acceptance and rejection of authors of colour's work.

> No doubt these forgotten black sci fi/horror/fantasy authors
> have since received posthumous recognition after dying in poverty
> like Mr. Lovecraft.

Bwaahahahahaha right.

> Whatever Campbell's sins, he is very much part of the history of the
> Hugos. Must history be erased?

History isn't being erased. It's being acknowledged. And then left in the past while progress happens.

> Personally, I'm not aware of much racial or other diversity in the
> speculative fiction field.

That's what we're hoping will improve.

> > And I have no idea of the difficulties she faces, added to the difficulties all
> > authors face in getting their work into the public eye.
>
> You also indicated that you had no idea that her work was any good. At
> least you failed to mention Kuang's name when I asked you for
> recommendations. Why, then, should you assume her work deserves
> more attention rather than less?

Not more attention. As much attention. And given that I have already made it pretty clear how I feel about the Hugo / Astounding popularity contest and my own dissatisfaction with my pitiful excuse for virality ... yeah, I'm quite satisfied that she has found success and is forging a place for herself in my artform.

> From what I hear, she was sufficiently well off attend 3 different elite
> colleges, as well as to study abroad in China. Her claim to fame is, I
> understand, a rewrite of Chinese history, masquerading as a fantasy
> trilogy, and starring a gender swapped Mao Tse Tung as her
> protagonist, and with thinly disguised stand-ins for the Japanese
> as the sub-human antagonists. It sounds vaguely political. It also
> sounds vaguely racist. But I have not read it. Maybe it is better than
> the foregoing summary makes it sound.

I confess I have not read the books either, although I trust the opinions of people I have seen praising them. I will take this second-hand summary under advisement and see what people who've read the books think of it.

> But you can find, on Kuang's wikipedia page, a link to sort of dragon
> story she wrote, read by Levar Burton. Personally, I did not care for
> it. It might be better, though, without Levar Burton's SLOW reading,
> or his "monsters are not real" interpretation. I figured out 5 minutes
> in that it was a story about human sacrifice, and then the narrator
> spends the rest of the story talking about her feelings. Also, call me
> culturally biased, but if one is going to write a story about human
> sacrifice, should you not be just a wee bit more firmly against it?

*snicker* Oh boy. My book "Bad Cow" features a species that not only practices sentient sacrifice (they're not human, and wouldn't consider humans valuable enough to sacrifice anyway), but also normalises necrophilia. We may be coming at this from personal stances too far separated to ever really agree.

> Answers like those above seem to ignore the heart of our disagreement,
> which is that you approve of what she chose to say, and I do not.

Fair enough. I'm okay with this disagreement, honestly.

> But yes, I will also defend her right to free speech, even when
> disagreeing with her.

*nod*

> > I'd love to have her *or* Martin's problem at this point.
>
> I have already said I think Martin should spend more time thanking
> for his blessings and less time cursing for his grievances. Why
> should I have a different opinion on Kuang?

Well, indeed. Points for consistency. Of course, Kuang also writes books, which is more than can be said for Martin right now. But again, I have made my peace with that and don't hold it against Martin.



- C
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Platypus]

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 5:09:39 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> keskiviikko 3. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 6.36.32 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:
> I was talking about the overall tone of the awards and the convention.

Meaning what exactly? Are we talking about the criticisms heaped on GRRM?

I saw GRRM's presentation, and I did not have a problem with its "tone". They invited an old fogey to serve as presenter, and this old fogey decided that, as part of his presentation, he would do a little Hugo retrospective and Hugo history lesson.

Which is not the sort of thing the Hugos do every year. But so what? The Hugos don't have to do the same thing every year. They can vary it up. Different presenter. Different presentation. If the presentation were the same every year, folks would get bored.

The downside of doing a retrospective is that GRRM could not, in any kind of honest retrospective, avoid the fact that Hugo history is overwhelmingly white and male. But he did indeed name-drop every black and female Hugo winner that he possibly could.

The Retro Hugos were not any part of GRRM's presentation. However, the controversial retro award for "best series" was given, not to Lovecraft individually, but to the entire "CTHULHU MYTHOS" as authored by "Lovecraft, Derleth and others". Given that the date of the retro award was 1945, seven years after Lovecraft's death, the award was by heavy implication being given to Lovecraft's literary heirs (such as Derleth) rather than to Lovecraft himself. (BTW, Derleth's work was crap).

And the 1945 Retro "Best Editor" award to Campbell was for his work in the 40s, not for his work in the 60s.

> > Campbell's influence as an editor means rather less to me, since he
> > is largely credited with the discovery of authors I either do not know
> > or do not like. I am certainly under no obligation to agree with, or
> > even know about, any of his personal opinions, nor am I obliged to
> > share his tastes. I don't own Mr. Campbell, so I'm not going to disown
> > him either.
>
> I'm not really interested in him and I'm glad they renamed the award.

It's no skin of my nose if they rename the award. But we have gone past that, have we not? The award had already been renamed. Now, the new issue is that GRRM is being attacked for mentioning Campbell's name in the context of a Hugo retrospective.

> He doesn't deserve that kind of recognition.

Name one thing GRRM said about Campbell that you object to. GRRM is the one being criticized for mentioning Campbell. Name the charge.

> We can't rewrite the past - and we shouldn't! - but we can write the future from this starting point. Why cling onto this stuff?

What stuff? Asimov? Clarke? Sturgeon? "Who Goes There?"? My collection of issues from ANALOG or ASTOUNDING? (I don't have one, but whatever). What exactly are you telling me we have to throw out? I'm not a fan of the so-called "Golden Age of Sci Fi" stuff the way I am a fan of (for instance) Lovecraft, but that does not mean I am ready to stand in condemnation of people who do or did enjoy it.

> > But from the little I know, he seems to be have been just a wee bit
> > more broad-minded than many of the narrow-minded bigots
> > pointing the finger at him and howling FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST!
>
> Ahh, he was more broad-minded than his evil progressive critics!
> *snort*

Nope. Nope. Nope. Your attempt at sarcasm is way off base. You are trying to project onto me something I did not say, and did not mean.

I did not say "evil", nor did I mean "evil". "Evil" and "small-minded" ("bigoted") do not mean the same thing. Broadmindedness is necessarily a relative term, since we are mere mortals with puny mortal brains, which necessarily limits our ability to be broad-minded. I used the concept in a relative way. When I say that Campbell was (maybe) just a little more broadminded than some (not all) of the small-minded people pointing the finger at him and howling FASCIST, FASCIST, FASCIST, that was faint praise indeed. And it did not mean that he was good and that they were evil.

We should all try to be as broad-minded we can. But at some point, we are all going to get old, and our broad minds are going to start contracting with age. It may be worth mentioning that most of the complaints against Mr. Campbell come from his later years, when he was maybe having trouble adjusting to the rapid changes then taking place.

And, to my way of thinking, part of being broadminded is that you do not automatically label people as evil merely because they hold views you disagree with. Within my religion, this aspect of broadmindedness does have a moral component (Love thine enemy; judge not lest ye be judged, etc., etc.)

> Campbell wrote screeds supporting segregation

I have not read them. I'd be surprised if they were as egregious as the stuff Lovecraft wrote. But sure. He supported segregation. He was an atheist. He supported scientology. He smoked like a chimney and opposed the government regulation of tobacco. His views got increasingly cracked in his later years. I don't agree with any of that crap.

Nor does Campbell's legacy mean as much to me personally as Lovecraft's legacy.

But Campbell's legacy does mean something to some people, and I don't think only to racists. Should I let them come for Campbell, in the hopes that they will not come for the stuff I like? Dude, they are already coming for Lovecraft! Should I now let them come for GRRM because he mentioned Campbell's name too many times? At what point do you draw the line? At what point do you tell these donkey-holes to go to heck???

> and carried that through very openly in his acceptance and rejection of authors of colour's work.

That charge is absurd on its face. Campbell was a magazine editor who made decisions on the basis of manuscripts submitted. He did not have the power to magically know the race of the author.

Admittedly, I do not know of any black sci fi authors that were ever published in ASTOUNDING/ANALOG from 1937-1971; but it is also true that I do I know of black sci fi authors who were published in ANY OTHER books or magazines from 1937-1971. That does not necessarily mean there were not any, because, of course, we know very little about many magazine-published authors from this period except their names, and even those may in many cases be pseudonyms.

Whatever the reason for the scarcity of (known) non-white sci fi authors during this period, it cannot be a giant global conspiracy of psychic racist editors. Obviously something else is going on. If Campbell was not receiving any manuscripts from (known) non-white authors, he obviously had no power to publish manuscripts from (known) non-white authors. He is obviously being made a scapegoat for a phenomenon beyond his control.

By the way, I just skimmed Sam Delany's 1998 article on racism in sci fi. He seems not to know of any black sci fi authors during the 1937-71 period either. He does, however, go back earlier to claim M.P. Shiel as an author with black ancestry. I actually did not know this before today, even though I had previously read and enjoyed M.P. Shiel's 1909 novel "The Purple Cloud". So I guess I can add M.P. Shiel to the short list of "authors of color" I gave earlier. Had I known that Shiel was in some sense "black" it would have made no difference to me, because I am not a racist. But I guess if I had been a racist the joke would have been on me. It is rather hard to judge the color of an author's skin by the typeface of a printed story.

What you are perhaps misremembering is the allegation of Sam Delany. Delany alleged in his 1998 article that thirty years earlier (I repeat THIRTY YEARS EARLIER!!!), his (unidentified) agent said that Campbell said (I repeat DOUBLE HEARSAY report of a 30-year old conversation Delany was not present for), over the telephone, in sum and substance (disclaimer, loose paraphrase): "I really enjoyed Sam Delany's novel NOVA but I must reject it for ONE REASON ONLY: because it has a black protagonist."

I do not believe this story. It is far too convenient and far too self serving.

Opinions vary on Delany's NOVA, but there seem to be quite a few people who do not like it for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the race of the protagonist. I think Campbell was one of them.

I suspect Sam Delany is engaged in a little cheap self-promotion at the expense of a man who is dead and cannot defend himself. But even if Sam Delany actually believes this, there is plenty of room for him to be wrong. it is, after all, a double-hearsay report of a 30-year old phone conversation.

Against this 30-year old double hearsay must be weighed the fact that Campbell did in fact publish in his magazine, in 1961, the novel BLACK MAN'S BURDEN by Mack Reynolds, which had a black protagonist.

Sam Delany published NOVA anyway. It had already been accepted for book publication at the time Campbell is said to have rejected it for serial publication. So the one single time Campbell is known (or said) to have rejected a black author, he did not even have the power to prevent him from getting a Hugo nomination that year. And now, 50 years later, Campbell's name is still being used to promote Delany's novel.

I have not read NOVA. I wonder if it is any good.

> > No doubt these forgotten black sci fi/horror/fantasy authors
> > have since received posthumous recognition after dying in poverty
> > like Mr. Lovecraft.
>
> Bwaahahahahaha right.

What's so funny? Who are these Golden Age black sci fi authors? Where are these Golden Age black sci fi authors? What happened to them? How exactly did the global conspiracy of psychic sci fi editors prevent them from sneaking their works into magazine publication? If we dig up Campbell's corpse and drive a wooden stake through his evil racist heart, do you think that maybe some of them will finally dare to step forward?

> History isn't being erased. It's being acknowledged. And then left in the past while progress happens.

Remind me again. What exactly is the grievance against GRRM? Surely that grievance is that he gave a short history lesson as part of the Hugo awards ceremony that critics thought ought to have been erased from the Hugo awards ceremony. Or am I misunderstanding somehow.

> > Personally, I'm not aware of much racial or other diversity in the
> > speculative fiction field.
>
> That's what we're hoping will improve.

Hope away. I'm just worried about what "we" propose to do about it. Because I really don't think that more witch hunts and vampire hunts are going to magically create the next black Isaac Asimov or the next asian Philip K. Dick or the next native-american H.P. Lovecraft. I also strongly suspect that the non-white speculative fiction giants of the future will probably not turn out to be the ones who won Hugo awards.

[Butterbumps@Home]

torstai 4. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 6.06.59 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:

> > I was talking about the overall tone of the awards and the convention.
>
> Meaning what exactly? Are we talking about the criticisms heaped on GRRM?

That's part of it. I've attended some Worldcon events and do find them to be old school in a way I admit I find charming, in some contexts. However, it's also not very inclusive and all I really want is for that to evolve with time rather than stagnating. Excessive reminiscence on the past (and "excessive" is going to be different for everyone) is a stagnation risk.

Naturally I also want to see new writers getting more airtime and attention and respect. Given that they outnumber the "boomer authors" by orders of magnitude, and given that I am hardly a new writer myself at this point, it isn't really a simple prospect. However, I'm satisfied with progress as it is occurring.

> I saw GRRM's presentation, and I did not have a problem with its "tone".
> They invited an old fogey to serve as presenter, and this old fogey
> decided that, as part of his presentation, he would do a little Hugo
> retrospective and Hugo history lesson.

You've accurately summarised the issue. That you don't have an issue with it is your right as an opinion haver.

> > I'm not really interested in him and I'm glad they renamed the award.
>
> It's no skin of my nose if they rename the award. But we have gone
> past that, have we not? The award had already been renamed.

That's why I said "I'm glad they renamed the award," yes.

> Now, the new issue is that GRRM is being attacked for mentioning
> Campbell's name in the context of a Hugo retrospective.

I think there were ways to approach the subject that were more acknowledging of progress, be less worshipful of the Good Ole Days and more accepting of the fact that they weren't that good. Take the good, acknowledge the bad.

Speaking of which, as a Lovecraft enthusiast, did you see the HBO series "Lovecraft Country"? I heard good things about how they handled the difficult subjects of racism and the subtext of the mythos. I'd be curious what you thought of it.

> What exactly are you telling me we have to throw out?

Nothing. I never said that we had to throw out the past. On the contrary, I think we should put the past in perspective and celebrate how far we've come.

> I'm not a fan of the so-called "Golden Age of Sci Fi" stuff the way
> I am a fan of (for instance) Lovecraft, but that does not mean I
> am ready to stand in condemnation of people who do or did
> enjoy it.

I'm glad to hear it, I'm a fan myself.

> > > But from the little I know, he seems to be have been just a wee bit
> > > more broad-minded than many of the narrow-minded bigots
> > > pointing the finger at him and howling FASCIST FASCIST FASCIST!
> >
> > Ahh, he was more broad-minded than his evil progressive critics!
> > *snort*
>
> Nope. Nope. Nope. Your attempt at sarcasm is way off base. You
> are trying to project onto me something I did not say, and did
> not mean.

M'kay, but Campbell was more broad-minded than his modern critics? That just doesn't track.

> I did not say "evil", nor did I mean "evil". "Evil" and "small-minded"
> ("bigoted") do not mean the same thing.

Interestingly, I don't really believe in evil as a concept (it's more of a moral / faith-based concept to me, so I accept that you and I will have different feelings about it).

To me, evil is service of the self at the expense of others. Narrow-mindedness and bigotry are big markers of selfishness and lack of empathy.

> Broadmindedness is necessarily a relative term, since we are mere
> mortals with puny mortal brains, which necessarily limits our ability
> to be broad-minded. I used the concept in a relative way. When I say
> that Campbell was (maybe) just a little more broadminded than
> some (not all) of the small-minded people pointing the finger at
> him and howling FASCIST, FASCIST, FASCIST, that was faint praise
> indeed. And it did not mean that he was good and that they were evil.

I appreciate this clarification!

> We should all try to be as broad-minded we can. But at some point,
> we are all going to get old, and our broad minds are going to start
> contracting with age. It may be worth mentioning that most of the
> complaints against Mr. Campbell come from his later years, when
> he was maybe having trouble adjusting to the rapid changes then
> taking place.

Perhaps so. He was also a product of his time and his society, and we have advanced since then. But it should still be acknowledged, and I can't get on board with continued celebration of his life and deeds.

> And, to my way of thinking, part of being broadminded is that
> you do not automatically label people as evil merely because
> they hold views you disagree with. Within my religion, this aspect
> of broadmindedness does have a moral component (Love
> thine enemy; judge not lest ye be judged, etc., etc.)

Indeed, that makes sense from within a religious viewpoint of evil. I withdraw my hyperbolic snark.

> > Campbell wrote screeds supporting segregation
>
> I have not read them. I'd be surprised if they were as egregious as
> the stuff Lovecraft wrote. But sure. He supported segregation. He
> was an atheist. He supported scientology. He smoked like a
> chimney and opposed the government regulation of tobacco. His
> views got increasingly cracked in his later years. I don't agree
> with any of that crap.

Glad to hear it.

> Nor does Campbell's legacy mean as much to me personally
> as Lovecraft's legacy.
>
> But Campbell's legacy does mean something to some people,
> and I don't think only to racists. Should I let them come for
> Campbell, in the hopes that they will not come for the stuff I
> like? Dude, they are already coming for Lovecraft! Should I
> now let them come for GRRM because he mentioned
> Campbell's name too many times? At what point do you
> draw the line? At what point do you tell these donkey-holes
> to go to heck???

I think, like I said already, there is a point at which it becomes impossible to appreciate the art separate from the artist. That's going to be different for everyone, for a lot of different reasons.

> If we dig up Campbell's corpse and drive a wooden stake
> through his evil racist heart, do you think that maybe some
> of them will finally dare to step forward?

Now that would be a new and exciting Worldcon program item.

> > > Personally, I'm not aware of much racial or other diversity in the
> > > speculative fiction field.
> >
> > That's what we're hoping will improve.
>
> Hope away. I'm just worried about what "we" propose to do about it.

Nothing more or less than what we're doing. Stop idolising the past, accept that it was a crucial part of the present and helped shape the speculative fiction world as it is, but there was also a lot of darkness there that we need to face up to and make right.



- C@w
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Platypus]

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 3:24:14 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> > Meaning what exactly? Are we talking about the criticisms heaped on GRRM?
> That's part of it. I've attended some Worldcon events and do find them to be old school in a way I admit I find charming, in some contexts. However, it's also not very inclusive and all I really want is for that to evolve with time rather than stagnating. Excessive reminiscence on the past (and "excessive" is going to be different for everyone) is a stagnation risk.
>
> Naturally I also want to see new writers getting more airtime and attention and respect. Given that they outnumber the "boomer authors" by orders of magnitude, and given that I am hardly a new writer myself at this point, it isn't really a simple prospect. However, I'm satisfied with progress as it is occurring.

Nothing to do with GRRM, then. I thought you had some kind of criticism of GRRM/.

> > I saw GRRM's presentation, and I did not have a problem with its "tone".
> > They invited an old fogey to serve as presenter, and this old fogey
> > decided that, as part of his presentation, he would do a little Hugo
> > retrospective and Hugo history lesson.
> You've accurately summarised the issue. That you don't have an issue with it is your right as an opinion haver.

Right. In my opinion, GRRM did nothing wrong. God knows what your opinion is.

Let me add, in case it is relevant, that it is meaningless to say you are not trying to erase history if you are at the same time trying to create a rule that no-one is allowed to talk about history. I'm not saying that's your opinion. But you do seem determined to keep me guessing.

> That's why I said "I'm glad they renamed the award," yes.

Nothing to do with GRRM, then.

> > Now, the new issue is that GRRM is being attacked for mentioning
> > Campbell's name in the context of a Hugo retrospective.
> I think there were ways to approach the subject that were more acknowledging of progress, be less worshipful of the Good Ole Days and more accepting of the fact that they weren't that good. Take the good, acknowledge the bad.

Like what? I do not agree that GRRM should have falsely accused Campbell of discriminating against black authors. Nor do I agree that he should have brought up segregation, which is not relevant to anything. Segregation is gone, and the only people who want to return to it are certain Progressives.

> Speaking of which, as a Lovecraft enthusiast, did you see the HBO series "Lovecraft Country"? I heard good things about how they handled the difficult subjects of racism and the subtext of the mythos. I'd be curious what you thought of it.

I haven't seen it. I honestly have not heard good things about it either. Maybe I'd watch it if I had someone to discuss it with.

> Nothing. I never said that we had to throw out the past.

You asked the rhetorical question "Why hold on to this stuff?" I just wanted to know what the "stuff" was that you want us to NOT hold on to.

> M'kay, but Campbell was more broad-minded than his modern critics? That just doesn't track.

Why not? You seem awful quick to form harsh judgments about a man you know almost nothing about. Are you sure that Campbell was not sometimes better than that?

> Interestingly, I don't really believe in evil as a concept (it's more of a moral / faith-based concept to me, so I accept that you and I will have different feelings about it).

This might help explain why you are apparently willing to condemn GRRM, to appease an online mob, without having any clear idea of why you are condemning him. A moral nihilist has no anchor to prevent him from becoming a straw that blows with the wind.

> To me, evil is service of the self at the expense of others.

Which is why I asked you who Campbell's victims were. You could not answer me. God knows who GRRM's victims were.

> Narrow-mindedness and bigotry are big markers of selfishness and lack of empathy.

I do not agree that, writing an article defending segregation in 1963, standing alone, is a reliable indication of lack of empathy. Nor do I see how a person who lacks empathy could not be a good editor. Also, there is no justice in alleging lack of empathy against a person who never hurt anyone. Which brings us back to my question as to who Campbell's victims were.

> Perhaps so. He was also a product of his time and his society, and we have advanced since then.

Nobody, including GRRM, is calling for a return to segregation (except ironically, some Progressives). It's a fake issue.

> But it should still be acknowledged, and I can't get on board with continued celebration of his life and deeds.

Does this relate to some criticism of GRRM?

> I think, like I said already, there is a point at which it becomes impossible to appreciate the art separate from the artist.

M.P. Shiel was a child molester. Must I cross him off my short list of spec. fic. "authors of color" who I have enjoyed?

> That's going to be different for everyone, for a lot of different reasons.

So. You don't have to appreciate Campbell. But GRRM can appreciate Campbell if he wants to. Which means that GRRM did nothing wrong. Sounds fair to me.

I don't even recall GRRM saying anything particularly praiseworthy about Campbell. I think he said that Campbell won the best editor award more times than any other editor (which I suppose is accurate). He credited him (in a positive tone) for the promotion of artists like Asimov, Clarke, Sturgeon, and I forget who else (all true as far as I know). He also credited him (in a negative tone) with the promotion of L. Ron Hubbard (so it's not like he only said positive things, and at least this is a negative thing that actually relates to Campbell's work as editor). He also said that the Astounding award used to be called the Campbell award (true), and mentioned some previous artists who won the Campbell award. Which seems a fair thing to mention. Are those awards to be worth nothing now? Seems hardly fair to the new artists who won them.

I don't agree that GRRM should have mentioned Campbell's views on segregation. Dunno if you're suggesting that.

> > Hope away. I'm just worried about what "we" propose to do about it.
> Nothing more or less than what we're doing. Stop idolising the past, accept that it was a crucial part of the present and helped shape the speculative fiction world as it is, but there was also a lot of darkness there that we need to face up to and make right.

Idolize? You know that "fan" is short for "fanatic", right? Why not leave the fans alone and let them like whatever they like? It's not like you can stop them from getting old and dying off even if you wanted to. And it is not as though there is any danger that a 1937 work of sci fi is going to win the 2021 Hugo. And it is only because of the Hugo's prestige that anyone wants to get a Hugo in the first place. And the Hugo's prestige largely derives from its past. People respect the Hugo (rightly or wrongly) because DUNE won a Hugo, and not because REDSHIRTS won a Hugo.

But let me give you a little parable, which I do not present as the whole truth, but merely (perhaps) part of it.

There once was a toy that a minority of white boys, and an even tinier minority of white girls, liked to play with, and in which no-one else took took any particular interest. The majority who took no interest included the majority of white boys, who tended to look down on the minority as nerds. The reasons why the white nerds liked the toy was mysterious. Along came a progressive ideologue, who saw a racial imbalance. To him, the reason for the imbalance was NOT mysterious -- it could ONLY be racism and sexism. He tried and failed to get blacks and whites, boys and girls, to play with the toy in equal numbers So finally he takes away the old toy that the white boys wanted to play with, smashes the toy, and replaces it with a new toy that almost nobody (but in equal numbers) wanted to play with. Thus was equality and racial justice achieved.

The "toy" in my little metaphor is of course "science fiction" (or speculative fiction, or horror fiction, or what have you).

Again, I am not suggesting my simplistic little parable represents the whole truth about the old sci fi and the new sci fi. But there was a point to my question about whether you could actually recommend any of the new speculative fiction being promoted by the new Hugos or other new and diverse sci fi from other Progressive organs. You have done nothing to reassure me.

[Butterbumps@Home]

torstai 4. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 20.44.31 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:

> > Naturally I also want to see new writers getting more airtime and
> > attention and respect. Given that they outnumber the "boomer
> > authors" by orders of magnitude, and given that I am hardly a
> > new writer myself at this point, it isn't really a simple prospect.
> > However, I'm satisfied with progress as it is occurring.
>
> Nothing to do with GRRM, then. I thought you had some kind
> of criticism of GRRM/.

If I can take your belligerent self back to the start of this, I said: "Martin seems to be increasingly under fire from the younger generation of speculative fiction readers [this is a simple fact], the Hugos and Worldcon in general was a clusterfuck [it definitely was], and that's probably embittering him [and this was my explanation for why he might be in a bit of a funk right now]."

I'm sorry, but what are you trying to argue with me about?

I'd also like to bring you back to the point, you said: "I'm not sure if it is youth culture, online culture, university culture, corporate culture, or a mix of the 4."

(you forgot cancel culture, which is the biggest and shiniest of the whistles. But okay.)

To which I said: "I think a lot of it is a sign of the times. Things are progressing and moving on, and the old guard aren't really ready for it (and arguably they don't need to be, they just need to embrace their dwindling relevance along with the rest of the older generations), so they retreat into nostalgia and self-glorification - and the new guard will tend to blow that out of proportion and read hostility or intent behind it rather than a sort of wistful regret. Who knows.

"I'm a pretty staunch supporter of Martin and his writing, whatever makes him happy to work on is fine with me and I appreciate what he has given us so far - as I believe you've said before. However, I am also keenly aware that he is an Author Boomer, who got himself nicely set up back in the day when there wasn't much competition and now he can take a shit on a piece of paper and get it published effortlessly. It erodes my respect somewhat.

"I'm also aware that today there are more and more people demanding that minorities and otherwise oppressed and underprivileged writers get a seat at the table. That's a good thing. Admittedly, as an independent author I am sitting at an infinite table, so see no difficulty in adding an endless number of voices. It doesn't take readers away from me, because people read multiple things. When it comes to publishing contracts, awards, and stuff like that, I guess there is a finite space and then we need to be more aware that diversity is more of a thing now than it was in Martin's, let alone Heinlein's heyday.

"I relish the competition and the new voices. I'm not worried about losing my spot to a formerly silenced or sidelined author. Good stories will out. I get the impression, however, that the Author Boomer generation would prefer to just keep on going without the added competition. Even if they still benefit massively from their established privilege."

I see no reason to do anything but repeat myself at this point.

> > You've accurately summarised the issue. That you don't have an issue
> > with it is your right as an opinion haver.
>
> Right. In my opinion, GRRM did nothing wrong. God knows what your
> opinion is.

Martin didn't need to make the Hugos all about the past the way he did. And if he was going to, he didn't need to do it through rose-coloured glasses. Jemisin, an author of colour, just won three years in a row, he didn't need to mention that Heinlein won three times in nine years. We all know Heinlein was great. In a hundred more years, will Heinlein and Jemisin be mentioned in the same breath? I honestly don't know. My gut says no. Like you, I think the greats of this generation are different to the greats of the pulp sci fi magazine generation. They're not going to be defined by awards (not that Asimov and Heinlein were). Things have changed.

Look, I don't think we fundamentally disagree on much here. I consider the Hugos to be a bit of a pointless popularity contest and not necessarily representative of good *stories*, so much as good *intentions*. A sort of cultural barometer. And good intentions are subjective. And it's been this way since before the Sad Puppies - stories that get attention get nominations and votes, and (particularly in the good ole days) stories that get printed get attention - which is why it's been a white sausage party for so long.

> Let me add, in case it is relevant, that it is meaningless to say
> you are not trying to erase history if you are at the same time
> trying to create a rule that no-one is allowed to talk about
> history. I'm not saying that's your opinion. But you do seem
> determined to keep me guessing.

It's not relevant because that's not what I ever said, and you seem to be intentionally ignoring what I say in order to keep claiming you don't get my point.

I'm not trying to erase history, or stop people talking about it. But talk about *all* of it. There's no rational middle ground between ignoring history and focussing on it, but I think there is middle ground between talking about the past the way Martin, Silverberg and others did here, and talking about it the way Jeannette Ng did. I don't necessarily agree with either of them, taken separately - but put them together, and you've got something. It was just a shame about how the separation of ideologies worked.

> > That's why I said "I'm glad they renamed the award," yes.
>
> Nothing to do with GRRM, then.

Only insofar as the whole event and the cultural changes taking place around it might be informing his mood, his will to write, and so on. As was my original point before you dragged us into the weeds.

> > > Now, the new issue is that GRRM is being attacked for mentioning
> > > Campbell's name in the context of a Hugo retrospective.
> >
> > I think there were ways to approach the subject that were more
> > acknowledging of progress, be less worshipful of the Good Ole
> > Days and more accepting of the fact that they weren't that good.
> > Take the good, acknowledge the bad.
>
> Like what? I do not agree that GRRM should have falsely accused
> Campbell of discriminating against black authors.

Falsely? Campbell's editorial control over a critical sci fi publication in the golden age of sci fi helped shape the genre and its following for generations. It's why he was honoured in the first place. There was great stuff there, but there was also darkness that should be acknowledged.

> Nor do I agree that he should have brought up segregation,
> which is not relevant to anything. Segregation is gone, and
> the only people who want to return to it are certain
> Progressives.

Sounds like you're the one who wants to erase history now[1]. The golden age of sci fi in the US was contemporary with segregation, it was a huge part of the culture and it informed not only the stories that were told, but also the stories that made it to the public eye and therefore entered the cultural psyche. In my opinion the presentation of the Hugos was a missed opportunity for a real history lesson, warts and all. From someone who was, if not there, then at least one of the closest living and coherent (Silverberg is getting old, much as I admire him, and he doesn't need this sort of shitstorm flung on him in his declining years). A little grace in passing the torch, and a little humility in acknowledging the slanted playing field they were benefitting from, would not have gone amiss.

[1] I originally took your comment to mean that certain progressives want to face, and address, segregation and its effects. But then I realised you meant that some progressives actually want to re-institute segregation. That's ... not a load-bearing argument. But by all means, I'm expecting you to focus on this angle next.

This is why, the age group aside, I refer to them as Boomer Authors. They think they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and that they could do it again today, without help, against all comers. It's just not fucking true. They made it because the system was set up for them and there was no competition for resources. Theirs were the only bootstraps not nailed to the ground.

> > Speaking of which, as a Lovecraft enthusiast, did you see the HBO
> > series "Lovecraft Country"? I heard good things about how they
> > handled the difficult subjects of racism and the subtext of the
> > mythos. I'd be curious what you thought of it.
>
> I haven't seen it. I honestly have not heard good things about it
> either. Maybe I'd watch it if I had someone to discuss it with.

Hmm, as enjoyable a prospect as "discussion" with you about race issues in Lovecraft sounds like it would be, I don't have HBO so will have to wait for the DVD of this one.

> > M'kay, but Campbell was more broad-minded than his modern
> > critics? That just doesn't track.
>
> Why not? You seem awful quick to form harsh judgments about
> a man you know almost nothing about. Are you sure that
> Campbell was not sometimes better than that?

I'm sure he *was* sometimes better. It doesn't change the fact that he was a key player in the lack of diverse voices we have from the golden age of sci fi.

> > Interestingly, I don't really believe in evil as a concept (it's more
> > of a moral / faith-based concept to me, so I accept that you and
> > I will have different feelings about it).
>
> This might help explain why you are apparently willing to
> condemn GRRM, to appease an online mob, without having
> any clear idea of why you are condemning him. A moral
> nihilist has no anchor to prevent him from becoming a
> straw that blows with the wind.

*laugh*

Mm hm. You want to show me where I'm "condemning" Martin? There I was thinking I was making a throw-away comment about how the recent Worldcon and Hugos experience might have discouraged and upset him. Just to remind you, *you* were the one who came in and started levelling insults at the folks who chose to use their acceptance speeches as a platform to boost the volume on issues they find important.

> > Perhaps so. He was also a product of his time and his
> > society, and we have advanced since then.
>
> Nobody, including GRRM, is calling for a return to segregation

Okay? I never said he did. That would be weird.

In fact, when the Sad Puppies tried to defeat *desegregation* (not entirely the same thing, but similar to restoring segregation, and they're certainly not progressive), Martin was a vocal opponent to them and their ideology and practices. I credit him for that. It shows he is capable of reading the sociocultural room.

> (except ironically, some Progressives). It's a fake issue.

I've seen some cases of this on the "progressive" side, but it's fucking laughable. I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you.

> > I think, like I said already, there is a point at which it becomes
> > impossible to appreciate the art separate from the artist.
>
> M.P. Shiel was a child molester. Must I cross him off my short
> list of spec. fic. "authors of color" who I have enjoyed?

Pretty sure I just said that's your choice to make.

> > That's going to be different for everyone, for a lot of
> > different reasons.

See?

> So. You don't have to appreciate Campbell. But GRRM
> can appreciate Campbell if he wants to. Which means
> that GRRM did nothing wrong. Sounds fair to me.

Martin was the host of an awards ceremony where a lot of previously underrepresented minorities were getting their moment, and an opportunity to stand among giants they have admired but were previously prevented from competing with. I call that progress. And I call Martin's history lesson blinkered and tone deaf. That's as far as I'll take any criticism, though - just to remind you again, I was mentioning this as a possible reason Martin might not be in good form right now - and that I sympathised with him for that, even if I can't side with him for my own subjective reasons.

I mean, if you were hosting an awards ceremony and you were giving an award to an author who had just written a gut-wrenching story about surviving sexual assault as a child, you would probably know better than to talk about M.P. Shiel during your intro ... right? Or at least, if you felt you needed to, you'd probably want to point out his whole prison term thing.

> I don't agree that GRRM should have mentioned Campbell's views
> on segregation. Dunno if you're suggesting that.

Some acknowledgement of the slanted playing field Campbell helped create, I think, would have been nice. But far be it from me to force cancel culture mob slogans into Martin's mouth for popularity reasons. The winners had their acceptance speech platforms, and Martin had his presenter's platform. They both had the right, and they both have to accept the criticism that comes with exercising that right.

I'm just saying, the criticism Martin earned might have contributed to his slump. If slump this is. I mean, it seems like his writing has picked up but we have no real evidence one way or the other.

[Platypus]

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 3:05:18 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> If I can take your belligerent self back to the start of this, I said:

I'm sorry you feel I am being "belligerent", but let me be blunt so you know where I stand. As far as I'm concerned, Team Lynch Mob is belligerent, bullying, destructive, arbitrary, bigoted, small-minded, cowardly, power mad, and deranged. I'm standing up to Team Lynch Mob so that decent people everywhere can be free and happy. So you and I have an issue to the extent that you choose to endorse, defend or otherwise be a part of Team Lynch Mob.

> "Martin seems to be increasingly under fire from
> the younger generation of speculative fiction readers
> [this is a simple fact], the Hugos and Worldcon in general
> was a clusterfuck [it definitely was], and that's probably
> embittering him [and this was my explanation for why
> he might be in a bit of a funk right now]."

The biggest problem with the above paragraph, and a pretty heavy clue that you are on Team Lynch Mob is the fact that you identify Team Lynch Mob with "the younger generation of speculation fiction readers". I don't believe that Team Lynch Mob represents any such thing. It is not a bottom-up grass-roots movement of young readers, but a top-down cult-like authoritarian movement that draws in certain young people as useful idiots.

> I'm sorry, but what are you trying to argue with me about?

I'm saying that GRRM did nothing wrong. I know that, as a defender of Team Lynch Mob, you want to blame GRRM. If only he had appeased your evil friends, by saying EXACTLY what your friends decided (after the fact) that he should have said, your friends would not have attacked him. This shows a breathtaking level of arrogance and power-mad intolerance. Who gave you the right to micromanage the words of me, GRRM, my mom, my nephew or my poodle, or anyone else. It is also a lie to suggest that Team Lynch Mob would have shown mercy had GRRM appeased them. Team Lynch Mob attacks because that's what Team Lynch Mob does whenever they smell blood. Appeasing them only makes it worse.

> I'd also like to bring you back to the point, you said: "I'm
> not sure if it is youth culture, online culture, university
> culture, corporate culture, or a mix of the 4."

Yes, that was my non-confrontational way of trying to suggest that Team Lynch Mob was not representative of "the younger generation of speculative fiction readers".

> (you forgot cancel culture, which is the biggest and
> shiniest of the whistles. But okay.)

No. I did not forget that. I just listed certain elements or factors that might form a part of it. And that includes certain young persons and other useful idiots who get drawn into its deranged cult-like mentality. It also includes evil corporations, and other power interests that use various tactics to influence online speech.

> To which I said: "I think a lot of it is a sign of the times.
> Things are progressing and moving on, and the old guard
> aren't really ready for it (and arguably they don't need to be,
> they just need to embrace their dwindling relevance along

> with the rest of the older generations), [....]

Translation: "If you are not on Team Lynch Mob, get out of the way of Team Lynch Mob. Or else!" I disagree. I think it is the duty of everyone who is not on Team Lynch Mob, young or old, to stand up to Team Lynch Mob.

> "I'm a pretty staunch supporter of Martin and his writing, [...].

That did not stop you from throwing him under the bus to appease Team Lynch Mob.

> Martin didn't need to make the Hugos all about the past
> the way he did. And if he was going to, he didn't need to
> do it through rose-coloured glasses.

You don't tell other people what they NEED to say and what they don't NEED to say. You don't tell Martin; you don't tell me; you don't tell my mom; you don't tell my nephew; you don't tell my poodle. It's not about what we NEED to say, but about what we CHOOSE to say. We decide. I decide when I want to speak. NOT YOU. I decide when I want to keep silent. NOT YOU. If I want to focus on the positive that's up to me. If you want to focus on the negative, that's up to you. As long as neither of us tell any lies, all is good. It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH! You choose your words, and other people choose their words. Maybe then a conversation could take place. Your side, Team Lynch Mob, does not want that. Your power-mad friends want to control both sides of the conversation.

>Jemisin, an author of colour, just won three years in a row,
> he didn't need to mention that Heinlein won three times in
> nine years.

Heinlein did win best novel 3 times in 9 years (4 times in all). Therefore me, my nephew, my mom and my poodle - and yes GRRM as well - should all be free to say that Heinlein won best novel 3 times in 9 years. We should be all free to say it as often as we like without being harassed by Team Lynch Mob. Then, you and Team Lynch Mob are free to say whatever you want. Choose your words and let others choose theirs. But what makes this complaint super-ridiculous is that GRRM also said "N.K. Jemisin won [best novel] three years in a row".

> I'm not trying to erase history, or stop people talking about
> it. But talk about *all* of it.

That's deranged nonsense. Nobody has the time or the energy to talk about ALL of History. One could write a 30-volume history on the Hugos alone and still not be able to avoid leaving something out. You and your evil friends are just looking for excuses to harass people and dictate their choice of words.

> > Like what? I do not agree that GRRM should have falsely accused
> > Campbell of discriminating against black authors.
> Falsely?

Yes. I asked you for evidence, and you evaded the question. So I am assuming at this point you know you have no evidence. GRRM has no obligation to support a claim that is supported by no evidence.

> Campbell's editorial control over a critical sci fi publication in the
> golden age of sci fi helped shape the genre and its following for
> generations. It's why he was honoured in the first place. There was
> great stuff there, but there was also darkness that should be acknowledged.

Like what? When Campbell wins a retro "best editor" award for 1945, he is being honored because the 1945 issues of ASTOUNDING STORIES, which he edited, are considered by Hugo voters to be better than the 1945 issues of WEIRD TALES, or the 1945 issues of the other nominated magazines. It has absolutely nothing to do with the segregation article he published in 1963.

> > Nor do I agree that he should have brought up segregation,
> > which is not relevant to anything. Segregation is gone, and
> > the only people who want to return to it are certain
> > Progressives.
> Sounds like you're the one who wants to erase history now[1].

Not at all. All I am saying is that GRRM has no duty to mention segregation in his Hugo presentation. He can CHOOSE not to do so. He has a limited amount of time to say a limited number of things, and he is the one who gets to choose what to say. It's called freedom of speech. When you get invited to host the Hugos next year, you can talk about segregation all you want. That's YOUR freedom of speech.

> The golden age of sci fi in the US was contemporary with segregation[...]

What kind of a smear is that? My mom and dad were also contemporary with segregation. Are you attacking them now too? Well at it seems you can have no complaint about Campbell winning 1945 best editor award for ASTOUNDING STORIES. All the other magazines that were nominated were also contemporary with segregation. Given your tactics so far, I assume this is a general broad smear, and you cannot actually provide any specifics.

> Mm hm. You want to show me where I'm "condemning" Martin?

You condemned Martin when you sided with Team Lynch Mob against Martin.

> > Nobody, including GRRM, is calling for a return to segregation
> Okay? I never said he did. That would be weird.

No sane person thinks GRRM supports segregation. Therefore, there is no point to a rule that GRRM cannot praise Campbell for his editing work in the 40s unless he also condemns his support of segregation in the 60s.

> Martin was the host of an awards ceremony where a lot of
> previously underrepresented minorities were getting their

> moment, [...]

So you're saying he knew who was going to win and should have taken this into account when pre-recording his introductory segments? LOL, so I guess it WAS rigged.

> and an opportunity to stand among giants they have admired
> but were previously prevented from competing with.

None of the winners I saw showed any sign of admiring prior giants. And when exactly was Arkady Martine prevented from competing with Isaac Asimov?

> Some acknowledgement of the slanted playing field Campbell
> helped create, I think, would have been nice.

You have no evidence that Campbell did anything to create a "slanted playing field". I challenged you and you came up with nothing. There being no evidence, GRRM probably does not believe that Campbell did anything to produce a slanted playing field. He has no obligation to say something he does not believe to be true. And since you can present no evidence, you have no grounds for arguing he ought to believe differently.

> I'm just saying, the criticism Martin earned might have contributed to his slump. If slump this is. I mean, it seems like his writing has picked up but we have no real evidence one way or the other.

Well, he did not apologize, and good for him. He did nothing wrong.

[Titus G]

On 6/03/21 8:02 pm, Platypus wrote:
> On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 3:05:18 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
>> If I can take your belligerent self back to the start of this, I said:
>
> I'm sorry you feel I am being "belligerent", but let me be blunt so you know where I stand. As far as I'm concerned, Team Lynch Mob is belligerent, bullying, destructive, arbitrary, bigoted, small-minded, cowardly, power mad, and deranged. I'm standing up to Team Lynch Mob so that decent people everywhere can be free and happy. So you and I have an issue to the extent that you choose to endorse, defend or otherwise be a part of Team Lynch Mob.
>

Have you talked to your doctor or some other health professional about this?
To a disinterested observer, it appears that rather than listening to
Butterbumps, you are obsessively flogging a dead hobby horse.
snip

Given your tactics so far,

What a paranoid accusation to introduce to a discussion!

[Platypus]

On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 10:46:19 PM UTC-5, Titus G wrote:
> Have you talked to your doctor or some other health professional about this?
> To a disinterested observer, it appears that rather than listening to
> Butterbumps, you are obsessively flogging a dead hobby horse.
> snip
> Given your tactics so far,
> What a paranoid accusation to introduce to a discussion!

LOL. The population of this forum has suddenly increased. I did not know there was a disinterested observer lurking.

Well, the more the merrier. It is always nice to have a disinterested observer. Do you plan to stay long?

[Platypus]

I think the last time we heard from Titus G. was August 9, 2019.

[Butterbumps@Home]

lauantai 6. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 9.02.51 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:

> I'm sorry you feel I am being "belligerent", but let me be blunt so you
> know where I stand. As far as I'm concerned, Team Lynch Mob is
> belligerent, bullying, destructive, arbitrary, bigoted, small-minded,
> cowardly, power mad, and deranged. I'm standing up to Team
> Lynch Mob so that decent people everywhere can be free and
> happy. So you and I have an issue to the extent that you choose
> to endorse, defend or otherwise be a part of Team Lynch Mob.

I ... knew where you stood all along there, tiger.

> > "Martin seems to be increasingly under fire from
> > the younger generation of speculative fiction readers
> > [this is a simple fact], the Hugos and Worldcon in general
> > was a clusterfuck [it definitely was], and that's probably
> > embittering him [and this was my explanation for why
> > he might be in a bit of a funk right now]."
>
> The biggest problem with the above paragraph, and a pretty
> heavy clue that you are on Team Lynch Mob is the fact that
> you identify Team Lynch Mob with "the younger generation
> of speculation fiction readers". I don't believe that Team
> Lynch Mob represents any such thing.

Really? I mean, it's just that I've been to a couple of Worldcons, as a volunteer organiser, and have taken part in quite a few of their social events. I'm also a science fiction author who follows a lot of this stuff on author twitter. I have a solid, although admittedly incomplete and subjective, idea of how these demographics shake out and who generally feels what way about certain issues.

I also have an idea of how difficult these things are to organise and how people get hurt, so my sympathies are - I like to think - fairly distributed between organisers and attendees when it comes to something like the Hugos ceremony and its shortcomings.

But sure. Team Lynch Mob, that's me. Fits your persecution complex nicely, and you even worked racist imagery in there. Remember, my kind are the real villains here!

And you even called us "evil" now ("If only he had appeased your evil friends, by saying EXACTLY what your friends decided (after the fact) that he should have said, your friends would not have attacked him."), so I guess you don't need to object to me using the e-word from now on.

> It is not a bottom-up grass-roots movement of young readers,
> but a top-down cult-like authoritarian movement that draws in
> certain young people as useful idiots.

Who's the top in this top-down cult-like authoritarian whatever? And who are the useful idiots?

Is it me? Am I a useful idiot? Because I prefer to think of myself as a top.

> > I'm sorry, but what are you trying to argue with me about?
>
> I'm saying that GRRM did nothing wrong. I know that, as a defender
> of Team Lynch Mob, you want to blame GRRM.

You're not listening, are you. I said that things didn't go well for Martin at the Hugo ceremony in e-Zealand. I said there was plenty of blame to go around. This was a suggestion as to why he might be off his game. It was a shitty and stressful situation to be in, and he probably felt alienated from his people. Because that's what the Worldcon community is, to speculative fiction authors. At least, it is to me, and I like to think Martin feels similarly. It must have been horrible.

> If only he had appeased your evil friends, by saying EXACTLY what
> your friends decided (after the fact) that he should have said, your
> friends would not have attacked him. This shows a breathtaking
> level of arrogance and power-mad intolerance. Who gave you
> the right to micromanage the words of me, GRRM, my mom, my
> nephew or my poodle, or anyone else. It is also a lie to suggest that
> Team Lynch Mob would have shown mercy had GRRM appeased
> them. Team Lynch Mob attacks because that's what Team Lynch
> Mob does whenever they smell blood. Appeasing them only makes
> it worse.

Do you get like this on westeros.org? I think I'm beginning to see why so many of your posts here about the books are prefaced with (paraphrase) "this was ignored by the intolerant narrow-minded meanies at westeros.org..."

It's always nice to meet the real person. As much as one can, on an online forum.

> > I'd also like to bring you back to the point, you said: "I'm
> > not sure if it is youth culture, online culture, university
> > culture, corporate culture, or a mix of the 4."
>
> Yes, that was my non-confrontational way of trying to suggest
> that Team Lynch Mob was not representative of "the younger
> generation of speculative fiction readers".

But those four things *are* the younger generation of speculative fiction writers. So unless your "I'm not sure if" was actually a disagreement that these elements were to blame, you're actually agreeing with me here.

> > (you forgot cancel culture, which is the biggest and
> > shiniest of the whistles. But okay.)
>
> No. I did not forget that. I just listed certain elements or factors
> that might form a part of it. And that includes certain young
> persons and other useful idiots who get drawn into its deranged
> cult-like mentality. It also includes evil corporations, and other
> power interests that use various tactics to influence online
> speech.

Don't forget the 5G towers. We have a lot of them around our way, it's probably made me a Team Lynch Mob.

> > To which I said: "I think a lot of it is a sign of the times.
> > Things are progressing and moving on, and the old guard
> > aren't really ready for it (and arguably they don't need to be,
> > they just need to embrace their dwindling relevance along
> > with the rest of the older generations), [....]
>
> Translation: "If you are not on Team Lynch Mob, get out of
> the way of Team Lynch Mob. Or else!" I disagree. I think it
> is the duty of everyone who is not on Team Lynch Mob,
> young or old, to stand up to Team Lynch Mob.

Standing up to those you see as mindless bullies is important. Understanding them and trying to help them is also a nice approach.

Sometimes I do wish the older generation was seen and not heard, and I certainly would find it easier to respect and admire their great works if they didn't still have their hands on the reins of power so much. But it is what it is. None of that has anything much to do with the unfortunate series of events at last year's Hugos. It's certainly a component of a wider tapestry, though.

> > "I'm a pretty staunch supporter of Martin and his writing, [...].
>
> That did not stop you from throwing him under the bus to
> appease Team Lynch Mob.

Did I?

> > Martin didn't need to make the Hugos all about the past
> > the way he did. And if he was going to, he didn't need to
> > do it through rose-coloured glasses.
>
> You don't tell other people what they NEED to say and what
> they don't NEED to say.

Fuck yes I do! You're doing it right now yourself, just not as well as me. I'm never going to stop telling people what they need to say and how to say it. It's my job, as well as my sacred calling.

> You don't tell Martin; you don't tell me; you don't tell my mom;
> you don't tell my nephew; you don't tell my poodle.

Your poodle's an arsehole.

> It's not about what we NEED to say, but about what we
> CHOOSE to say. We decide. I decide when I want to speak.
> NOT YOU. I decide when I want to keep silent. NOT YOU.
> If I want to focus on the positive that's up to me. If you
> want to focus on the negative, that's up to you. As long
> as neither of us tell any lies, all is good. It's called
> FREEDOM OF SPEECH! You choose your words, and other
> people choose their words. Maybe then a conversation
> could take place. Your side, Team Lynch Mob, does not
> want that. Your power-mad friends want to control both
> sides of the conversation.

You just checked a lot of boxes, hold on, let me catch up.

> >Jemisin, an author of colour, just won three years in a row,
> > he didn't need to mention that Heinlein won three times in
> > nine years.
>
> Heinlein did win best novel 3 times in 9 years (4 times in all).

I'm aware. Martin told me in the middle of a more impressive achievement by an author of colour.

> Therefore me, my nephew, my mom and my poodle - and yes
> GRRM as well - should all be free to say that Heinlein won best
> novel 3 times in 9 years. We should be all free to say it as often
> as we like without being harassed by Team Lynch Mob. Then,
> you and Team Lynch Mob are free to say whatever you want.

You realise this is exactly what happened, right? I haven't had a "muh freeze peach" talk in a while so let me just make it real simple for you.

Martin can say what he wants. Freedom of speech, in the US, means that unless he's actually saying "get out there and murder these upstart new writers", *the police* cannot come and arrest him for what he says.

Elsewhere in the world, where freedom of speech isn't codified into the law of the land, it's a bit more dicey but nothing Martin said was hate-speech that would have gotten him arrested.

Everyone else in the world, however, also has the right to criticise and comment. In the US, they have the right to do it really quite vehemently, without being arrested by the police because that's all that freedom of speech means. However, freedom of speech does not mean immunity from response and criticism and countering opinions. Nor does it mean the right to an audience and a huge electronic or other media platform. You don't have the right to a publishing contract, or for news articles or interviews.

> Choose your words and let others choose theirs. But what
> makes this complaint super-ridiculous is that GRRM also
> said "N.K. Jemisin won [best novel] three years in a row".

Yes he did.

> > I'm not trying to erase history, or stop people talking about
> > it. But talk about *all* of it.
>
> That's deranged nonsense.

Well thank you. It's always nice to be recognised by a modest luminary in the field.

> Nobody has the time or the energy to talk about ALL of History.
> One could write a 30-volume history on the Hugos alone and still
> not be able to avoid leaving something out. You and your evil
> friends are just looking for excuses to harass people and dictate
> their choice of words.

This is disappointingly obtuse.

> Not at all. All I am saying is that GRRM has no duty to mention
> segregation in his Hugo presentation. He can CHOOSE not to
> do so. He has a limited amount of time to say a limited number
> of things, and he is the one who gets to choose what to say. It's
> called freedom of speech. When you get invited to host the
> Hugos next year, you can talk about segregation all you want.
> That's YOUR freedom of speech.

Aha, so the people who did so, who you were screeching about earlier on, they were fine?

We're in agreement then. They said what they had a right to say. And I do, and have, called them out for over-zealous hyperbole and inaccuracy. That didn't fit your argumentative model though, so you ignored it.

> > The golden age of sci fi in the US was contemporary
> > with segregation[...]
>
> What kind of a smear is that? My mom and dad were
> also contemporary with segregation. Are you attacking
> them now too?

Yeah, sure. And your poodle.

> Well at it seems you can have no complaint about Campbell
> winning 1945 best editor award for ASTOUNDING STORIES.
> All the other magazines that were nominated were also
> contemporary with segregation.

I don't give a shit about it. I never did have a complaint, that was all you putting words in your strawman's mouth. If you see simple statements of unadorned and judgement-clear fact as "complaints", that says something about you and your pathological victimhood. Which I should have seen coming long before you claimed Christians were victimised.

> Given your tactics so far, I assume this is a general broad
> smear, and you cannot actually provide any specifics.

That's me. General Broadsmear, commander in chief of Team Lynch Mob. Ad infernum cum poodle, that's our motto by the way.

> > Mm hm. You want to show me where I'm "condemning" Martin?
>
> You condemned Martin when you sided with Team Lynch Mob
> against Martin.

Mm hm. You want to show me where I did *that*?

> No sane person thinks GRRM supports segregation. Therefore,
> there is no point to a rule that GRRM cannot praise Campbell
> for his editing work in the 40s unless he also condemns his
> support of segregation in the 60s.

I disagree. Campbell's editing work in the 40s was tainted by this legacy and it remains a shadow on the science / speculative fiction world to this day and we're only just coming out from under it, and Martin's reminiscence about Campbell, in these circumstances, should have been tempered with that awareness. Certainly he should have at least made some effort to explain why the Campbell Award is no longer called that. I'd hesitate to suggest what Martin should have said, but it seems to annoy you so I'm definitely going to keep doing it.

> > Martin was the host of an awards ceremony where a lot of
> > previously underrepresented minorities were getting their
> > moment, [...]
>
> So you're saying he knew who was going to win and should
> have taken this into account when pre-recording his
> introductory segments? LOL, so I guess it WAS rigged.

The short list generally makes it pretty clear what sort of demographics are getting representation. I have nothing good to say about how the short list is arrived at, but that's the sour grapes of an obscure and unpopular science fiction author talking.

Worldcon New Zealand did prepare phonetic pronunciation guides for the nominees, but Martin didn't get them in time and so there were mistakes. It was unfortunate, and the uproar about it, I would guess, contributed to him feeling pretty bummed out and I wouldn't be surprised if it affected his writing. The internet makes this sort of thing really pervasive and I am all in favour of talking out against it. One person with the best will in the world can make a point, but ten thousand people with the same will and the same point, well. The internet can unite them, for better or worse.

"When John Picacio was toastmaster, he went around during the pre-Hugo reception with pad in hand and asked some of the nominees how to pronounce their names. In some cases he had to rehearse the correct pronunciation with the finalists several times to get it down. I was at the party too. I saw John do this. I admired him for it. It was always in the back of my mind to do the same.. but of course, at our virtual worldcon, we never had that opportunity. I never had the chance to actually MEET some of the newer finalists, congratulate them, shake their hands, and ask about their names. Let alone practice with them until I got it right.

"Someone out there right now is saying I could have done all that by email. Yes, I guess I could have. But it would have been a daunting task. There were something like 120 finalists, and I had email addresses for maybe six of them.

"If you want to slam me for failing to do that, fine."

Martin said this about the mispronunciation issue. It's honestly good enough for me. He has the right idea and it really wasn't his fault that he couldn't do this. It was a damn shame.

To say the authors in question should anglicise their goddamn names is absolute gross fuckwittery on your part.

> > I'm just saying, the criticism Martin earned might have
> > contributed to his slump. If slump this is. I mean, it seems
> > like his writing has picked up but we have no real evidence
> > one way or the other.
>
> Well, he did not apologize, and good for him. He
> did nothing wrong.

He did apologise, though.

"I do hereby apologize to everyone and anyone whose name I mispronounced. I am deeply sorry. That was never my intent."

"Regardless of what sins of omission and commission were committed by others, the ultimate responsibility was surely mine, since it was my mouth those names were coming out of… so once again, I am sorry."

http://file770.com/2020-hugo-awards/comment-page-2/#comment-1205393

So, like I was saying all along, this was a shitty situation and can't have been fun to go through.


B@w
--
Got a bit of foam there, tiger.

[Butterbumps@Home]

sunnuntai 7. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 5.46.19 UTC+2 Titus G kirjoitti:

> Have you talked to your doctor or some other health professional about this?
> To a disinterested observer, it appears that rather than listening to
> Butterbumps, you are obsessively flogging a dead hobby horse.

They always break. It's sad.

- B@w
--
Welcome back! Long time no see.

[Butterbumps@Home]

sunnuntai 7. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 7.07.48 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:

> LOL. The population of this forum has suddenly increased. I did not
> know there was a disinterested observer lurking.
>
> Well, the more the merrier. It is always nice to have a disinterested
> observer. Do you plan to stay long?

This is kind of how usenet works, though? I've been checking in regularly because of this Really Good Conversation we're having, but usually I would only come by every few months, and then if there were unread messages I would ... read them. And then respond.

It looks like you're trying to make this into a paranoid victim thing though, so by all means. I assure you, I didn't light the Butter Signal and ask Titus to come and help me. If I could do that, I would have begged him to engage on my book-publishing posts and send me more reviews and stuff. You know, important things.


- B@w
--
Not that you're not very special.

[Platypus]

On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 3:13:59 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> This is kind of how usenet works, though? I've been checking
> in regularly because of this Really Good Conversation we're having,
> but usually I would only come by every few months, and then if there
> were unread messages I would ... read them. And then respond.
>
> It looks like you're trying to make this into a paranoid victim thing
> though, so by all means. I assure you, I didn't light the Butter Signal
> and ask Titus to come and help me. If I could do that, I would have
> begged him to engage on my book-publishing posts and send me
> more reviews and stuff. You know, important things.

Titus attacked my mental health while claiming to be a "disinterested observer". No doubt you will tell me you agree with his totally objective and disinterested assessment. But you must forgive my lack of objectivity in supposing that a person who makes such mental health assessment about me may not quite be as disinterested as he claims. The thought vaguely occurs to me that he is (for whatever reason) interested, and that is why he is hurling, not objective diagnoses, but insults. Anyhow, this thought amused me a bit. All in all, I think my response was quite mild. But you seem to think I could have done better somehow.

Also, I never accused you of using your Butter Signal to summon Titus. Nor would I think you had done anything wrong if you had done such a thing. There is a certain irony, therefore, in in you calling me "paranoid" because you imagine I think you did this. But in all fairness, I must admit that the thought that it MIGHT be so did cross my mind. I'm not sure it matters, but I will happily take your word for it that you did not use your Butter Signal to summon Titus.

[Butterbumps@Home]

tiistai 9. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 6.09.40 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:
>
> > This is kind of how usenet works, though? I've been checking
> > in regularly because of this Really Good Conversation we're having,
> > but usually I would only come by every few months, and then if there
> > were unread messages I would ... read them. And then respond.
>
> > It looks like you're trying to make this into a paranoid victim thing
> > though, so by all means. I assure you, I didn't light the Butter Signal
> > and ask Titus to come and help me. If I could do that, I would have
> > begged him to engage on my book-publishing posts and send me
> > more reviews and stuff. You know, important things.
>
> Titus attacked my mental health while claiming to be a "disinterested
> observer". No doubt you will tell me you agree with his totally objective
> and disinterested assessment.

I don't have an opinion about that. I don't think you're being particularly reasonable or rational, and your approach is consistently not a conversation so much as a harangue, but I'm fine.

> But you must forgive my lack of objectivity in supposing that a
> person who makes such mental health assessment about me
> may not quite be as disinterested as he claims.

Hey, he was clearly interested enough to scroll through what is, to my mind, at least a semi-interesting on-topic discussion on an essentially abandoned newsgroup. We're talking about GRRM, on alt.fan.grrm.

> The thought vaguely occurs to me that he is (for whatever reason)
> interested, and that is why he is hurling, not objective diagnoses, but
> insults. Anyhow, this thought amused me a bit. All in all, I think my
> response was quite mild. But you seem to think I could have done
> better somehow.

Oh, I think you could do better in general throughout this discussion. Your response to Titus was mild enough, in my opinion.

> Also, I never accused you of using your Butter Signal to summon
> Titus. Nor would I think you had done anything wrong if you had
> done such a thing. There is a certain irony, therefore, in in you
> calling me "paranoid" because you imagine I think you did this.

I was making an assumption based on your previous claims of victimhood and persecution.

> But in all fairness, I must admit that the thought that it MIGHT
> be so did cross my mind.

So it was a correct assumption on my part. I'm glad I clarified, then.

> I'm not sure it matters, but I will happily take your word for it
> that you did not use your Butter Signal to summon Titus.

Well excellent!


- B@w
--
I need a Butter Signal.

[Platypus]

On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 3:08:40 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> I ... knew where you stood all along there, tiger.

Well, if you say you get it, maybe I'll try being a little less blunt from now on. Maybe I'll even try throwing an olive branch if I see the opportunity. But I don't think I can take anything back. It is what it is, and it sure as hell looks like we are ideological adversaries.

> Really? I mean, it's just that I've been to a couple
> of Worldcons, as a volunteer organiser, and have taken part
> in quite a few of their social events. I'm also a science fiction
> author who follows a lot of this stuff on author twitter.

The word that stands out to me is "twitter". And I seem to recall some remark about the live conventions that suggested there was some kind of tension, with the latter being not quite up-to-snuff in your mind. But never mind. If you are right, and Your Crowd is indeed the Rising Generation, then i say God help us all. But I'm still against Your Crowd. Might still does not make right, and the truth still is not a popularity contest.

> But sure. Team Lynch Mob, that's me. Fits your
> persecution complex nicely, and you even worked
> racist imagery in there. Remember, my kind are
> the real villains here!

"Racist Imagery". See? This is why we probably cannot be friends. It is very hard to respect you when you say things like that. Your Crowd is always looking for excuses to insinuate that your adversaries are "racist". They have a thousand and one petty rules, and they are ever-shifting and arbitrary. And Your Crowd has no intention of ever being bound by these rules themselves. They will certainly hurl out the phrase "lynch mob" whenever it suits their own rhetorical goals. And Your Crowd knows it will not be held by the same rules because Your Crowd does not expect anyone will have the power to punish them. Principle is irrelevant. Consistency is irrelevant. It's all about power and pushing one's weight around. Which is exactly what makes Your Crowd "real villains".

Look up "lynching" in a good dictionary. The definition has no racial component. It merely refers to an extrajudicial execution by a mob. Joseph Smith, a famous historical figure who founded Mormonism, and who was white, died by lynching. The word by definition has nothing to do with the color of the victim's skin. I'm not quite using it literally, but it is a reasonable metaphorical extension to an online context. And the idea I am trying to express is that mob justice is not real justice.

So choose your own words, and let me choose mine. And you can take your "racist imagery" smear, and shove it right back where you got it from.

> And you even called us "evil" now ("If only he had appeased
> your evil friends, by saying EXACTLY what your friends decided
> (after the fact) that he should have said, your friends would
> not have attacked him."),

Sorry, but I'm not taking any of that back. I did not call you evil, but I DO think your ideology is evil. And since I think your ideology is evil, I naturally think there are not a few evil persons behind it. I did not name any names, and do not intend to , because I don't like judging people as individuals.

> so I guess you don't need to object to me using the e-word from now on.

Knock yourself out. But your Crowd does not use the e-word much. Your Crowd uses the r-word and other smears, and in Your Crowd's hands these are far more deadly, dangerous, and arbitrary weapons. Frankly, I'd rather you used the e-word. But the e-word is not nearly as useful to Your Crowd. I had asked you who Campbell had ever hurt (evil according to your own definition), and you could not answer that question. So you just fell back to calling him a racist.

> Who's the top in this top-down cult-like authoritarian whatever? And who are the useful idiots?

Well, for instance, the state funded universities teach authoritarian ideology to students. Vast multinational corporations control large swaths of the internet, and the young people get indoctrinated online. Vast corporations, who just want submissive workers who do not dare to speak for themselves, give so-called anti-bias trainings whose only real message is STFU you have no rights. China, a totalitarian state, and to a lesser extent various other states, have their fingers in the pie by way of an online presence and alliances with vast multinational corporations. By participating in the ideology, all these actors gain a useful tool to silence for any plebians who dare criticize them. Of the plebians (students, workers, internet users, citizens), some go along out of fear, others become true believers in the ideology. These latter are the useful idiots.

> Is it me? Am I a useful idiot? Because I prefer to think of myself as a top.

I'd rather think of you as a useful idiot. Because the alternative, to my mind, is far far worse. And of course you are free to wise up at any time. Sorry. It's the best I can do.

> You're not listening, are you.

I'm trying.

> I said that things didn't go well for Martin at the Hugo
> ceremony in e-Zealand. I said there was plenty of blame
> to go around.

And I don't agree. One can make reasonable criticisms of GRRM, but nobody cares about those reasonable criticisms. They charged him with racism, on a thousand petty excuses, and it was a false charge. Since the charge of racism is false, the only honest reasonable thing to do is tell the people making these false charges to fuck off.

Nobody really cares about GRRM innocently and accidentally mispronouncing a few names. They care because they want to charge him with racist microaggressions.

This has nothing to do with the performance being perfect in any way or in anyone's taste. You want me to join the pile on? Okay. I think the eunuch joke was stupid. Not transphobic. Just stupid. But nobody cares about that. That's not what the giant shitstorm is about.

> This was a suggestion as to why he might be off his game.

Except he said he wrote more stuff in 2020 than in any other year.

> It was a shitty and stressful situation to be in, and he probably
> felt alienated from his people. Because that's what the Worldcon
> community is, to speculative fiction authors. At least, it is to me,
> and I like to think Martin feels similarly. It must have been horrible.

I hope he does not feel horrible. I hope he realizes the people throwing mud at him are idiots, and are not worth that kind of emotional energy. I hope he realizes that these online terrorists do not represent anyone worthwhile. I would say so to him. I would tell him I enjoyed his performance, which is more or less true. I would tell him I don't think he is racist, and I don't think he did anything racist. You seem to feel the attacks on him are valid and that he should feel horrible.

> Fuck yes I do! You're doing it right now yourself,
> just not as well as me. I'm never going to stop
> telling people what they need to say and how
> to say it. It's my job, as well as my sacred calling.

I'm not interested in your sacred calling. And I hope Martin is not interested either.

> Your poodle's an arsehole.

Don't mess with my poodle!

> I'm aware. Martin told me in the middle of a more impressive achievement by an author of colour.

Wait! You've READ HER? Dude, I asked you for recommendations from the new Hugos and you had none. Now you're assuring me that Jemisin's trilogy is a more-impressive achievement than Heinlein? I mean, maybe it is because Heinlein kinda sucks. It kinda looks to me that you only care about the color of her skin. I don't want to use the r-word or anything

> I haven't had a "muh freeze peach" talk in a while
> so let me just make it real simple for you.

I see they've taught you the anti-freedom-of-speech freedom-of-speech speech.

> Martin can say what he wants. Freedom of speech,
> in the US, means that unless he's actually saying "get
> out there and murder these upstart new writers", *the
> police* cannot come and arrest him for what he says.

Waiting ....

> Elsewhere in the world, where freedom of speech isn't
> codified into the law of the land, it's a bit more dicey but
> nothing Martin said was hate-speech that would have
> gotten him arrested.

Waiting ...

> Everyone else in the world, however, also has the right
> to criticise and comment. In the US, they have the right
> to do it really quite vehemently, without being arrested
> by the police because that's all that freedom of speech
> means. However, freedom of speech does not mean
> immunity from response and criticism and countering
> opinions. Nor does it mean the right to an audience and
> a huge electronic or other media platform. You don't have
> the right to a publishing contract, or for news articles or
> interviews.

Done? Good. I was talking about freedom of speech and thought as ideals of the enlightenment, not technical legalities of the US Constitution. The US Constitution to some extent incorporates those ideals into law, but the Law is always a blunt instrumen. The US Constitution will also eventually if people stop valuing the ideals it was meant to promote and protect..

I believe in those ideals, while Your Crowd does not. Your Crowd wants to control language and control thought. Your Crowd wants to make people afraid to say what they think.

Heinlein did win 3 Hugos in 9 years. Your Crowd don't have a contrary argument or a contrary opinion. Your Crowd does not value discussion. They just want to shut people up , shut people down, and make an example of people with their cancel-culture terrorism. In this case, for telling the truth.

And yes, given Your Crowds ideals, they would get rid of the Constitution if they could. The Constitution does not grant any rights that they value.

> I disagree. Campbell's editing work in the 40s was tainted by this legacy

Name one sci fi story he published in the 40s that was tainted by his legacy, and explain what you mean when you say it was tainted by his legacy.

> Certainly he should have at least made some effort to
> explain why the Campbell Award is no longer called that.
> I'd hesitate to suggest what Martin should have said, but
> it seems to annoy you so I'm definitely going to keep doing it.

Feel free to say what you would have done in his place. Write your entire Hugo presentation and post it here. Nobody cares. As long as you're not insinuating this makes him a racist, or some other smear tactic, there is no problem. But once you cross that line, you join Team Lynch Mob.

> Martin said this about the mispronunciation issue. It's
> honestly good enough for me. He has the right idea and
> it really wasn't his fault that he couldn't do this.

That takes care of the pronunciation issue. He committed no racist microagressions then.

> To say the authors in question should anglicise their
> goddamn names is absolute gross fuckwittery on your part.

Except I did not say that. First off, Kuang is no less anglicized than Guong. Secondly, I never said she should change her spelling to Guong, or whatever. I merely said that this would be better than falsely and maliciously charging people with racist microaggressions whenever they mispronounce her name. If she could avoid doing this, Kuang would be perfectly fine.

And I think you just agreed that GRRM is not a racist merely because he mispronounced her name. So obviously it was uncharitable and wrong for Kuang to accuse him of a racist microaggression merely because he mispronounced her name. Which she pretty clearly did.

Also, there is nothing wrong with pseudonyms. They are a valid option for any author. If racist discrimination against author's of color were a real thing, this would have implications. We would expect to see things we do not see. Instead, we see the opposite.

> He did apologise, though.

Sort of. But the activists who accused him of a "non-apology" have a point. He did not apologize for racism and racist microagressions. He apologized for innocently and accidentally mispronouncing people's names. Nobody gives a shit about that. That's not what the shitstorm is about. In the eyes of the activists, that's not a confession of guilt, but a declaration of innocence.

[Butterbumps@Home]

Well this is pointless, but I like pointless. Good as a cup of coffee in the morning.

tiistai 9. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 16.42.21 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:
>
> > I ... knew where you stood all along there, tiger.
>
> Well, if you say you get it, maybe I'll try being a little less blunt from
> now on. Maybe I'll even try throwing an olive branch if I see the
> opportunity.

Oh, don't strain yourself on my account. If you want to improve for your own sake, I'm here for you.

But your statements in this thread really only reflect on you.

> But I don't think I can take anything back. It is what it is, and
> it sure as hell looks like we are ideological adversaries.

Looking at your opinions and behaviour here, I can think of adversaries who cast me in a worse light.

> > But sure. Team Lynch Mob, that's me. Fits your
> > persecution complex nicely, and you even worked
> > racist imagery in there. Remember, my kind are
> > the real villains here!
>
> "Racist Imagery". See? This is why we probably cannot be
> friends. It is very hard to respect you when you say things
> like that. Your Crowd is always looking for excuses to
> insinuate that your adversaries are "racist".

Oh no, talking about lynch mobs isn't racist - what I was suggesting here was that in playing the victim, you are casting "us" as the racists (or blind authoritarian sheep) since "we're" the ones who are lynching. You're casting yourself and the people you're championing as the oppressed, which is goddamn hilarious. You tried already with "progressives are the ones who want to bring back segregation," and here you are doing the same with lynch mobs. Segregation is not inherently a racist term either, by the dumbfuck obtuse standards you cling to (in this debate, of all places). It just means separation of things (people in this case) into categories (race / colour in this case).

When you try to turn that sort of imagery on your opponents, it definitely undermines the sting of you saying we can't be friends and that you don't respect me. So thanks.

> They have a thousand and one petty rules, and they are
> ever-shifting and arbitrary. And Your Crowd has no intention of
> ever being bound by these rules themselves. They will certainly
> hurl out the phrase "lynch mob" whenever it suits their own
> rhetorical goals. And Your Crowd knows it will not be held by
> the same rules because Your Crowd does not expect anyone
> will have the power to punish them. Principle is irrelevant.

If I've understood correctly who you think My Crowd is - is it white, privileged, liberal virtue-signal-supporters of oppressed minorities? - then you're right. I can be pretty critical of someone I think is making matters worse, and whether I'm punching up or punching down it doesn't make much difference, I'm unlikely to face punishment. Mainly because I'm just talking here. I do police myself and make sure the things I say and the things I stand for are right. According to my own standards.

And you'd better believe the actually oppressed minorities, who are still the victims of systemic racism and misogyny to this day, know about the powerful who can punish them. They're usually the ones punished when their white armchair allies see things getting hot and stroll off to hide behind their cultural force fields again. That's the sort of crusader I don't want to be, and I have no objection to your criticism of them.

If that makes me a useful idiot ... actually that's another term you're wrongfully appropriating and turning around to cast yourself as victim. The useful idiots of fascism are - well, they're on the fascist side, see. And I know you're trying frantically to cast progressives as fascists, but it's unutterable, irretrievable bullshit from stem to stern. So good luck with that.

> Consistency is irrelevant. It's all about power and pushing one's
> weight around. Which is exactly what makes Your Crowd "real
> villains".

*laugh*

> Look up "lynching" in a good dictionary. The definition has no racial
> component. It merely refers to an extrajudicial execution by a mob.
> Joseph Smith, a famous historical figure who founded Mormonism,
> and who was white, died by lynching. The word by definition has
> nothing to do with the color of the victim's skin. I'm not quite using
> it literally, but it is a reasonable metaphorical extension to an
> online context.

This is some willful blinkered bullshit right here, but go off.

> And the idea I am trying to express is that mob
> justice is not real justice.

Nobody's gonna disagree with that. It's pitifully self-evident.

> So choose your own words, and let me choose mine. And you can
> take your "racist imagery" smear, and shove it right back where you
> got it from.

Choose better words and be less fucking dumb.

> > Who's the top in this top-down cult-like authoritarian whatever?
> > And who are the useful idiots?
>
> Well, for instance, the state funded universities

Oh boy, bwaaahahahahaha. Gold.

> > I said that things didn't go well for Martin at the Hugo
> > ceremony in e-Zealand. I said there was plenty of blame
> > to go around.
>
> And I don't agree. One can make reasonable criticisms of GRRM,
> but nobody cares about those reasonable criticisms. They charged
> him with racism, on a thousand petty excuses, and it was a false
> charge. Since the charge of racism is false, the only honest
> reasonable thing to do is tell the people making these false
> charges to fuck off.
>
> Nobody really cares about GRRM innocently and accidentally
> mispronouncing a few names. They care because they want to
> charge him with racist microaggressions.

No, see, you're still not listening. You're arguing against someone who isn't here. You've summed up my position directly below, look:

> This has nothing to do with the performance being perfect in any
> way or in anyone's taste. You want me to join the pile on? Okay. I
> think the eunuch joke was stupid. Not transphobic. Just stupid.
> But nobody cares about that. That's not what the giant shitstorm
> is about.

See, this is exactly what I'm saying. You putting me in Team Lynch Mob for what I've said about Martin's Hugo presentation is as stupid as me putting you there for what you just said about his Oscar statue joke.

If there are roots and undercurrents to these jokes and presentation choices, that's an issue, but it's not one we need to bang the ol' gavel in condemnation / judgement of. People were upset by some of the undercurrents that were interpretable as being present. Not me, because I am almost a perfect replica of Martin's race, gender, sociocultural position. And yes, some of the upset was performative. I am not comfortable putting *all* of the objections in that category. And while (again) I have my doubts about the necessity and vehemence, for example, of Jeannette Ng's speech, I have no doubt as to the pain and oppression behind it. If that gets attention, good. It was valid for her, it was valid for others, and that's why the award got renamed. I hope there will be more, less symbolic, steps in the future.

> > This was a suggestion as to why he might be off his game.
>
> Except he said he wrote more stuff in 2020 than in any other year.

Sure. Welcome back to the start of the conversation. Also I've been reminding you of this regularly.

> > It was a shitty and stressful situation to be in, and he probably
> > felt alienated from his people. Because that's what the Worldcon
> > community is, to speculative fiction authors. At least, it is to me,
> > and I like to think Martin feels similarly. It must have been horrible.
>
> I hope he does not feel horrible. I hope he realizes the people
> throwing mud at him are idiots, and are not worth that kind of
> emotional energy. I hope he realizes that these online terrorists

Oh boy, terrorists now!

> do not represent anyone worthwhile.

Well that's a shit attitude.

> I would say so to him. I would tell him I enjoyed his performance,
> which is more or less true. I would tell him I don't think he is racist,
> and I don't think he did anything racist. You seem to feel the
> attacks on him are valid and that he should feel horrible.

Where did I say that please?

I do think there are reasons he was criticised and reasons he apologised. I don't think he deserves to be crucified (see? I can do it too!), and I hope he puts this behind him and gets back in the groove and returns to the loving embrace of his people. I think it will be fine. I certainly don't think he *should* feel horrible, and I don't even think any and all of the attacks on him have validity - not in the way you're suggesting. I'm just glad he seems to have taken the opportunity to reflect a little. I wish you'd follow his example.

But you said it yourself, at a certain age the brain stiffens up and people stop progressing and taking on new ideas. That will happen to Martin if this isn't already evidence of it. It seems to have happened to you already, although I don't know if that's nature or nurture.

> > Fuck yes I do! You're doing it right now yourself,
> > just not as well as me. I'm never going to stop
> > telling people what they need to say and how
> > to say it. It's my job, as well as my sacred calling.
>
> I'm not interested in your sacred calling. And I hope Martin is not
> interested either.

He apologised. *shrug* Sucks to be you I guess.

> > I'm aware. Martin told me in the middle of a more impressive
> > achievement by an author of colour.
>
> Wait! You've READ HER? Dude, I asked you for recommendations
> from the new Hugos and you had none. Now you're assuring me
> that Jemisin's trilogy is a more-impressive achievement than
> Heinlein? I mean, maybe it is because Heinlein kinda sucks. It
> kinda looks to me that you only care about the color of her skin.
> I don't want to use the r-word or anything

Mm hm. Three Hugos in a row is more impressive than three Hugos in nine years. If you want to turn around and say that's an affirmative action hattrick, I won't bat an eyelid.

> > Martin can say what he wants. Freedom of speech,
> > in the US, means that unless he's actually saying "get
> > out there and murder these upstart new writers", *the
> > police* cannot come and arrest him for what he says.
>
> Waiting ....

Never seen someone actually verbally demonstrate how they're not taking information in before. Nice work.

> I was talking about freedom of speech and thought as
> ideals of the enlightenment,

*laugh* Okay. The spirit of the idea.

Well, what happened at and around the Hugos last year fulfilled *that* perfectly as well. So suck it up.

> I believe in those ideals, while Your Crowd does not. Your
> Crowd wants to control language and control thought. Your
> Crowd wants to make people afraid to say what they think.

My Crowd, and by "My Crowd" I mean specifically just me, wants people to think about things before they open their yaps. Yes. I want people to examine their thoughts, and recognise the processes going on underneath them, the prejudices they may have and the background and impacts those thoughts might have, and then temper their statements and actions accordingly. It's called being part of a cooperative fucking civilisation.

Not with every thought and every statement, but just sometimes, occasionally, for the important stuff. If there's some inherent negative impact of just saying what you think, then maybe you need to look at the shit you're thinking.

Afraid? I don't think that applies. Fear is the only motivator some people understand, but I hope there are smarter people out there somewhere.

It's not, y'know, *you* ... but Martin seems to be reasonably smart.

> > I disagree. Campbell's editing work in the 40s was tainted
> > by this legacy
>
> Name one sci fi story he published in the 40s that was tainted
> by his legacy, and explain what you mean when you say it was
> tainted by his legacy.

All of them. All of them were tainted by it. All of them are now open to question, are they actually good, or are they just written by white folks with no competition?

Good is a subjective matter (lack of comparable material notwithstanding). The lack of competition is objective fact.

> Feel free to say what you would have done in his place. Write
> your entire Hugo presentation and post it here. Nobody cares.

Well that's not much incentive, is it.

But I already did, several times.

> > To say the authors in question should anglicise their
> > goddamn names is absolute gross fuckwittery on your part.
>
> Except I did not say that. First off, Kuang is no less anglicized
> than Guong.

Easier to pronounce by English-speaking westerners = anglicised.

> Secondly, I never said she should change her spelling to
> Guong, or whatever. I merely said that this would be better
> than falsely and maliciously charging people with racist
> microaggressions whenever they mispronounce her
> name.

And that's absolute gross fuckwittery on your part.

> And I think you just agreed that GRRM is not a racist merely
> because he mispronounced her name. So obviously it was
> uncharitable and wrong for Kuang to accuse him of a racist
> microaggression merely because he mispronounced her
> name. Which she pretty clearly did.

You can be guilty of racist microaggressions without being a full-blown racist. This is the essence of seeking to improve oneself.


- B@w
--
Still not entirely certain there's a point to this.

[Platypus]

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 3:02:22 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> Well this is pointless, but I like pointless. Good as a cup of coffee in the morning.

Hi Butterbumps. I responded in a new thread - "GRRM Did Nothing Wrong at the 2020 Hugos". I have done my best to keep my response focused on the title question. If you like, we can continue our conversation there. Respond or don't respond, as you see fit. Enjoy your coffee.

[Butterbumps@Home]

Hahahahah okay.

- B@w
--
*sips*