ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

The decline of science fiction

It is well known that science fiction sales have declined since the 1980s, but what Daniel demonstrates in Evidence for the Bust Years is that the perceived quality of science fiction, as measured by average Amazon ratings for books representational of their year, have fallen as well:
What this chart argues is that science fiction of the 50s and 60s averages better than a 4.3 rating at Amazon (and you’ll note that all decades average more than 350 reviews per book, so small groups of rabid reviewers really don’t factor in). The quality slides in the 1970s, plummets in the 80s, recovers slightly in the 1990s, but falls back below 4 throughout the 2000s.

Now, this is just some raw data from a list of books from the past 60 years or so, but two things stand out to me: Science Fiction has measurably fallen off in quality, at least according to readers, according to this relatively blind snapshot. I’m sure we could generate different results with a different list, but I want to emphasize that this survey was both as random and as fair as I could muster (in fact, I noticed after the fact that my list is somewhat more heavily weighted toward award-winners in the decade that performed the worst!)
This should surprise no one who has been paying attention to the corruption that is Pink SF as it has spread throughout the science fiction and fantasy genres. For me, the obvious point was when The Quantum Rose, a romance novel in space that was a middle book in a series virtually no one was reading, was awarded the Nebula for Best Novel in 2002. Notice that despite it supposedly being the best novel of that year, it has a paltry 29 ratings averaging 3.70.

If that was truly the best of the best, how bad was the average book that year? And if it wasn't, then how could systematically elevating the mediocre fail to have a subsequent effect on the genre? While more comprehensive statistical work is required to make the case conclusive, this first analysis does indicate that in the eyes of the reviewers, the quality of science fiction and fantasy has objectively declined.

Labels: ,

62 Comments:

Blogger wrf3 January 07, 2015 8:14 AM  

What does the data show for other genres? Is it just SF that declined, or is it a general decline?

Anonymous . January 07, 2015 8:28 AM  

Posts like this will just energize a rabbit campaign to inflate Amazon rankings.

Blogger Kryten 2X4B 523P January 07, 2015 8:30 AM  

That ties in with my own personal experiences as a consumer. During the 80's and very early 90's I was a "hyperconsumer" of SF/F - basically buying 2 or 3 books a week in addition to the stuff I got out of the library. I stopped buying because there was less and less to buy that interested me. What was in the stores was what is being referred to as Pink SF. I occupied the "dry years" by catching up on classics I'd missed, or rereading favourites.

Its only recently thanks to sites like this that Ive found there are alternatives, and thats got me reading SF again - so much so I have a backlog. So thanks for getting me back into reading decent SF again.

It would be interesting to see if this tallies with a general decline in quality reading material though. I'd suspect that SF would be a more pronounced drop.

Anonymous Roundtine January 07, 2015 8:34 AM  

The decline in quality is self-evident to readers, but I wonder how much bias is cooked into these numbers. People in the 2000s who would be on Amazon reviewing books aren't going to read schlock from decades ago. If you were to do a list of books by decade and reviews on Amazon, I'd expect every genre to show a similar trend because the previous decades have the advantage of "survivorship" bias.

Look at the best selling novels from the past, and you'll find many books that didn't last.

Anonymous Shorty January 07, 2015 8:54 AM  

And to those people, the book is the message and the message is the book. With such a widespread disapproval of their work we're lucky we haven't been rounded up and killed for our opposition. I'll chalk that up to their fat, slothful laziness.

Blogger IM2L844 January 07, 2015 8:54 AM  

Is this is what suicide by a thousand paper cuts looks like?

Blogger Bogey January 07, 2015 9:21 AM  

A larger view of graphic
I see that the New Wave was simply riding the wave created by the Golden Age of Science Fiction. It begins to crash in the 60s and doesn't pick up again until Gibson and Card in the 80s. Looks like the Engineers lead by Campbell made science fiction great and the English majors ruined it.

Anonymous Anonymous January 07, 2015 9:24 AM  

I don't know what its like everywhere else, but where I am the romance section is right next to the sf/f section and as more time passes I have a harder time figuring out which one of those sections I am in based solely on book covers.

AmicusC

Anonymous Harsh January 07, 2015 9:27 AM  

That coincides with my gradual loss of interest in the genre. I group up reading SF when its leading authors were Asimov and Heinlein and Bradbury. Now it has Scalzi and others like him at the forefront.

And say what you will about the quality of writing of the cyberpunk movement of the '80s but at least it was an attempt to do something different and inject some fresh blood into the genre. What's the current trend in SF now? Mash-ups?

Anonymous Straw in the wind January 07, 2015 9:30 AM  

OT, or not?


Allahu Akhbar as two gunmen shoot cops and others in Paris at the Charlie Hebdo satire magazine office.

We have avenged the Prophet one was heard to shout.

Anonymous HatPope January 07, 2015 9:33 AM  

but Social Justice is up??

Anonymous Stephen J. January 07, 2015 9:34 AM  

I don't disagree that there has been something of a decline and that it has been aggravated by ideological blinkerism, but I would throw one caveat in there: it is always a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison to compare past creative works with present ones, because by definition the stuff in the past was the stuff that was good enough to still be in print and get reviews today. I have no doubt there were plenty of '50s and '60s equivalents of The Quantum Rose or worse, but they've simply been forgotten and are not showing up in the samples.

It is also worth noting that the late '90s and 2000s were when the Internet really took off as a medium for SF fandom, and a lot of what people looked for in reading was drastically affected by the shift in habits of focus, interactivity and interest-connection the 'Net created.

Blogger lubertdas January 07, 2015 9:35 AM  

Vox, I generally agree with your thoughts here, but I'm curious if you've included the fact that the only SF books still available on Amazon from the 50's through the 70's are going to be books that are still in print. Being in print after all those decades, IMO, is an indicator of general quality.

That aside, I wholeheartedly agree with the general idea. I was born in 1963, so by the time I was regularly reading SF, "New Wave" books had taken up the majority of the shelf space at my local book stores. Fortunately there were still some excellent blue-SF authors that I was able to enjoy; Niven, Pournelle, Anderson, Dickson, and as the 80's broke, Card, Wolfe, Effinger, Gibson, Sheffield, Drake, and others.

As the 90's hit, things got really bad... it wasn't until the late 90's when I discovered the new wave of British Space Opera authors, Peter F. Hamilton, Neal Asher, and Alastair Reynolds gave me something to read and look forward to.

Finally, I have to second Bogey's comment about English majors, IMO any liberal arts majors, ruining the genre of SF for me.

Blogger Markku January 07, 2015 9:39 AM  

Jack Amok addresses this in the comments:
----
Yes, this will be an objection but Daniel has insulated himself against it by only comparing the best (or at least his best guess as to the best) of each year. So he’s not just comparing the classics with random crap off the shelf.

But it’s a relevant point to keep in mind.

Anonymous Stephen J. January 07, 2015 9:39 AM  

And I should have read the original linked blog post: the best-of-the-past to the whole-of-the-present objection was in fact noted there, although I would not say it was answered quite to my satisfaction -- the metric of sales and reviews speaks less to quality and more to popularity, in my view, which is an issue much affected by factors well outside inherent literary merit and changes radically from decade to decade.

Anonymous Alexandru January 07, 2015 9:41 AM  

I read Analog and Asimov on my kindle monthly but lately I'm considering cancelling my subs. There is one or two good pieces but the rest are preachy nonsense or shit about gay malcontents that I have to skip. Really bums me out.

Anonymous Porky January 07, 2015 9:55 AM  

This assumes that the acumen of the readership has remained constant over time.

A spurious assumption at best.

Anonymous Brother Thomas January 07, 2015 9:57 AM  

You don't understand Vox, it's not the best, but it should have been. Get it?

Anonymous Stickwick January 07, 2015 10:11 AM  

OT: Gotta love it. They finally have to admit that there hasn't been any significant global warming in several years, but even THAT is bad. Okay, sure, yeah, global warming has "stalled"... but that stall is responsible for the drought in the Southwest.

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 January 07, 2015 10:17 AM  

But...but...in order to successfully market SF, don't you need a large market of "common" folks intellectually equipped to comprehend the science, as well as the implications, and plausibility, in it's fictionalization?
Meanwhile....."We need MORE of YOUR tax/tuition dollars to support the "new" industrial education complex. See what "we" have done so far?"

CaptDMO

Anonymous ProgLife January 07, 2015 10:21 AM  

what's your point? Clearly racist, homophobic, misogynistic fiction is less popular.

That's a good thing, unless you are a fascist.

OpenID malcolmthecynic January 07, 2015 10:29 AM  

Alexandru,

Try out the Sci Phi Journal. Some really good thought-provoking stuff in there.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 07, 2015 10:30 AM  

Pretty soon now Al or Jesse are going to notice that there are few Savages or Half-Savages writing Science Fiction. Where's the $300M going to come from?

That's going to increase the friction in Silicon Valley.

Anonymous Quadko January 07, 2015 10:39 AM  

Personally, I miss the "we can do it" enthusiasm and successful frontier challenging of those older sci fi books. Even the enjoyable modern sci fi I read now, soft and hard, doesn't explore that. Whether it's Gravity's message "don't go in to space", or any military Sci Fi "space is war and war is hell", or just "we take our problems with us", it's not the push to get out there. I guess the "moon was boring and Mars looks even more so, so why bother getting there, let's talk about aliens and disasters and war?"

I think that's why space opera is popular - at least it's adventurous! And thinks like Quantum Mortis are great fun. (When's the next one? And the next one after that!) But where are the pioneer and mountain men stories about the benefits of colonizing the asteroids? Where is the hopeful story about new achievements? I even kind of miss the utopian city building stories; bad politics but fun optimism and hope. Now everything is distopian despair. (Was the fall of USSR and decline of socialized Europe really that devastating to leftie writers? Really?!)

It reminds me of my favorite black humor line from The Truman Show (paraphrased): kid: "I want to be an explorer!" teacher: "Too bad, everything's been discovered!"

Sci Fi seems written like "Everything's been discovered" these days, with perhaps a few bright light exceptions. I'm reading some old sci fi collections, and in spite of the sometimes poor writing, they were full of discovery and exploration, new elements, new planets, new civilizations, and most of all, optimism about what the future could be.

Blogger Joshua Dyal January 07, 2015 10:41 AM  

I don't disagree that there has been something of a decline and that it has been aggravated by ideological blinkerism, but I would throw one caveat in there: it is always a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison to compare past creative works with present ones, because by definition the stuff in the past was the stuff that was good enough to still be in print and get reviews today. I have no doubt there were plenty of '50s and '60s equivalents of The Quantum Rose or worse, but they've simply been forgotten and are not showing up in the samples.

Yes, but... the number of titles has also increased at a very high rate over the last few decades, according to a stat I read in a book on publishing and authorship a few years ago, which tends to agree with my unscientific observation. Which further complicates the comparison a bit, in the sense of making it a bit more interesting.

Anonymous Harsh January 07, 2015 10:48 AM  

what's your point? Clearly racist, homophobic, misogynistic fiction is less popular.

That's a good thing, unless you are a fascist.


That's very narrow-minded of you.

Anonymous roo_ster January 07, 2015 11:07 AM  

My Inner Statistician is having fits over the methodology used, but my Inner Sociologist is intrigued and glad the study was done.

Here are a couple of methodologies that might shed some light:

1. Track data for SFF award-winning & nominated novels.
Hugo (1953) and Nebula (1966) go back the farthest. Data per entry might be Mean Amazon Star Rating, sales per capita (that year's population of USA for denominator). Amazon Star Rating to be preferred over most other rating systems due to ghettoization of many systems. Amazon is most open to all comers. Nebula & Hugo data charted individually as well as concatenated.

2. Track data for top 10 best-selling SFF of that year, same data as for #1. Sales data will be sketchy and incomplete, but with one assumption ("All data equally sketchy due to coming form the same industry") not too hard to swallow.

* Examine each data set exclusively and in comparison. I think some useful analysis may be sussed out.

* Data integrity: Oh, some award-winner is no longer in print and/or has no Amazon reviews? Ohthenoes, our data is crap! Maybe. OTOH, that may, too, tell us something.

Blogger bob k. mando January 07, 2015 11:14 AM  

lubertdas January 07, 2015 9:35 AM
I'm curious if you've included the fact that the only SF books still available on Amazon from the 50's through the 70's are going to be books that are still in print.



absolutely NOT TRUE.

through the Amazon associates program, you can search for all kinds of out-of-print books. it runs through the same search engine Amazon uses to search in print books.

for instance, you can get the DSM 2, which hasn't been in print since the 1960s:
http://www.amazon.com/DSM-II-Diagnostic-Statistical-Manual-Disorders/dp/B000O1AS0C/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420646756&sr=1-2&keywords=dsm+2+diagnostic+and+statistical+manual+of+mental+disorders

old SF&F is likewise available through the associated used book stores.

Blogger bob k. mando January 07, 2015 11:19 AM  

ProgLife January 07, 2015 10:21 AM
That's a good thing, unless you are a fascist.



what does a Socialist movement started by a former head of the Italian Socialist party and Socialist International have to do with the discussion at hand?

Blogger Josh January 07, 2015 11:32 AM  

what does a Socialist movement started by a former head of the Italian Socialist party and Socialist International have to do with the discussion at hand?

He made the trains run on time, and science fiction fans like trains?

Anonymous Jack Amok January 07, 2015 11:32 AM  

he metric of sales and reviews speaks less to quality and more to popularity, in my view, which is an issue much affected by factors well outside inherent literary merit and changes radically from decade to decade.

But that's the entire point! Whether you go by sales (which - at least until recently - is heavily influenced by what's heavily marketed by the big publishers) or by awards, the quality of the books considered popular has ebbed.

Bluntly, the industry did a much better job recognizing and promoting quality in the 1950's than it does today.

Anonymous Noah B. January 07, 2015 11:44 AM  

"We have avenged the Prophet one was heard to shout."

Clearly this is wrong, since Islam is a religion of peace. It must have been those right wing extremists at PEGIDA.

Anonymous Daniel January 07, 2015 11:44 AM  

Vox, I generally agree with your thoughts here, but I'm curious if you've included the fact that the only SF books still available on Amazon from the 50's through the 70's are going to be books that are still in print.

This absolutely untrue. One of the highest rated books on the list is not in print. (Davy)

Blogger James Dixon January 07, 2015 11:53 AM  

> I have no doubt there were plenty of '50s and '60s equivalents of The Quantum Rose or worse, but they've simply been forgotten and are not showing up in the samples.

Yes, but they didn't win awards.

> He made the trains run on time, and science fiction fans like trains?

Sure. Just see http://www.amazon.com/Mighty-Good-Road-Melissa-Scott/dp/0671698737

Anonymous Jack Amok January 07, 2015 12:04 PM  

My Inner Statistician is having fits over the methodology used, but my Inner Sociologist is intrigued and glad the study was done.

Here are a couple of methodologies that might shed some light:


Agreed, but as Daniel wrote in his post, sales data is very difficult to come by. I do like the idea of tracking award nominees, but unfortunately half the dataset would have the peak in the 50's clipped out.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 07, 2015 12:09 PM  

Brad Torgersen has just announced Sad Puppies 3.0 on his blog.

Vote early and often.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 07, 2015 12:18 PM  

Personally, I miss the "we can do it" enthusiasm and successful frontier challenging of those older sci fi books...and most of all, optimism about what the future could be.

I completely agree. But the writers today are not the sort of people who like challenges. And frankly, I think perhaps it's femine nature to be less optimistic about the future than men - The Wall and all that - and we have a lot of feminine authors of both sexes these days.

Anonymous Toz January 07, 2015 12:21 PM  

I wonder if this is true of other genres of books or even movies/music. I imagine there's something of a survivorship bias here as books that are worth reviewing from the 1950's are sure to be the better works from that era whereas the ones from today have no such filter.

Anonymous clk January 07, 2015 12:51 PM  

I guess my question would be is it easier to get a book on the shelf now than its was in the 1950's ? ... was there filter in effect that only the top authors could get published because it was such task to typeset, print, ship, put on selves ?

I am always a bit more impressed with the earliest scifi because they often predict things that now are here -- but to be fair they had the whole of the future to work with ... .. it seems that for new scifi if you want to be new and interesting you have to go to the edges or the very speculative parts... which might be of interest to a smaller group.

Anonymous Daniel January 07, 2015 1:23 PM  

I have no doubt there were plenty of '50s and '60s equivalents of The Quantum Rose or worse, but they've simply been forgotten and are not showing up in the samples.

One of the decisions I had to make in this selection is in taking The Einstein Intersection of 1967 out. It has an average rating of 3.3 and won the nebula that year. Putting it on this list would have provided a little drag on the 60s robust numbers, but also would have knocked off a very well-selling, well-recognized (then and now) representative of the market. Quantum Rose did not have its own Flowers for Algernon that I felt should knock it off the list, but I also note that "no one" reads Davy anymore, and it is a 4.7!

There are also some truly great forgotten books of the 50s and 60s, so your argument cuts both ways. Thus, I stand by the limited sample. I think it may be pointing towards something I've been suspicious about for decades.

Anonymous Movie Critical January 07, 2015 1:58 PM  

...and yet, SF movies and TV have never been so popular.

The source material for cinema and television?

Almost always stuff from the 1950s-1960s or earlier. Avengers, comic books, pulp fiction, paperbacks, etc.

Anonymous Stephen J. January 07, 2015 2:04 PM  

@Jack Amok: "But that's the entire point! Whether you go by sales (which - at least until recently - is heavily influenced by what's heavily marketed by the big publishers) or by awards, the quality of the books considered popular has ebbed. Bluntly, the industry did a much better job recognizing and promoting quality in the 1950's than it does today."

A good point, and well said.

Anonymous Nathan January 07, 2015 2:38 PM  

Chaos Horizon has some interesting analysis of the Hugos and Nebulas that seems to dovetail into this. Not only is the average score of science fiction dropping, but at the same time, its share in the awards and nominations seems to plummet as well. Some of the graphs appear to mimic Daniel's, yet measure different metrics...

https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/

Anonymous Daniel January 07, 2015 2:46 PM  

Almost always stuff from the 1950s-1960s or earlier. Avengers, comic books, pulp fiction, paperbacks, etc.

The top-grossing sci-fi of 2014:

Guardians of the Galaxy - 1969
Captain America - 1940s
Lego Movie - whenever Legos were invented
Transformers - 1980s
Maleficent - 1950s
X-Men: Days of Future Past - 1960s (and set in the past, I believe. Didn't see it.)
The Hobbit: 1938
Big Hero 6: don't remember when the original came out, but I want to say 1980s or early 1990s. Could be wrong. Didn't read it at the time.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - 1950s? Can't remember when Boullard wrote it.

Spiderman, Godzilla, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles...the only big grossing sci-fi movies that are original to this millennium is the Hunger Games sequel and Interstellar.

Now, there has been good sci-fi that is original. Just nothing in the top 20 grossers or so, at least not that I can recall.

Anonymous Daniel January 07, 2015 2:48 PM  

Heh. I meant Boulle. Boullard was my teacher in study hall in seventh grade. Don't think he wrote Monkey Planet.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus January 07, 2015 2:58 PM  

I find this completely unsurprising.

I only started reading science fiction again about two years ago after a long, long hiatus. I read A Canticle for Liebowitz, by Walter Miller; Triplanetary, by Doc Smith; The Empire of Isher, by A.E. van Vogt; The Foundation trilogy, by Asimov, and Pro, by Gordon Dickson; plus a few anthologies of short stories from the 1930s to the 1960s.

I would consider it all high quality, except for Pro, which was written in the mid-1970s, and already has elements of Pink/Rabbit in it, trying to subvert the "manly men" qualities that made SF great with softer, feminine, "we win by being soft and compromising!" mentality.

Anonymous Daniel January 07, 2015 3:12 PM  

Foundation is a disjointed fix-up novel founded on a hilariously irrational premise (that reason = near-harmonic perfection), and furthermore is a classic for which I have fairly low regard compared to its peers of the era...and it easily surpasses the recent Nebula winners. By a light year.

Blogger Josh January 07, 2015 3:13 PM  

I liked the original foundation trilogy

Anonymous Nathan January 07, 2015 4:03 PM  

Foundation was alright, but let's not speak about Foundation's Edge or Foundation and Earth, both written, oddly enough, in the plunge that was the Eighties.

Blogger Josh January 07, 2015 4:06 PM  

Foundation was alright, but let's not speak about Foundation's Edge or Foundation and Earth, both written, oddly enough, in the plunge that was the Eighties.

Like the star wars prequels and matrix sequels those never happened

Blogger Bogey January 07, 2015 4:27 PM  

With the rise of the Independents and the self-publishers hopefully that graph will look better when the 2010s are through.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus January 07, 2015 4:32 PM  

Foundation was alright, but let's not speak about Foundation's Edge or Foundation and Earth, both written, oddly enough, in the plunge that was the Eighties.

Didn't read those, only the first three.

My SF reading tends to be sandwiched in among my non-fiction reading (large bulk), and tends to follow whatever I find at thrift shops.

Anonymous kawaika January 07, 2015 4:34 PM  

I've only read one book by Blish, A Case of Conscience, and it was a ridiculous rip off of Perelandra. I wish I'd posted my 2 star review on Amazon before this list made.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 07, 2015 5:10 PM  

Interesting it tops out right just as Ace Books was publishing the Destinies anthologies.

For those who never got a chance to read them, they were incredibly awesome. Any random copy of Destinies was likely to feature. Orson Scott Card, Poul Anderson, Fred Pohl, Spider Robinson, James Hogan, Roger Zelazny, Niven, Pournelle (also Niven and Pournelle) oh and some guy named Heinlein.

Basically it was Galaxy magazine with a decent budget.

Anonymous Nathan January 07, 2015 6:09 PM  

Looks like the rabbits are already a titter over Sad Puppies 3.0... Can they really claim to control the discussion on SF if they constantly react to us?

OpenID cailcorishev January 07, 2015 6:13 PM  

"Foundation was alright, but let's not speak about Foundation's Edge or Foundation and Earth, both written, oddly enough, in the plunge that was the Eighties."

Didn't read those, only the first three.


Don't; they'll just make you sad.

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly January 07, 2015 6:20 PM  

@ clk: I guess my question would be is it easier to get a book on the shelf now than its was in the 1950's ? ... was there filter in effect that only the top authors could get published because it was such task to typeset, print, ship, put on selves ?

There was a lot of sci fi pulp pre-80s as well. And not just from unknowns but from well known writers. Go to a really large second hand book store and start browsing the sci fi shelf and you'll see it.
Harry Harrison was a sci fi author who made his living writing pulp (and was proud of it) and yet some of his novels are still readable today and more fun than Scalzi's work


@ Daniel: What are the great sci fi novels and who are the great writers we've forgotten about?


If you all think the last two Foundations are terrible then wait until you read the prequels....what's that, you didn't know Asimov kept digging?


@ Quadko: Go to my website (click on my name) in a few weeks and I should have a sci fi story up that will interest you. Website is under construction right now and will be up by next week.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 07, 2015 9:36 PM  

Eurozone falls into deflation

Anonymous Jack Amok January 07, 2015 10:55 PM  

I guess my question would be is it easier to get a book on the shelf now than its was in the 1950's ? ... was there filter in effect that only the top authors could get published because it was such task to typeset, print, ship, put on selves ?

The real question isn't whether it's easier to get a book on the (perhaps digital) shelf than it was in 1950, but whether it's easier to get it in front of a significant number of reader's eyeballs. There's no doubt it's easier to get a book published today, but getting attention for it is still a challenge, perhaps more of a one than it was in the 50's.

Back then, you had to convince an editor your story was worth publishing. Not an easy task, but if you did it, thousands or tens of thousands of people would read your story. Today you can publish your story without convincing a single other person it's worth publishing, but now you've got convince the thousands of potential readers it's worth reading if your story is going to have any impact on the genre.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 07, 2015 10:56 PM  

A good point, and well said.

Why thank you, I appreciate that.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar January 08, 2015 10:25 PM  

If you want to see the brilliant Central Planning of the Economy by our evil rodent overlords, just consider. They are getting weak feminine authors to write gay romance novel tripe, while at the same time promoting the continued immigration of illiterate third worlders like Che Taco Hell Mountain Dew Alvarez.
You know how much those macho luchadore loving lettuce pickers adore homosexual loving don't you? Just look at all the gays on Univision.
Now if only there was a non-White demographic that was functionally literate and sexually perverse that could buy all the tripe these dead tree rewrappers could market to...

Blogger Ben Cohen January 09, 2015 2:34 PM  

Case in point: The Desolation of The Hobbit.

-FUBAR Nation Ben

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts