Kevin's Watch

Orlion wrote:I've always been told that the Dune series started sucking waaaay before Brian and Kevin got their greasy paws on it

I've heard people say that, too. I think they're mistaken...though there were ups and downs, and it's a form/style that I know just isn't to lots of peeps taste, especially when it goes on at such length.

OTOH---the Anderson/BrainDamaged Child sequels [somewhat] and prequels [completely, in every word] weren't just terrible in literary terms/concerns, they literally contradicted the logical/philosophical/metaphorical foundations of the entire original series.
Last night on The Daily Show, a guy from Game of Thrones series was on...Stewart made a joke like "I heard there are some changes in the new season, most important the introduction of a boy wizard named Harry."
What Anderson and Frank-son did was worse than Potter in Thrones [with guest appearances by Bilbo and Disney Princesses].

I heard about the Hugo ballot fiasco...and was glad I don't pay much attention to the Hugo's.

Frank was often to complex for me. I had no idea why a lot of the characters did the things they did. Even in the first book, which I consider to be as good a book as was ever written. The stuff KJA and Brian wrote was much easier to follow. Still, there was some great stuff. All the parts with Fenring's wife were great. The evil of the Harkonnens was made even more clear. DAMN! The axlotyl tanks.

The final two books were... I don't know how they can say they followed fairly extensive notes found in a safe deposit box. Either it's a lie, or Frank seriously changed his mind. I can actually believe what happened with Duncan. Frank probably didn't have him around all that time for no reason. But the two old Face Dancers at the end of Chapterhouse couldn't have been that.

I wouldn't usually do this, but this is getting a long way off topic. Perhaps you folks might want to start a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of the extended Dune series?


I've been looking around a little for responses from those on the Sad/Rabid Puppies slate to being nominated. Seems the ones who are better known and popular on their own are avoiding making comment either way.

I'm Murrin wrote: I've been looking around a little for responses from those on the Sad/Rabid Puppies slate to being nominated. Seems the ones who are better known and popular on their own are avoiding making comment either way.

George R R Martin has said that he will be commenting on it soon. He seems kinda pissed.

Martin wrote:This year's Hugo ballot was also announced, simultaneously with similar announcements at Minicon and the British Eastercon. I am going to have more to say about that soon. A lot more. But not in this post. I don't want to spoil the mood here.

Looks like he's begun to do so.

grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

Comes out against the slate, not for the politics behind it but for what it's done to the awards. Says there's more to follow.

Leave it to Martin to say something in three installments that really only needed one.

[Syl] wrote:Leave it to Martin to say something in three installments that really only needed one.

aliantha wrote:

[Syl] wrote:Leave it to Martin to say something in three installments that really only needed one.

That made me laugh.

--A

I'm wondering if, in a sense, this has not all ready happened in the Hugos... just on a much smaller scale.

I'm refering to the Television Award where everyone every year rolls their eyes and say something along the lines of "sigh, looks like it's Doctor Who again..."

Which is probably how this needs to be looked at: if the Hugos as a whole become so predictable and blaise, they cease to have any meaning. Kinda like how the World Series in Baseball sucked for a while because...sigh... it's the Yankees again.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You didn't mention Dune once.

I'm Murrin wrote:I couldn't help myself.

I think that contains the best rebuttal of the SP's assertions that the Hugo nominations are rigged by some secret shadowy organization.

I kinda toned down that side of it; it's true that it can only take about 60 noms to get onto the ballot, and you don't have to talk all that many people into voting for a work - it wouldn't need to be something as big and obvious as the Puppies are doing.

I seriously doubt that those accusations are true, however - I think Worldcon fandom is a relatively small group, with a lot of friendships involved, and I think fans generally have a tendency to want to tell each other about the things they enjoy. So naturally a buzz gets going among certain circles in the Worldcon fandom and that gets an item onto the ballot. But there's nothing shady or wrong about that.


What gets me is all these comments about how works on the ballot last year didn't get there by merit, and nobody would've chosen them, when they are legitimately some of the best stories I read all year. The Water That Falls on You From Nowhere was incredible. They're pointing at my tastes and saying I can't possibly really like that more than their stuff.

I'm Murrin wrote: What gets me is all these comments about how works on the ballot last year didn't get there by merit, and nobody would've chosen them, when they are legitimately some of the best stories I read all year. The Water That Falls on You From Nowhere was incredible. They're pointing at my tastes and saying I can't possibly really like that more than their stuff.

It's not a bad short story. Sure, I prefer my magic realism to have more frills, but I loved the subtle humor and how he did not go down the "expected route". A straight person writing that would have had a different outcome, I think. As a result, it seemed more real.

Hell, I even came around to liking the stylistic choice of inserting words in Mandarin.

Of course, that seems to be the SP's issue. They don't want to read about gay characters, particularly ones that act human and not like "gay people"; they don't like that it isn't science fiction (not conventionally, anyway); and they don't like "literary experimentation".

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm liking it. And to think, if the SPs had their way, I would never have heard of it... that's kinda depressing.

Yeah, some people take issue with the fact that there were a couple of stories which took a single speculative element and used it mainly to explore something more mundane and personal. They seem to think something has to be all-out genre tropes (especially sci fi tropes) to count.

To argue the other way slightly, I'm not sure that's what they're saying. It seems to me like they're saying that while you may like it, you are not representative of the community as a whole and that you (or those who share your tastes) have more clout than is deserved. I sympathize a little bit, because very few of the nominees the last couple of years have interested me. But then, historically the Hugo nominees have always appealed to me slightly less than the Nebulas, and those are misses for me as often as not.

I don't want to write another blog post about this,but I do want to say some more about it.

Firstly, everyone commenting on this is talking about the Sad Puppies slate, when it seems very possible that it was Theodore Beale/Vox Day's Rabid Puppies that took the awards. We'll need the full nominations to know for sure.

Second, a lot of response from the originators of the SP slate have made fuss about critics calling them racist, sexist, etc,claiming there is no basis for this. This is not a straightforward issue, but the fact is that a lot of the backlash this year is tied up with the slate they ran last year, which included and supported Vox Day, an individual who makes no secret of being racist, anti-women's rights, and so forth. This year's slate is indeed more diverse and less toxic than last year's, however, there is still that history of association, there is the inclusion of works from Vox Day's publishing house, and there's the inclusion of John C Wright, a writer widely deplored for his comments on homosexuality. I don't believe the Sad Puppies have disavowed Vox Day, only pointed out that he's not (directly) on their slate this time.

Of course, by criticising them for association with bigots, by not wanting to reward anyone who would support the kind of vitriol spouted by Wright and Day, I'm committing that cardinal sin of voting based on politics and not the quality of the work, right?

[Syl] wrote:To argue the other way slightly, I'm not sure that's what they're saying. It seems to me like they're saying that while you may like it, you are not representative of the community as a whole and that you (or those who share your tastes) have more clout than is deserved. I sympathize a little bit, because very few of the nominees the last couple of years have interested me. But then, historically the Hugo nominees have always appealed to me slightly less than the Nebulas, and those are misses for me as often as not.

They're kinda mis-defining the "community", though. The Hugos are, strictly speaking, not a science fiction award. They are a Worldcon award, meaning that if the Worldcon community were to decide to nominate Dean Koontz, that's how it would be.

Here's how I look at it: say there's a book club called The Best Damn Book Club and meet together and vote on books to read. Let's say I find out through their Facebook page what they read and say to myself, "hey, if you're the so-called Best Damn Book Club, then why are you reading this garbage? You should be reading Dan Brown's Inferno because that's a bestseller!"

Now, let's say I organize fifty of my friends to go to the meeting where they vote for the month's selection and we get Dan Brown's Inferno selected. We did not participate before in the club and we pretty much have no intention of participating afterwards except to dictate what this group should be reading. That's how I view this, it's a vanity project. These people do not appear to actually care to be a part of the Worldcon community or for whatever sanctity the Hugo award may have. They just want to dictate to everyone what they consider to be "true science fiction" and would probably do the same thing with other awards as well if they could.

I get the same feeling about it, Orlion. I'd have a different opinion if the Sad/Rabid Puppies (take yer pick) hadn't rallied supporters to purchase non-attending memberships just so they could vote. That they did so tells me that their interest is solely in stuffing the ballot box. They have very little interest in the con -- all they care about is the awards.