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

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

A tale of two comments

Kevin Standlee and I were exchanging comments at File 770 about Patrick Richardson's post concerning how he was not considered a Real Fan of science fiction and fantasy:
KS: It sounds very much to me like, “Because there aren’t more people who think JUST LIKE ME!”

VD: Then why are so many of you bitching about the fact that we’re flooding the Hugo voting with more people who do, in fact, think like us? Larry brought in a few dozen voters last year. Now we’re bringing in a few hundred more. You want more people? Fine. We’ll give you more people.

KS: Yep, go ahead. What many of us object to is the implication that people should nominate/vote for things without reading them, because it will make the Bad People Cry. Even more annoying to me is the implication that those of us who have been voting have been doing so for Evil Political Reasons, not because we like the works involved. This strikes me very much as an argument made by people who have so little empathy that they can’t believe any rational person would like things other than what they like, and therefore the only reason things they don’t like win is because of the system being borked by Evil People.

VD: The rules were established last year when the other side declared they did not have to read our works to vote on them.... How can you condemn us for nothing more than following the example they set last year? We were being generous. If you actually think mediocre hackwork like Redshirts and Ancillary Justice and "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" represents the best of science fiction today, I feel pity for you. If you were supporting that sort of thing for Evil Political Reasons, at least I could understand that. If you simply like wallowing in literary excrement, well… that is your prerogative.
It's interesting to see how the goalposts move, is it not? But I encourage you all to note that everyone from Kevin Standlee to John Scalzi now publicly declares it's fine, it's great, it's wonderful that so many Sad Puppies have gotten involved in the Hugo voting process. They never seem to mention the Rabid Puppies though. I wonder why that might be?

Meanwhile, they continue to ignore the fact that the pinkshirts are continuing to do the very thing they accuse our side of doing, which is to say, voting and nominating without reading everything and blindly rejecting the other side's works on pure political grounds. Consider this very typical and telling comment from a Whatever rabbit:
This blog post and the extended discussion in the comments caused me to seek out the Sad Puppy Slate for this year. I readily concede that I haven’t read any of the books or stories on this slate; but then, there are incredibly huge numbers of books and stories and articles I haven’t read that were published in 2014. It’s the nature of the field.

My curiosity did lead me to check out one of the books in the “related works” category: John Wright’s Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth. One of the Amazon reviews of the book quotes one essay in which Wright writes: “girls who do not like love stories are well advised to learn to like them, because such stories deal with the essential and paramount realities on which much or most of that girl’s happiness in life will hinge.”

Yikes! If that’s a sample of what is in store here, I am not inclined to spend $4.99 to purchase the book for my Kindle. After all, I’m a woman (not a girl, please note) whose happiness in life is certainly greater for the love of my beloved husband, but who was also very happy with a thriving career, thousands of books, great friends, frequent travel and an abundance of furry critters before he came into my life. The idea that I can’t be happy without a man — well, you know that old saying about fish and bicycles.

So it appears that, once again this year, the slate has been chosen not with an eye toward the quality of the work in question, but as a means of sticking a thumb into the eye of those not likely to vote for the proposed slate. How does this win hearts and minds? Or is the battle the real end here, with persuasion not even intended? What does that prove?
The pinkshirts are claiming to be able to judge our quality without ever reading any of it. Meanwhile, we openly mock the quality of the crap they hold up to be science fiction's best precisely because we HAVE read it, my love. And there isn't a word of criticism from the nominal Hugo moderates for the likes of this pinkshirt who hasn't read a single thing from the other side, but rejects all of it on the basis of a single quote from a single review of a book. Furthermore, having been reading the Amazon reviews, she has to be aware that it is a book with 22 ratings averaging 4.8 stars, and yet she claims that single quote somehow indicates that it is a work that has not been chosen for its quality! It's not just the pinkshirt-nominated works that reek of bullshit.

Remember, both Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies have recommended for nomination John C. Wright's highly regarded Transhuman and Subhuman, which was a #1 bestseller in Science Fiction History & Criticism and is still a Top 20 bestseller in Philosophy>Good & Evil, in the Best Related Work category that was won last year by an openly tendentious, ideologically-charged BLOG POST. But somehow, we're accused of being the side that places politics over quality. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

Labels: ,

59 Comments:

Blogger Krul February 18, 2015 5:12 AM  

KS - What many of us object to is the implication that people should nominate/vote for things without reading them, because it will make the Bad People Cry. Even more annoying to me is the implication that those of us who have been voting have been doing so for Evil Political Reasons

I object to Pointless Capitalization.

Blogger ajw308 February 18, 2015 5:58 AM  

But somehow, we're accused of being the side that places quality over politics.
They project and they aren't intellectually honest. Either trait could land them in a warren. Together, they just compound their denial.

Blogger Krul February 18, 2015 6:09 AM  

But somehow, we're accused of being the side that places quality over politics. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

I think you mean "politics over quality".

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 6:14 AM  

Yes, indeed. Corrected.

Anonymous Apollo February 18, 2015 6:22 AM  

What many of us object to is the implication that people should nominate/vote for things without reading them, because it will make the Bad People Cry.

Who is suggesting that people vote for this stuff without reading it though? This stupid argument was raised at Larrys place a little while ago, and he responded by quoting multiple previous statements to the effect that, yes, you should read the stuff before voting for it. Then he did a new post specifically to underline this point.

Ive never gotten the impression from any of the puppies posts that the author was suggesting that people vote for something without having read it first. I dont recall if everyone specifically said NOT to do this though. Maybe thats enough for them to assume the worst, because thats exactly how they would operate if the positions were reversed.

Blogger Rantor February 18, 2015 6:31 AM  

I did read, "if you were a dinosaur my love." It totally sucked. It makes me not want to read things that the esteemed members of the dread ilk consider bad. @krull capitalization minimized.

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 6:40 AM  

Who is suggesting that people vote for this stuff without reading it though?

More projection. Because they won't read our stuff, because Badthink, they assume we must do the same. Rabbits are always in avoidance mode, so they can't understand that we're not afraid to read their pellet-droppings.

I don't mind saying that I like a Charles Stross book even though he's an SJW moron. Stross would rather cut his own throat than admit that John C. Wright is one of the best SF authors writing, no matter what Wright writes. In fact, considering his readership, doing so would be metaphorically cutting his own throat.

Anonymous genuine Scalzi fan February 18, 2015 6:42 AM  

"Yikes! If that’s a sample of what is in store here, I am not inclined to spend $4.99 to purchase the book for my Kindle. "

Some of us woman can't afford $4.99. That is a lot of money. Especially to pay for a racist sexist book of hate. Maybe you dudebros are swimming in money to buy kindle books from your rich dads or corporatist jobs. But we who write to have a voice do not have the cash.

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 6:49 AM  

Some of us woman can't afford $4.99. That is a lot of money

And yet you're dropping $40 on a Worldcon supporting membership? Doesn't compute.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 18, 2015 6:59 AM  

VD,

But somehow, we're accused of being the side that places politics over quality

Yet, you write far more about the ideology of works than about the literary techniques. I'm willing to bet even the literary analysis posts deal heavily with ideological divergence from originals.

Now, you'll say this isn't a literature blog... But why yes, it is.

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 7:10 AM  

Yet, you write far more about the ideology of works than about the literary techniques. I'm willing to bet even the literary analysis posts deal heavily with ideological divergence from originals.

You'd lose that bet. And you have only to click on Rules of Writing on the left sidebar to see for yourself. I don't write much on literary technique because my literary technique is mediocre to average and I do not consider myself qualified to do so. I would encourage you to pay attention to what John Wright, Tanith Lee, China Mieville, or Umberto Eco have to say on the matter, not me.

Whereas I am a former nationally syndicated political columnist, a student of economics educated by Marxians. I am eminently qualified to comment on ideology.

Now, you'll say this isn't a literature blog... But why yes, it is.

So, you're saying I should have been put forward for Best Fan Writer or perhaps Best Related Work? Relax, I merely jest.

Anonymous Apollo February 18, 2015 7:29 AM  

I don't mind saying that I like a Charles Stross book even though he's an SJW moron.

I only made it halfway through the Attrocity Archives before losing interest, but that has nothing to do with Stross's politics. Theres a few other authors I enjoy who I strongly suspect of being SJWs though, but as long as their books entertain me I dont care either way.

Regardless of the details of which specific SJW authors we might read though, the obvious conclusion to be reached is that we are better at inclusivity than the SJW crowd.

Anonymous Picky Bastard February 18, 2015 7:42 AM  

"But we who write to have a voice do not have the cash."

That sounds like a Bablefish translation.

We who write to have a voice salute you!

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 18, 2015 7:49 AM  

I'll bet the troll if not a bit of sarcasm from an Ilk dudebro has an awesome iPhone with data package, cha ching

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 18, 2015 7:51 AM  

You'd lose that bet. And you have only to click on Rules of Writing on the left sidebar to see for yourself.

With all due respect, Vox, you're incorrect.

You have 10 posts under Rules of Writing. 1 web page. I stopped clicking for SFWA on page 3. I didn't even bother checking McRapey. Let's say even a half of each of those categories applies directly to ideology and literature.


So, you're saying I should have been put forward for Best Fan Writer or perhaps Best Related Work? Relax, I merely jest.

If you were a Voxiraptor...

Blogger AmyJ February 18, 2015 7:53 AM  

Her life is now worse for avoiding John C. Wright.

Anonymous Pope Cleophus I February 18, 2015 7:58 AM  

Does babelfish have a half savage translator?

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 8:02 AM  

You have 10 posts under Rules of Writing. 1 web page. I stopped clicking for SFWA on page 3. I didn't even bother checking McRapey. Let's say even a half of each of those categories applies directly to ideology and literature.

You're confused as to what you suggested as the bet. It was "even the literary analysis posts deal heavily with ideological divergence from originals" not "more posts dealing with the ideology of works than about the literary techniques."

I readily admit the latter; I even explained the reason why. But SFWA posts are not about literary analysis. Neither are McRapey posts. Rules of Writing posts are. You still lose the bet.

Blogger Shibes Meadow February 18, 2015 8:07 AM  

I for one welcome our Pink friends to Vox Populi. What are your names, wayfarers?

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 18, 2015 8:10 AM  

VD,

It was "even the literary analysis posts deal heavily with ideological divergence from originals" not "more posts dealing with the ideology of works than about the literary techniques."

Incorrect again. I didn't say there weren't any posts dealing only in literary analysis. I even included your rhetoric vs dialectic posts in my thinking to be generous.

On my side, I included 2 categories: the first, posts regarding movie scripting and direction in relation to their past works and other one-offs about McRapey's stealing of literary material. The second, which you contend, SFWA posts about ideology in literature are most certainly posts about literary analysis, albeit about ideology over quality. Each time you post about the ideology of a writer bleeding into their fiction and how it's ruins it all, you are writing about and analyzing the direction and content of their works.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 18, 2015 8:19 AM  

Vox,

If I may cut to the quick of our bet: do you contend that authorial intent is not part of literary analysis?

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 8:21 AM  

NorthernHamlet, I am not interested in your definitions or how you think my posts are best categorized. They do not apply to my categories, which exist for a reason. You are free to think what you like and define things how you like. I've already explained why I write more about ideology than technique and your original point doesn't successfully contest the readily observable fact that our side is relatively more focused on quality whereas theirs is almost entirely focused on politics. Not even my own writing and publishing choices, let alone Toni Weisskopf's, are determined by what I happen to blog about.

Of course, you are welcome to attempt to make the case for "We Have Always Fought" versus Transhuman and Subhuman on quality grounds.

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 8:23 AM  

If I may cut to the quick of our bet: do you contend that authorial intent is not part of literary analysis?

No, certainly not.

Anonymous Believe It February 18, 2015 8:26 AM  

Berg's Seventh Law of Liberal Projection reminds us that when Liberals accuse Conservatives of doing something Bad, it's because Liberals already are doing it themselves and want to deflect attention.

Applies to everything: money in politics, lying about resume, voting for Hugos on politics over content . . . everything.

Read it at "Shot In The Dark Blog"

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 18, 2015 8:46 AM  

Heh. Nice find.

Berg’s Seventh Law of Liberal Projection - When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character, humanity or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds.

The McKay Corollary To Berg’s Seventh Law – Any time the liberal media (to say nothing of leftyblogs) “reports” on guns or race, they should be distrusted but verified. And then, to an almost-mathematical standard of invariably, distrusted some more.


The “Sixty-First-Minute” Corollary to Berg’s Seventh Law – any time the mainstream (to say nothing of overtly liberal) media presents supposedly damaging information about conservatives, they should presumed guilty of dishonest editing or outright manufacturing of evidence until proven innocent. They are almost never proven innocent.


The Fugelsang Corollary To Berg’s Seventh Law – a liberal who uses “I’m happy with my penis size” as a conclusion to a debate on the Second Amendment doth protest too much.

Anonymous Ha February 18, 2015 8:51 AM  

One of the Amazon reviews of the book quotes one essay in which Wright writes

You don't have to read a book so long as you read a negative review by someone who also has not read it (but has simply "skimmed until offended"). So there!

OpenID malcolmthecynic February 18, 2015 9:03 AM  

This whole thing is such a crock of bullshit.

You know what? I am supporting the Sad Puppies this year, but because I'm not a damn idiot, my first thought was "Gee, I better read a lot of these works and make sure they're really good before I vote for them.

And guess what? I came up with this concept all on my ownsome, because only an idiot would actually believe we're being encouraged to vote so as not to read the works. I must be a secret Sad Puppy subversive or something.

OpenID malcolmthecynic February 18, 2015 9:09 AM  

“girls who do not like love stories are well advised to learn to like them, because such stories deal with the essential and paramount realities on which much or most of that girl’s happiness in life will hinge.”

After all, I’m a woman (not a girl, please note) whose happiness in life is certainly greater for the love of my beloved husband, but who was also very happy with a thriving career, thousands of books, great friends, frequent travel and an abundance of furry critters before he came into my life.

Hey, look! She agrees with him, since she admits that much of the happiness in her life depends on the love she has for her husband!

After all, Mr. Wright did say much OR most. I mean, it's right there, in black and white, easy to read.

Unless, of course, she's admitting her life would be better without him. But she would never do that, right?

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 18, 2015 9:14 AM  

VD,

Forgive me, in my enthusiasm to debate literature, I missed the war for the battle. As my definitions are long standing in the literary community, I disagree that you won our bet, but if you have no more interest in that discussion, I will withdraw.

Anonymous Alexander February 18, 2015 9:39 AM  

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Last year when Vox made the ballot, his work was available for free. Yet somehow, all the pinkos were still determined not to read it, even those that couldn't cobble together $4.99.

Which leads to another point. Bemoaning about a book under $5.00, while being on the side of the traditional publishers. Adorable.

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 9:40 AM  

As my definitions are long standing in the literary community, I disagree that you won our bet, but if you have no more interest in that discussion, I will withdraw.

No, by all means, carry on with your questions. I'm interested to see where you are trying to take it. You've already got my answer: authorial intent is part of literary analysis. I'm not a postmodernist who thinks it is valid to separate text from author.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 18, 2015 9:47 AM  

She should have bought Transhuman and read it.

She would have been transported by paroxysms of delighted outrage. Especially the stuff about feminine virtues and Elizabeth Bennet.

Honestly she's denying herself all kinds of offensive cisgendernormative fascism that she can have strokes over. She would be the envy of all her friends. What few remained outside their safe spaces after she got through issuing trigger warnings anyway.

Blogger James Dixon February 18, 2015 9:53 AM  

> Some of us woman can't afford $4.99. That is a lot of money.

There are these things call "libraries". You might want to take a look at them.

Anonymous Anubis February 18, 2015 10:04 AM  

"Who is suggesting that people vote for this stuff without reading it though"

Perchance they are saying the best of the Pink Sci Fi is that which you did not read, as in I have read every book but this one so it is the most pleasant of the bunch.

"But somehow, we're accused of being the side that places quality over politics."

Another case of quality being the opposite of equality.

"Some of us woman can't afford $4.99."
Maybe she can find someone reselling it cheaper like the guy killed for selling untaxed individual cigarettes in NYC.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 18, 2015 10:14 AM  

Maybe you dudebros are swimming in money to buy kindle books from your rich dads or corporatist jobs.

John C.Wright is a Dudebro?!? (*Cataline's jaw hits the ground in shock and amazement at the breadth of the definition of Dudebro*)

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 18, 2015 10:17 AM  

No, by all means, carry on with your questions. I'm interested to see where you are trying to take it. You've already got my answer: authorial intent is part of literary analysis. I'm not a postmodernist who thinks it is valid to separate text from author.

I was going to say, you often focus your literary criticism to the political and psychological intent of the authors involved and their works as vehicles thereof. Now, you primarily use secondary sources, blogs and the like, to conduct your dissection, but I think it's fair to say that as an analysis of authorial intent, it is also literary analysis. I've seen more than one reader here comment that they can no longer read Scalzi's work now that you've shown them what's there.

My point was nothing beyond that from an outside perspective, there does appear evidence to justify their position concerning ideology as more important than quality, given its floor time.

I do agree, however, is not like they give a shit about quality themselves. At all.

Anonymous Stephen J. February 18, 2015 10:18 AM  

"But somehow, we're accused of being the side that places politics over quality."

In classic Marxist thought there's nothing wrong with using the politics of a work as the primary metric of its quality; indeed, in postmodern PC psychology the basic assumption is that this is not only acceptable but practically inevitable. From one perspective, after all, the "Christian reading list" criteria of a few posts back were simply the same thing as the Whatever commenter's perspective on Mr. Wright: an establishment of the ideological "dealbreakers" in deciding whether to read a work, things for which no amount of quality in any other area could compensate.

The real accusation here is not that the SP slate is placing politics over quality but that they are doing so while claiming not to do so, out of self-deception at best and mendacity at worst. There is even a certain logic to it if one grants, for purposes of argument, that the claim that aesthetic merit can be apolitically evaluated is itself a political stance -- certainly an artist whose politics disagree with a judging body has every interest in eliminating politics from the criteria of judgement, just as an artist whose politics agree with that body has every interest in including those politics in those criteria. But the problem is that this reduces the conflict to an irreconcileable paradigm clash -- when one side's insistence that not everything is politics is asserted by the other side only to be a political gambit in itself, there's really nothing that can be said between the two at that point.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 18, 2015 10:24 AM  

John C.Wright is a Dudebro?!? (*Cataline's jaw hits the ground in shock and amazement at the breadth of the definition of Dudebro*)

Well there was that story about how he and Sarah Hoyt had spent twenty-seven hours straight at Cheetah's in Las Vegas but I didn't' think there was anything to it.

Blogger Quadko February 18, 2015 10:33 AM  

They never seem to mention the Rabid Puppies though. I wonder why that might be?

"Always fighting the last war". Next year it'll be all Rabid Puppies coverage, while the new campaign will be Tears for Vader Puppies or something.

Anonymous Donn February 18, 2015 10:37 AM  

Career, books, travel and furry critters? Yikes! She's a breathing shambling stereotype. The $4.99 is obviously an excuse it's less than she spends on her morning latte. Anyone who can afford travel at any level other than gypsy con men can afford $4.99. Free wouldn't satisfy her because at some level she's afraid she'll find that careers, furry critters, travel and books do not reach the hem of the garment she'll wear as wife and mother. Her thousands of books are worth little compared to one snot nosed kid who wants to sit on her lap and be read too.

It really is a trigger warning. They avoid thinking about what their choices mean in the real world and they avoid reading 'badthink' sci fi for the same reason. They really don't want to find out how much better it is on the other side.

Blogger Doom February 18, 2015 10:37 AM  

Off-topic but on queue?

Hey, last I checked it is Wednesday. Where are your picks for purchases. I suppose I can do that, or some buying anyway. Put them in some order. Yeah, I can be lazy, and can't always focus. Hoops for hoops, bub.

I couldn't figure out how to join Sad Puppies, this year... maybe next. Though I am not sure who can join, and all that jazz. As to any guilt about that? Nah. Conservatives are notoriously slow to act. How long did it take to finally begin the crusades? Procrastinating bastards, who pretty much let the world take care of itself until it ends up knocking on the door. Lazy, hands off, faithfully careless often to a fault, call it what you will. But how I like it. I guess.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 18, 2015 10:43 AM  

"Always fighting the last war". Next year it'll be all Rabid Puppies coverage, while the new campaign will be Tears for Vader Puppies or something.

It may not be topical enough to funny anymore a year from now, but my pick would be Generic Extremist Puppies.

Anonymous roo_ster February 18, 2015 10:44 AM  

I would like to thank those behind Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies for the suggestions. I had not read half the suggestions when they were presented, but plan to read them all before casting my ballot. I am very impressed as to the general quality of the suggestions and have not had this much concentrated reading pleasure in quite a while.

Anonymous hygate February 18, 2015 11:35 AM  

It really is a trigger warning. They avoid thinking about what their choices mean in the real world and they avoid reading 'badthink' sci fi for the same reason. They really don't want to find out how much better it is on the other side.

If women don't need men then why the spate of articles decrying that men are "going on strike" that is, pulling out of the marriage game.

And if women don't need men then why is Maureen Dowd bitching about the fact that the men she is attracted to are no longer attracted to her?

Sure a woman can do without a man, just like a man can do without a woman. But that arrangement is sub-optimal. But for some reason some people insist on denying that reality.

Blogger Krul February 18, 2015 11:47 AM  

hygate - If women don't need men then why the spate of articles decrying that men are "going on strike" that is, pulling out of the marriage game.

Not enough bicycles to go around, eh fishies?

The popularity of that saying is so stupid. Is it even possible for heterosexual men to be that delusional?

Blogger Desiderius February 18, 2015 12:02 PM  

Stephen J.,

"there's really nothing that can be said between the two at that point"

This was the case at the outset. The point is moot.

"just as an artist whose politics agree with that body has every interest in including those politics in those criteria"

No. This is the whole point of contention. If you believe this to be true, you're no artist at all.

"In classic Marxist thought there's nothing wrong with using the politics of a work as the primary metric of its quality; indeed, in postmodern PC psychology the basic assumption is that this is not only acceptable but practically inevitable"

The inevitability is used as a rationalization for making it - the politicization - mandatory. Might has an interest in the view that Might makes Right, Evil that there is no real distinction between Evil and Good.

We stand on the opposite proposition.

Anonymous GreyS February 18, 2015 1:02 PM  

"mediocre hackwork like[...] "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" "

Mediocre? There's nothing mediocre about it. It is horrendously brilliant. I'd also guess it was easily the most widely-read of last year's entries. I'd laugh laugh laugh in the slick of my own blood to be able to vote for it again.

Anonymous Stephen J. February 18, 2015 1:07 PM  

"If you believe this to be true, you're no artist at all."

I would not go that far. The ideal artist creates art with no care of how an audience will understand or react to it at all, but I would venture to suggest that very few working artists, if any, reach this ideal -- artists are people; awareness of and desire for feedback is inherent to our condition, and if you have to achieve perfect disinterest in that dimension to be an artist I would suggest the title is too strict to be useful. And certainly there have been great works of art that were also profoundly and intentionally political, and for whom political approbation constituted a valid part of the audience evaluation.

The problem with the Hugos and the SP slate, of course, is that the Hugos are not supposed to incorporate philosophical or ideological criteria at all, but have accumulated a set of cultural assumptions among their voting and creative community that effectively amount to the same thing, and because those assumptions are implicit they are not perceived as "political" by their holders. The goal of Sad Puppies is simply to weaken the influence of those assumptions by demonstrating their existence and nature to both the voters and the could-be voters; the fundamental problem is that because those assumptions are so personal and widespread, this cannot but be interpreted as an attack on the assumptions themselves rather than as a criticism of their role in one specific arena. The part of "ur doing it wrong" that hurts is never the "doing" but the "ur".

Blogger Desiderius February 18, 2015 1:40 PM  

Stephen J.,

"The ideal artist creates art with no care of how an audience will understand or react to it at all"

No. It is not about the ideal, but the real.

The artist's deepest interest, the interest upon which all else is predicated, is proper (i.e. aesthetic) appreciation of his art. If the criteria upon which his art is judged are influenced by the political, then something else is coming before that which is properly first - the interest of the judge before the verdict, the primacy of the shared endeavor (art and its appreciation) usurped, the social fabric frayed. One sees the same phenomenon in religion, gaming, sports.

"if you have to achieve perfect disinterest in that dimension to be an artist I would suggest the title is too strict to be useful."

Of course. Disinterest is not nihilism. Disinterest is putting the interest of the shared endeavor ahead of one's own interest, or at least recognizing that one's own interest lies in furthering the good of the shared endeavor (playing the prisoner's dilemma properly) rather than furthering one's own interest (or the interest of one's own group) at its expense.

"And certainly there have been great works of art that were also profoundly and intentionally political, and for whom political approbation constituted a valid part of the audience evaluation."

Not as art, as politics. A great book can have lousy politics, and vice versa, or no politics at all. You're conflating categories.

Blogger Vox February 18, 2015 1:43 PM  

My point was nothing beyond that from an outside perspective, there does appear evidence to justify their position concerning ideology as more important than quality, given its floor time.

Sure, if you only look at my blog posts. Of course, if you read the books that I write, or even the books I edit and publish, it should be eminently clear that ideology is neither a primary nor secondary concern. One of the most common statements among the few Hugo voters who admitted to reading Opera last year was surprise at its lack of ideological content. If I want to deal with ideology, I write non-fiction.

I do agree, however, is not like they give a shit about quality themselves. At all.

I can't argue with that.

OpenID malcolmthecynic February 18, 2015 2:14 PM  

One of the most common statements among the few Hugo voters who admitted to reading Opera last year was surprise at its lack of ideological content.

Indeed, it was essentially about, at least partially, people of two different cultures, even classes of being entirely, coming together to try and form a relationship of mutual respect and understanding - hardly a theme of your non-fiction.

Blogger John Wright February 18, 2015 3:02 PM  

In response to this comment: “girls who do not like love stories are well advised to learn to like them, because such stories deal with the essential and paramount realities on which much or most of that girl’s happiness in life will hinge.”

A leftist writes:
"After all, I’m a woman (not a girl, please note) whose happiness in life is certainly greater for the love of my beloved husband, but who was also very happy with a thriving career, thousands of books, great friends, frequent travel and an abundance of furry critters before he came into my life. The idea that I can’t be happy without a man — well, you know that old saying about fish and bicycles."

Am I the only one here who notices the fundamental illogic of the statement here?

My comment was that a love is a paramount reality on which much or most of her happiness will hinge.

I did not say that there are no other sources of minor happiness or entertainment.

The hag then lists the rat race of her career, reading books, sightseeing, and other friends and acquaintances as something she is also 'very happy' with, as if erotic love and marital bliss versus reading a good book or playing tourist overseas were of equal value.

Since my statement was not that idle pastimes and useful work were no source of happiness, but that marriage was paramount as a source of happiness, the hag is merely reacting emotionally to the implication, which she takes to be an assault akin my STICKING MY THUMB IN HER EYE to point out the dependence of women on love for happiness.

In other words, she is offended because I pointed out that women are womanly.

The old saying about fish and bicycles is a lie, and was said by a woman who since then got married, and is being said by a woman who just publicly demeaned and belittled her own husband.

She just told the world she does not need her husband, did she not? She might as well have castrated him with sheers.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing February 18, 2015 3:21 PM  

Feminist hags can't stand to be told they are not fish and their bicycle-riding skills suck.

I say, declare away, Mr. Wright.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 18, 2015 3:26 PM  

Irina Dunn didn't just get married; she got married to a violent felon. For at least a few years.

Anonymous tiredofitall February 18, 2015 4:46 PM  

"Irina Dunn didn't just get married; she got married to a violent felon." - Joshua Dyal

Well of course she did, he gave her the gina tingles. And that's way more important than a caring partner who won't turn on you like a psychopath for no reason, everybody knows that.

Anonymous Mr T February 18, 2015 6:49 PM  

The old saying about fish and bicycles is a lie, and was said by a woman who since then got married

I pity the fool!

Anonymous BigGaySteve February 18, 2015 7:23 PM  

"The Fugelsang Corollary To Berg’s Seventh Law – a liberal who uses “I’m happy with my penis size” as a conclusion to a debate on the Second Amendment doth protest too much."

What they mean is they are happy with their boyfriends penis size. Gays need weapons to defend themselves since bathhouse Barry has been inviting in 3rd world moslems. With soldiers getting beheaded in broad daylight in London & Paris with, 1700 little white girls gang rapes ignored in one UK town, if they wont do anything to help little white girls they will do even less to defend gays.

Anonymous BigGaySteve February 18, 2015 7:30 PM  

"The old saying about fish and bicycles is a lie, and was said by a woman who since then got married, and is being said by a woman who just publicly demeaned and belittled her own husband. "

One time a guy came into work and said "Is bonnie around I am her husband" I couldn't help but reply "I am so sorry for you". The poor man must have woke up next to her with a ring on his finger,a hangover & the belief he would go to hell if he divorced her.

Feminist hags can't stand to be told they are not fish
You might want to get your sense of smell checked.

OpenID The Practical Conservative February 18, 2015 9:03 PM  

Nah, she told the world you were right, Mr. Wright. She started out her snark by making very sure that anyone reading would know that SHE HAS A HUSBAND YALL, and only then moved on to feminist checkboxes of career and cats and travel. She does need the love of her husband, not least because even a raging leftist like that lady wants approval for being able to secure a husband. Children are optional to leftists, but having a companionate heterosexual (aka NORMAL) marriage is still a mark of status even for them.

The quote she cited didn't really reference marriage, to my reading, it was just a note that it's useful for women to understand love stories, no matter whether an individual woman is drawn specially to men or blessed with a celibate nature or cursed with being drawn away from men. Because love stories define us as women, and even women who will never marry and have no interest in the matter should want to better understand their friends and family because even such women are still far more social on average than similarly situated men.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts