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

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Defensive much?

Johnny Con is feeling a little caught out. And defensive:
    1. It's been recently suggested that I should be ashamed for getting the Hugo for Redshirts (by an author who hasn't himself read the book).

    2. To be clear: I am not. I am deeply pleased it won, and I think it was entirely deserving of the award, and the other awards it won.

    3. It's funny and an easy read, and if you think that's easy to accomplish as a writer — and still pack an emotional punch — well, try it.

    4. The same author suggested (again without reading it), that it was a "social justice" sort of book, which lent itself to winning.

    5. It is, in fact probably the least racially/sexually diverse book I've written BECAUSE the characters were supposed to reflect a BAD show.

    6. Indeed, when the TV script for it was written, they CHANGED the sex of a couple of characters to make it more diverse! This is true.

    7. So it really is a bad example of a Social Justice-y sort of book. Much worse, in fact, than my OMW series in general.

    8. Also, if the "SJWs" vote en bloc, why would they award me, SWM, when Saladin Ahmed and Mira Grant were on the ballot?

    9. The only answer here would be because the SJWs secretly crave straight white male leadership, which would be kinda not SJW-y at all.

    10. I'm happy with the politics I have and I try to be a good human, which is apparently what makes me an SJW. But Redshirts is, in fact…

    11. … a genuinely TERRIBLE example of a book to show influence of the SJW cabal, both in content, and in its year. It's a bad argument.

    12. The book won for a number of reasons, including people just liked it. But because of an SJW cabal? Really, no. That's dumb.

    13. I'm done.
My rebuttal:
 
“Man, I owe you a blowjob,” Duvall said.

“What?” Dahl said.

“What?” Hester said.

“Sorry,” Duvall said. “In ground forces, when someone does you a favor you tell them you owe them a sex act. If it’s a little thing, it’s a handjob. Medium, blowjob. Big favor, you owe them a fuck. Force of habit. It’s just an expression.”

“Got it,” Dahl said.

“No actual blowjob forthcoming,” Duvall said. “To be clear”

“It’s the thought that counts,” Dahl said, and turned to Hester. “What about you? You want to owe me a blowjob, too?”

“I’m thinking about it ,” Hester said.  

Best Novel-worthy prose or Participation Hugo? You decide. This is nearly as amusing:
I do find the fixation on me weird, and I really do think it comes down to the fact that I would be the perfect flag-bearer for the sort of person who identifies as a Puppy, if for the inconvenient fact of my personal politics. And also because Beale really has a thing for me, which is straight-up pure envy, as far as I can tell.
Yes, because contempt is so easily confused for straight-up pure envy. What It was a little more than two years ago that I was informed I was desperately jealous of Mr. Scalzi because his blog readership was "ten times the size of mine." Now that my blog readership is three times the size of his, I'm envious of what, his failed career as a game writer? I'm the lead designer on six different games. His career as a writer? If I find an hour to write every other day, I'm fortunate.

John Scalzi has been attacking me and calling me names for just over ten years now. He's been attacking my readers and calling them names for nearly as long. It's absolutely stupid for the pathetic fraud to pretend he doesn't know why we continue to go after him. He's squirmed, he's dissembled, and he's spun, but he's never simply admitted that he lied. He's never apologized. He's never simply admitted that he was wrong.

It's kind of a pity the traffic didn't quite hit 2 million this month, but fell 90k short. Because this would have been the perfect time to juxstapose that graphic with Scalzi's 2010 interview with Lightspeed, in which he exaggerated his traffic by a mere 1.7 million.
there’s more to John Scalzi and his writing than meets the eye. For one thing, his blog gets an extraordinary amount of traffic for a writer’s website–Scalzi himself quotes it at over 45,000 unique visitors daily and more than two million page views monthly. And it’s well-deserved traffic, too, in light of the man’s reputation for posting unique content.
I find it amusing that so many SJWs still try to pretend that 300k pageviews per month was "extraordinary traffic" while simultaneously insisting that more than 6x that much is nothing. The lesson, as always: SJWS always lie. Case in point:
Re: “Feud” with VD:

I kind of get exasperated with it being regarded as a feud. What it is, is Beale obsessing about me and maneuvering that obsession into my path so I have to deal with it. Which I would submit is less a feud, and more dealing with something akin to a persistent stalker.
Right, which is why he put together his mock charity drive and put pressure on the SFWA Board so they would pretend to expel me just to keep him and PNH in SFWA. The Scalzi cries "stalker" as he attacks you.

Labels:

136 Comments:

Blogger Eric Wilson April 30, 2015 12:15 PM  

One of these days I'll be able to read that without laughing.

Blogger Brad Andrews April 30, 2015 12:16 PM  

Joking about homosexual sex acts is such a light fun things to do, right?

Blogger Poor Guy April 30, 2015 12:18 PM  

You can get the first 3 chapters for free online, it seemed to me that the rest of it would be fairly predictable. Some of the reader reviews said the author seemed to lose interest after the 100 pages or so.

Sounds like a pretty average fan-fiction type story.

Blogger JartStar April 30, 2015 12:18 PM  

Too long. He could have made his response one sentence and it would have been more effective as the pontificating makes him look unsure of himself.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2015 12:21 PM  

There is a giant disconnect in the SCIFI world. Reading some reviews of Turncoat for example... its often described as boring.

BORING.

Because he talked to much about weapons and hulls and technical stuff.

The fact is... there is no reconciling that difference of opinion. People who love Turncoat are going to HATE pretty much everything that the CHORFs love. And the CHORFS hate Turncoat.

Nothing is going to change that.

Blogger Daniel April 30, 2015 12:22 PM  

White people make bad tv? That is SJW 101.

Anonymous Huckleberry -- est. 1977 April 30, 2015 12:22 PM  

Too long. He could have made his response one sentence and it would have been more effective as the pontificating makes him look unsure of himself.

Brevity is the soul of wit.
So it all makes sense.

Anonymous RJW April 30, 2015 12:26 PM  

I read about 10 pages of that book, put it down, and walked away. The fact that he got a Hugo for that steaming pile says volumes about the state of science fiction writing today.

Blogger John Wright April 30, 2015 12:27 PM  

Who is the unnamed author to which Mr Scalzi refers?

I note in passing that he throws STAR TREK under the bus as insufficiently politically correct.

The Morlocks are like insects whose newly hatched consume their own mothers in orgies of ingratitude.

I might have had a passing interest in reading the book ere this: not now. I am a fan of the show, and take the insult in the spirit it was meant.

I would admire more an insect who was loyal to its queen. Even those who hire churls to clean the sewers do not shake hands with them. Even those who employ traitors to win great victories despise them.

Blogger Daniel April 30, 2015 12:28 PM  

No it doesn't RJW. It only tells you the sorry state of SJW awards.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 30, 2015 12:31 PM  

Who is the unnamed author to which Mr Scalzi refers?

John Ringo

It was drive by beatdown. as he was writing about something else.

One clear example that I know of: Redshirts.

Redshirts by John Scalzi was a fairly banal Star Trek fan-fic that featured a cast of Security that as I was told (never read it) was a fair SJW cross-section.

John Scalzi, although a cis-male, has relentlessly promoted social justice in various venues including purging the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America of persons who oppose the militant social justice approach or were otherwise in the way of promoting social justice.

John Scalzi has written good social justice books.

John Scalzi is therefore a good person to vote for an award even if it's for a fairly banal book that frankly could barely have been published were it not for his contacts and already being a fairly popular author. (Like me, people will publish his grocery list. I think every SF author at one time or another has considered a Redshirt type book and has taken a pass because, honestly, most of us have more couth.)

This is nothing against John, he's a pretty decent author and Old Man's War was pretty good. But let's face it, he's got to be a bit ashamed of getting a fucking Hugo for 'Original Science Fiction Novel' for a Star Trek fan-fic. If he's not, shame on him.

But the reason he got one was he talked the talk and walked the walk of whatever new insanity and inanity the SJWs come up with. How he even keeps up I have no clue. They are CONSTANTLY changing the goal posts. And while most of it is, to most people, insane and inane there is a logic.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera April 30, 2015 12:32 PM  

>Joking about homosexual sex acts is such a light fun things to do, right?

Well, yes. But sir author is plainly not understanding the joke is, in normal use, playing on mutually understood boundaries of male behavior. The intent is to reinforce those boundaries, not to normalize transgressions or flaunt them...but that is just the SJW way. The normal, heterosexual reaction to being called a "fag" by one's friends is not to "own" the label but to act less like a fag. Similarly, being called "dumb" by one's friends tends to make a person want to act less dumb, not more.

Hence, these are the reactions to transgression-normalizing SJW jokes:

SJW: *Laughs in relief* (temporarily relieves the pain of ostracization)
Typical non-SJW: *Uncomfortable, silent tolerance of retardation*
Sadistic non-SJW: *Laughs at SJW retardation because it's hilarious*

Anonymous dh April 30, 2015 12:33 PM  

The cabal is exactly that, Scalzi and Redshirts won because his publisher, Tor, decided it was needed for Scalzi to have won a Hugo. It didn't matter who he was up against.

Blogger S1AL April 30, 2015 12:34 PM  

Yes, Star Trek, which featured a black woman (when that was not accepted), a Russian (at the height of the cold war), an Asian (20 years after the "yellow peril"), etc. Scalzi's non-logic is phenomenal. It demonstrates - again - the absurd lengths to which SJW's will go to demonstrate their goodthink.

And yes, the comments on 'Turncoat' have been hilarious. I think my favorite was the comparison to "I, Robot."

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 30, 2015 12:34 PM  

You can tell the Scalzi is upset because Ringo is now. He Who Must Not Be Named. Or perhaps He Who Is Unnamable? The Unspeakable?

It's hard to keep track with Scalzi. There are so many to choose from at this point.

Blogger jay c April 30, 2015 12:37 PM  

Indeed, John W.

The only answer here would be because the SJWs secretly crave straight white male leadership, which would be kinda not SJW-y at all.

Not non-SJW-y at all. It's female nature to crave, usually subconsciously, a leader who insults her. Exhibit A:

the characters were supposed to reflect a BAD show.

Star Trek was a bad show? Using SJW metrics, Trekkies must therefore be bad people because they like a BAD show. Well done, Scalzi.

Blogger Daniel April 30, 2015 12:37 PM  

Seriously..."it can't be a good example of social justice because it is pro-diversity" is just a white flag. McRapey's isn't even bothering any more. He got knocked down a long time ago and is content to lounge himself out of the picture.

Anonymous ticticboom April 30, 2015 12:37 PM  

[ 4. The same author suggested (again without reading it), that it was a "social justice" sort of book, which lent itself to winning.]

If he's referring to what I think he's referring to, Ringo never said the book was SJW, he said McRapey got it because he'd punched all the right SJW tickets over the years. Others have noticed the same thing, hence the phrase, "Participation Hugo." The book didn't win, McRapey won it as a pat on the head for being a good self-abnegating rabbit and they wanted to reward the guy with 50,000 DAILY READERS!!!

Heh. Idiots.

BTW, I haven't noticed Instapundit link him in a while, or heard anyone talking about his actual books, either.

Were the accolades from shoggoths worth the lost revenue, Johnny? You shit on your fanbase for the sake of people who would never buy anything so unsophisticated as military sci-fi. I guess when you're not the breadwinner you have the luxury of following your heart instead of your wallet (and if that doesn't tell you he grew up without a father nothing will).

Blogger Noah B April 30, 2015 12:38 PM  

Quoting Scalzi? That's just cruel.

Anonymous Earl April 30, 2015 12:42 PM  

The reason anti-racist SJWs vote for and promote white SJWs is a famous dilemma we here on the right struggle to explain, daily. White guilt, soft racism of lowered expectations, status signalling to low class whites, Jewish conspiracy, fashionable opinions, romanticism and the noble savage. Theories abound.

It is also a source of amusement when we watch minorities eventually cannibalize white anti-racist SJWs.

Why liberals have to be mugged before they become conservative, I don't know. Even still, they might excuse the thug and blame white privilege, as they flee to whiter suburbs elsewhere.

Blogger Nikis-Knight April 30, 2015 12:51 PM  

"It is, in fact probably the least racially/sexually diverse book I've written BECAUSE the characters were supposed to reflect a BAD show."

Earth to idiot--"Look at this bad thing with no diversity" is a Social Justice message.

Blogger buwaya April 30, 2015 12:53 PM  

You and Scalzi both are running popular sites, not least because both of you encourage controversy, often with each other. This is an effective form of advertising, and cleverly synergistic. It certainly worked on me. I confess I bought a few of your books having been drawn here by all the recent fighting. I wouldn't be surprised if Scalzi sees it that way too.

Anonymous TruthHat April 30, 2015 12:54 PM  

For being homophobes, you seem to have a strange attraction to John Scalzi.

Mr. Wright in particular seems to act like a Priest around an alter boy whenever John Scalzi's around.

Perhaps Theoy and John C. Wright are so fired up about Scalzi because he has the guts to expose nonsense like this?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/1969216237/in/set-72157603091357751

Anonymous Viidad April 30, 2015 12:55 PM  

"I wouldn't be surprised if Scalzi sees it that way too."

Scalzi has claimed to love it.

Anonymous Viidad April 30, 2015 12:57 PM  

"Perhaps Theoy and John C. Wright are so fired up about Scalzi because he has the guts to expose nonsense like this?"

(photo)

Wow. Racist much?

Anonymous Stilicho April 30, 2015 12:57 PM  

You have to give Scalzi credit: can you name another "author" who has made such a career of plagarism?

I hear rumors that his next novel will be "Zena Warrior Princess of Venus" ...a rollicking adventure where the heroine gets rufied at a Melissa Etheridge concert and wakes up on Venus where she overpowers the warriors of patriarchal society and wins the heart of the trans-queer-gendered spawn of the Venusian Overtoad.

Anonymous Feh April 30, 2015 12:59 PM  

I note in passing that he throws STAR TREK under the bus as insufficiently politically correct.

As a Leftist, it is hard to represent your "achievements" today as "good" and as "progress" if people have a clear understanding of the past. Therefore, as a good SJW it is necessary to destroy the past. This is as true in SF as in anything else.

What's easier?
1. To write something better than Heinlein or Star Trek TOS using style, plot, characterization, etc. as the measures of merit.

2. To tear down Heinlein and Star Trek TOS as racist, fascist, misogynistic, etc., and then to write something better than them using adherence to PC dogma as the measure of merit.

It's easy to build the tallest building in the city if you dynamite everything the past generations built first.

Blogger Salt April 30, 2015 1:01 PM  

Good news! Twitter Followers now on sale! Buy now, Only $59 for 20,000 Followers!!

Scalzi has 81K followers on Twitter, Vox has 4634, and the Hugos have the SJWs panties in a wad? What?

Heh!

Anonymous Harsh April 30, 2015 1:03 PM  

I do find the fixation on me weird

Johnny Con, you're just happy that you have the cool kids' attention for once in your life.

@TruthHat

For being homophobes, you seem to have a strange attraction to John Scalzi.

A Gamma like you naturally doesn't understand that pointing and laughing at someone does not equal attraction.

Blogger Josh April 30, 2015 1:09 PM  

This comment at the whatever thread is awesome:


Harry Connolly April 29, 2015 at 7:10 pm
People should never, ever slam a book they haven’t read.

Anonymous Jon Bromfield April 30, 2015 1:10 PM  

Here, from the WHATEVER comments, a perfect example of the intellectual level of the typical Scali fan, the incredibly stupid Rick Gregory:

"Huh. I thought it {REDSHIRTS} won because it got the most votes. Silly me.

The SP and their fellow travelers keep overlooking one thing. If their fans got off the collective asses, bought a supporting membership in the Worldcons and voted they would get some noms and wins. So… either they don’t have all that many fans, they have fans but those fans are too cheap or lazy to buy memberships and vote or they have fans but those fans also read non-SP SFF and like it better."

Uh, super genius, that's exactly what the SPs and RPs did! That's why the SP and RP swept the nominations! Duh!

If I had fans like this clown, I'd be embarrassed.

Anonymous dh April 30, 2015 1:11 PM  

Scalzi is not throwing Star Trek under the bus. In SJW world, Gene Roddenberry is sort of the original Hollywood leftist social justice warrior-king. The original Star Trek was intentionally diverse, and civil rights leaders worked hand in hand with Roddenberry to make sure that the cast was intentionally diverse and counter-cultural.

Redshirts takes place with characters who don't know they are in a Star Trek style TV show. However, the TV show is a low-rent cut-rate version of Star Trek, and the producers ignorantly fail to make the show SJW-esque like the real deal, which is Star Trek. So where as Star Trek has a diverse cast, the fake show in Redshirts does not.

Now, Scalzi trying to argue that Redshirts is not SJW filled is purposefully obtuse. The entire joke of the novel is that the real Star Trek is SJW filled goodness, and that his fictional TV show that characters are living as though real-life is not. That's the dramatic tension. The real Star Trek is SJW, Scalzi's fake version is not.

Yes, that's the whole point of the novel. It reminds what a dear friend told me when I asked her about emo music. emo would be great if it was one song, not a genre. Scalzi's book would be great if it weren't a book, but actually an elaborate two minute funny story told verbally in line at the supermarket.

Blogger pdwalker April 30, 2015 1:12 PM  

That dialog is dreadful.

OpenID everybodyhatesscott April 30, 2015 1:17 PM  

Peter Gibbons: Let me ask you something. Has another man ever offered you a blow job?
Lawrence: No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 30, 2015 1:18 PM  

Why liberals have to be mugged before they become conservative, I don't know. Even still, they might excuse the thug and blame white privilege, as they flee to whiter suburbs elsewhere.

Amanda Kijera. They seriously have no hope.

Anonymous jack April 30, 2015 1:18 PM  

I'm getting more and more impressed with John Ringo. Ans, I was already very impressed. Lord knows I'm read enough of his stuff.
Now, with his opining on the Hugos and the newly minted Johnny Con label; whats not to like there about Ringo?

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 30, 2015 1:20 PM  

Scalzi's book would be great if it weren't a book, but actually an elaborate two minute funny story told verbally in line at the supermarket.

It's like one of those SNL skits that gets inflated into a movie, but since there's really only one joke, it flops, in other words?

Anonymous dh April 30, 2015 1:21 PM  

It's like one of those SNL skits that gets inflated into a movie, but since there's really only one joke, it flops, in other words?

Exactly like that. Actually, exactly like most episodes of SNL, where there are 60 minutes of "content", and you laugh once or twice, and wonder who the hell the musical guest is. But yeah, basically the same thing.

Blogger JartStar April 30, 2015 1:23 PM  

Not naming the person you are taking issue with on the internet is like not looking a person in the eye before a fight. It's a sign of weakness. Scalzi can't possible argue that he'd be giving Ringo a platform either considering that Ringo is much more successful and has a larger audience.

For every author like Ringo who has said something, there are a lot more paying attention to the Hugos this year.

Anonymous Anonymous April 30, 2015 1:25 PM  

So, is there some sort of cosmic cross-the-streams time-paradox event-horizon Universe ending event that will occur if a person likes the books of both Scalzi and Vox?

Anonymous dh April 30, 2015 1:25 PM  

Jart, and not only that, it gives him what he thinks is cover when it comes time for accountability. Oh, I never was talking about that person. I didn't even say his name!

Like the day that SFWA allegedly tried to kick VD out of the organization, and JS thought he was very clever in not saying what he was saying.

It's not original, it's not adult behavior, it's not even funny. And it won't even give you legal cover. It's just a sign of weakness.

Anonymous Chtorr April 30, 2015 1:28 PM  

"The entire joke of the novel is that the real Star Trek is SJW filled goodness, and that his fictional TV show that characters are living as though real-life is not. That's the dramatic tension. The real Star Trek is SJW, Scalzi's fake version is not."

This where Scalzi shows as a midwit writer. Grant the cutesy premise of Redshirts, but he could have made Redshirts more interesting if he was explicit about the Redshirts always being white males, dying at the the expense of the POC, women, etc. *That* is an interesting angle.

Scalzi is the ultimate Redshirt, waiting for the inevitable away mission for the SJWs where his white privilege finally gets checked.

Blogger JartStar April 30, 2015 1:28 PM  

Anon,

No. That's what SP and RP is promoting, which is liking a book regardless of the author's politics so long as it's a good story. This doesn't mean that a SP supporter will do this perfectly, just that a book doesn't go in the dust bin simply because of someone's politics.

(pick a name BTW, anything, just no Anonymous posting for clarity)

Anonymous Roundtine April 30, 2015 1:28 PM  

Perhaps Theoy and John C. Wright are so fired up about Scalzi because he has the guts to expose nonsense like this?

Another fine example of how they literally have no idea who we are.

Anonymous Steve April 30, 2015 1:31 PM  

I paid good money for Redshirts and read it all the way through.

It's funny

No, it's not funny. It's quite fun - not the same thing as funny - at the start, but that soon wears off. It's based on a razor-thin concept that rapidly outwears its welcome. I didn't laugh once reading this book. It's no Hitchhikers Guide or Confederacy of Dunces.

and an easy read

It's a light read, but I didn't find it an easy read, in the sense that it became boring by about halfway through and I had to force myself to finish it. In entertainment terms it was sort of like eating a big steaming plate of boiled cabbage without any seasoning.

and if you think that's easy to accomplish as a writer — and still pack an emotional punch

What emotional punch? Seriously - what is he talking about? The only emotion Redshirts elicited in me was annoyance that I'd wasted my time and money.

— well, try it.

Actually, this is good advice. I will.

Blogger John Wright April 30, 2015 1:33 PM  

@ Jon Bromfield

Ah! Your explanation makes sense! I could not believe any science fiction fan, Morlock or not, would throw STAR TREK under the bus. It was the introduction of an entire generation to the future shock of science fiction.

In other words, REDSHIRTS was still politically correct because it was mocking the starship crew inside the story for being insufficiently politically correct: in which case Mr Scalzi is simply fibbing about the contents of the books.

This does not renew any desire in me to read the thing, however. Is he ashamed of his work? CS Lewis never pretended that Narnia contained no Christian apologetic.

Why do Morlocks pretend their Morlock books contain no Morlock apologetic?

Anonymous Feh April 30, 2015 1:33 PM  

Scalzi is not throwing Star Trek under the bus. In SJW world, Gene Roddenberry is sort of the original Hollywood leftist social justice warrior-king. The original Star Trek was intentionally diverse, and civil rights leaders worked hand in hand with Roddenberry to make sure that the cast was intentionally diverse and counter-cultural.

Social Justice is never stationary.

Today's SJW is tomorrow's racist, sexist, homophobe.

Heinlein was a SJW in the 1930s. And today he is a fascist, boring dead white male.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 30, 2015 1:34 PM  

Exactly like that.

Redshirts: A Night at the Roxbury
of science fiction.

Anonymous Ridip April 30, 2015 1:36 PM  

In other Hugo SJW news, thanking GeRRM for his Hugo musings input while mentioning you'd enjoyed but would have never even heard of or read A Game of Thrones if it weren't for Vox was too much for his kitten-loving ban hammer to resist. Now we'll see if it has the effect of preventing further ballot-would-have-been-better-if suggestions.

SJW'S and the Hugos - it's like having your very own experimental psychology lab.

Blogger John Wright April 30, 2015 1:41 PM  

"Mr. Wright in particular seems to act like a Priest around an alter boy whenever John Scalzi's around."

I give you credit for having the dullness of wit of attempting on me the third of the three unsupported accusations Morlocks use instead of argument, instead of debate, instead of sense, instead of humor, instead of wit, instead of conversation to fill up the empty vacuums of your skulls with noise.

Unlike Mr Beale, I have never badmouthed Mr Scalzi. I have no enmity toward him and he has, to my knowledge, never insulted me nor made an enemy of me.

This does not fit your make believe world, of course, so you just make believe that I have behaved in some other way, you then make believe I have some loathsome and unadmitted motive for the (nonexistant) behavior, and you make a smirking reference to it, as if you are reminding the readers of joke -- when no joke has been made.

You lack the manhood to state directly what you mean, lack the intelligence to debate any issue, lack the honesty to vent your corrupt and venom-swollen spleen, and lack the wit to make an actually clever, funny, or trenchant joke at my expense.

I now understand why pagans commit suicide so frequently. In your case, I hope you will overcome the despair and desolation inherent in your Morlock life, and reemerge from the stinking sewer pits of your self absorption, and return once more to the sunlight where the humans live.

Anonymous dh April 30, 2015 1:42 PM  

JW, yes, it is really weird to imagine why JS would decline to agree that Redshirts is an SJW work. Notwithstanding that, as others have pointed out, it wasn't the works of the authors that had any bearing on the award. That's practically the entire point. It was all about the author and the piblisher. It was scene as time for JS to have his Hugo ticket punched.

I am fairly convinced that the reason that the Toad and her Hunched Husband have absolutely gone batshit insane on account of SP/RP is because it cost Lock In a nomination for Best Novel. No matter was JS says, Lock In was not a huge success. It did not crack out of the genre. It did not push Scalzi into the next tier of authors, which he was clearly hoping it would They sent him on a multi-city publicity tour, they did the award pimpage, and even after 2 declines, it was still not nominated. They can't put him over the top if he wasn't nominated. The pre-talk about the SP/RP slate was almost certainly started when JS didn't get the notification he was nominated.

Anonymous Stilicho April 30, 2015 1:43 PM  

Another fine example of how they literally have no idea who we are.

It's why they're always throwing limp-wristed slaps at their own shadows and think they're attacking us.

Blogger John Wright April 30, 2015 1:50 PM  

"... John C. Wright are so fired up about Scalzi ..."

What is this even in reference to? Fired up? I do not recall even mentioning his name, except in passing.

The most words I ever spent on Mr Scalzi was to congratulate him for agreeing with me that Pluto was still a planet: it was kind of a running joke a few years back that he and I were against Scott Westefeld, who agreed with the boneheaded scientists that it was a dwarf body.

Once or twice, again as a running joke, and because our names were similar and we were both (at that time) obscure midlist writers, I pretended my fans mistook me for him.

That was some years ago. I have made other jokes since.

Do Morlocks merely invent accusations at random to hurl at people? It is like a macro on their computers which tosses words together without rhyme or reason?

Anonymous Geoff April 30, 2015 1:55 PM  

Poor Scalzi is the victim here, don't you know.

Anonymous Stilicho April 30, 2015 1:57 PM  

I am fairly convinced that the reason that the Toad and her Hunched Husband have absolutely gone batshit insane on account of SP/RP is because it cost Lock In a nomination for Best Novel.

Sounds plausible.

As for the Redshirts Hugo, I don't think anyone would have commented much if it won an award for fanfic, but Best Novel Hugo? What a joke.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 30, 2015 1:58 PM  

Severely damaged humans ripe for the cult to pluck

Blogger Russell April 30, 2015 2:01 PM  

Is Scalzi confusing Vox with Ringo?

Or are they both big and mean and scary and for the love all that is SJW don't mention their names?

How many authors can Scalzi no longer mentioned by name now, lest the Earth groan with the weight of their sins and the Heavens tremble at their approach?

Blogger darkdoc April 30, 2015 2:01 PM  


John Wright

I don't know anything about your experience with Scalzi.

But, reading you blog and comments on this site - well, it has been a blessing and you have a new fan in me, and probably others who didn't know you ...

You self-denigrate a bit too much - Scalzi can't come close to your wit, intelligence, and your turn of a phrase.

I don't really believe that you think of yourself sharing anything with Scalzi more than a first name. You're just being polite not to say so.

Blogger buwaya April 30, 2015 2:02 PM  

I agree with this from Steve re Redshirts - my wife gave it to me, picked up on a recommendation by a friend at ComicCon.

"No, it's not funny. It's quite fun - not the same thing as funny - at the start, but that soon wears off."

- Yes, its a fun idea to start but isn't much of a story after the first 30 pages.

I would much rather read Mr. Wright abuse someone like he did here -
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/06/the-evil-league-of-evil-is-given-pious-advice/

I would gladly pay, to laugh as hard as I did over this piece.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2015 2:08 PM  

"
Do Morlocks merely invent accusations at random to hurl at people? It is like a macro on their computers which tosses words together without rhyme or reason?"

No Sir... but it is similar. They hear someone say something that they think sounds smart. So they repeat it... assuming that if someone hears them say it... they will also be thought of as smart.

The actual words or phrase don't mean anything. They just have to make a rhetoric light flash in the morlock eye.

Blogger MidKnight April 30, 2015 2:08 PM  

@jack

I'm getting more and more impressed with John Ringo. Ans, I was already very impressed. Lord knows I'm read enough of his stuff.

One of my favorite pieces by him - and that's a high bar to clear - is his Ravencon AAR.

The guy is a fantastic storyteller who can hold a room in rapt silence while telling a story.

Blogger buwaya April 30, 2015 2:10 PM  

I thought the point of Redshirts was to make fun of idiot scriptwriters.
Point made in a few pages. The rest was redundant.
I am too dense, probably, to detect any other message.

Anonymous Steve April 30, 2015 2:12 PM  

Still musing Scalzi's bizarre claim that Redshirts packed an "emotional punch".

Fair enough that he's defensive about his work - I'd be testy, too, if I wrote a novel that became widely mocked as the Hugos' answer to The Eye of Argon. Redshirts is not a terrible book, merely a mediocre-to-poor one. If it hadn't won an undeserved Hugo Best Novel, it'd have been forgotten by now.

But it did win Best Novel. And that - like when Charles Foster Kane tried to pass off his girlfriend as a great singer - is what sticks in the craw.

Usually defensiveness is grounded in some sort of reality. But "emotional punch"? You can't box emotions if your readers don't care about your characters.

And your readers can't care about your characters if you don't. Scalzi clearly didn't care about the characters he wrote into Redshirts. They were lazy parodies of Star Trek personalities. They wouldn't be out of place in the movies of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer.

Maybe that should be Scalzi's next project: "Meet the Trekkies".

Blogger Marissa April 30, 2015 2:14 PM  

I know there are a lot of ideological opponents of SP/RP, but I didn't realize how strong the economic opponents are. The loudest screeching has come from those whose (already meager) livelihoods would fall into significant peril were decent science fiction to make a comeback, instead of emotional blubbery, sexual deviance and white guilt.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2015 2:20 PM  

anyone got a link to Ringo's Ravencon AAR? google is coming up balls.

Anonymous bub April 30, 2015 2:22 PM  

?

http://www.orthogonaltonormal.com/midden/RavenCon%202006.pdf

Blogger beerme April 30, 2015 2:27 PM  

@Marissa the genre had degenerated enough in the past 20 years that the economic opponents are the ideological opponents. Baen is the obvious exception, of course. These are the same people that also have an innate distrust for Amazon despite being robbed blind by traditional publishing. They like the ghetto and don't want change.

Anonymous Difster April 30, 2015 2:29 PM  

"The Scalzi cries "stalker" as he attacks you."

Scalzi is like the cop beating a man and yelling "stop resisting" just for the record when no actual resistance is happening.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 30, 2015 2:30 PM  

I am fairly convinced that the reason that the Toad and her Hunched Husband have absolutely gone batshit insane on account of SP/RP is because it cost Lock In a nomination for Best Novel.


That's far from the only reason they are hopping made. But yes Scalzi was supposed to at least get a Hugo nomination after that ridiculous tour they sent him on. Sure it was to promote what was clearly and obviously a Crichton derivative but after that kind of money gets spent on a SF release, the author is supposed to get has far as a Hugo nom as a matter of course.

Although it might not have happened anyway. We had four nominations at the start, we are now down to two and Scalzi's name still hasn't shown up.

Blogger Noah B April 30, 2015 2:35 PM  

I can't believe something like that got published. And I know there's far worse sci-fi out there.

Blogger Daniel April 30, 2015 2:36 PM  

Why do Morlocks pretend their Morlock books contain no Morlock apologetic?

Because, Mr. Wright, if there is anything that Morlocks hate more than free men, that one thing is other Morlocks.

But what are you going to do? Morlock gonna Morlock.

Blogger ajw308 April 30, 2015 2:45 PM  

It's like one of those SNL skits that gets inflated into a movie, but since there's really only one joke, it flops, in other words?
Kinda like the Geico Caveman tv series, but with with homoerotic banter?

Anonymous Gecko April 30, 2015 2:47 PM  

It's funny and an easy read

I nominate "They're Taking the Hobbits to Isengard" for Best SciFi/Fantasy Single Ever. That's pure genius right there.

Blogger Franz Lionheart April 30, 2015 3:10 PM  

6. Indeed, when the TV script for it was written, they CHANGED the sex of a couple of characters to make it more diverse! This is true.

Isn't it hilarious how a compulsive liar needs to qualify one of his statements as : "This one's actually true." As if implicitly he admits - well, all the others, not s

Blogger Franz Lionheart April 30, 2015 3:11 PM  

... all the others, not so much!

Blogger Franz Lionheart April 30, 2015 3:13 PM  

Sorry for the split comment. Wobbly mobile phone edit, mis-clicked.

Anonymous Wendy April 30, 2015 3:14 PM  

Did he seriously bash Star Trek in #6? Isn't that a hanging offense for Real Truefans?

Blogger John Wright April 30, 2015 3:14 PM  

"You self-denigrate a bit too much "

It's a Christian thing called honesty. Back when I was an Ayn Rand fan, I boasted too much, a thing called vainglory. I am making up for lost time.

Besides, I think self-deflation is humorous. Taking oneself too seriously is a mental disease.

Blogger John Wright April 30, 2015 3:14 PM  

But thank you for saying so.

Blogger kh123 April 30, 2015 3:17 PM  

"Which I would submit is less a feud, and more dealing with something akin to..."

Not only could he not type the name for several months, he doesn't even have it in him to say something is; it's all "akin to." And we play the plausible deniability game once again because, hey, there's no cabal; there's no one behind that curtain.

You'd have been more in-character to have called Vox and the Ilk emotional rapists, John. This is shit you have to keep mindful of if you're ever going to get a career in television or the next incarnation of HUAC.

Blogger Daniel April 30, 2015 3:19 PM  

John Scalzi wrote this:

"“This is not to say some voters did not offer me votes in order to suck up to me; only to suggest that if they did, it was likely for some other reason entirely.

My own personal hypothesis as to why it won is that, against all expectation of sense and reason, a controlling number of voters enjoyed the novel.” {emphasis added}

This was in the context of a reviewer who argued that many people did not read Redshirts before voting for it to win the Hugo. Lockstep voting indeed.

Anonymous BIgGaySteve April 30, 2015 3:23 PM  

Today's SJW is tomorrow's racist, sexist, homophobe.

Sometimes they get mugged by reality.

Anonymous cheddarman April 30, 2015 3:25 PM  

"Scalzi is like the cop beating a man..." Difster


Scalzi as a cop beating a man? Are you hallucinating, sir?


Scalzi would be on the receiving end...whether he is in a fight or hanging out with one of Big Gay Steve's exes. No offence, BGS

Blogger LP 999/Eliza April 30, 2015 3:36 PM  

I wanna see the dresses again, it better be tight, it better be black and just Mr. S' size!

Blogger Nikis-Knight April 30, 2015 3:40 PM  

I imagine meeting Scalzi would be something like:
I open the door for an out of shape short man. "Oh, thanks I owe you a hand job."
"What? Fuck you"
"Wow, thanks, what's the honor for?"
"Oh, you're John Scalzi, the sci-fi re-writer and cat owner. You, uh, out of the closet yet?"

Anonymous Jon Bromfield April 30, 2015 4:01 PM  

John C. Wright writes:

"Back when I was an Ayn Rand fan..."

Sir, I am sure you will grant me it is possible to be a Christian and an Ayn Rand fan. Objectivists and Christians have at their core the belief that the individual, his rights and happiness, is the supreme Earthly value of which all ethics and politics are to be supportive. This is why the two seemingly incongruous philosophical systems are natural allies against the collectivists.

I wrote a story in which an amalgamation of Objectivism and Christianity develops after a simple, undeniable proof of God is put on the internet. As one of the first adherent says, "If God is real, all else follows."

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 30, 2015 4:16 PM  

You know, the original Star Trek pilot (which I haven't seen in years) did not have anyone of a particular ethnicity. If I recall, the first officer was a woman and Spock was just a science officer who wasn't cold and logical.

So I don't think that Gene's original vision was SJW approved.

Blogger wrf3 April 30, 2015 4:18 PM  

Jon Bromfield wrote: Objectivists and Christians have at their core the belief that the individual, his rights and happiness, is the supreme Earthly value of which all ethics and politics are to be supportive.

Maybe for Objectivists, but not for Christians. "His kingdom come, His will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." We are against the Collectivists because of the bedrock belief: "there is a God. You are not Him." We are against the Objectivists, because they put man at the center, where he does not belong.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 30, 2015 4:28 PM  

@John Wright: Since boasting isn't admired by Objectivist standards, I'd say you weren't much of a fan.

@wrf3: And we are against the Christians, because it is fundamentally unfair to compare Man to a standard you admit is impossible. I feel no guilt for failing to live up to a standard whose advocates admit is impossible.


On topic: I would be ashamed of myself if someone gave me an award without actually evaluating what I did.

Blogger Danby April 30, 2015 4:28 PM  

" If I recall, the first officer was a woman and Spock was just a science officer who wasn't cold and logical."

The first officer (played by Majel Barrett) was an alien woman who was coldly and efficiently logical. In fact, IIRC, she wasn't even given a name. She was addressed and referred to as "Number One". Spock was barely present, and was an early version of the Chekov character.

The network did NOT like Barrett's character, as she was too off-putting. Roddenberry merged No 1 and Spock to create a new character.
Which character, one should note, is by himself proof of Game. Because he was coldly and logically dispassionate, because he didn't care, Spock became a major sex object to female viewers, and I'm pretty sure there was more rubbing going on over him than over 7of9.

Anonymous Jon Bromfield April 30, 2015 4:39 PM  

Not being a Christian I may be ignorant, but certainly the emphasis in Christianity is on the individual's relationship to God and his individual salvation, not the group's.

Objectivists and Christians both up hold the sanctity of the individual conscience.

From that, all else follows.

Blogger David-2 April 30, 2015 4:46 PM  

Having bought and read "Redshirts" (all the way through) when it came out it left me feeling the same way that "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" did (after I read that all the way through): It would have made a good short story.

There was one good joke buried in there, but then it was belabored and belabored and belabored ...

Anonymous ticticboom April 30, 2015 5:06 PM  

@Danby:

As I recall, the women in the test audience were even more put off than the men. Of course, these were women who hadn't had 4+ years of Dworkin shoved down their throats.

Ah, 7 of 9, the only reason I ever watched that steaming mess known as Voyager. Such a letdown, especially compared to DS9's Dominion War seasons. Although they had to throw in SJW crap with those 1950's episodes, at least it was once or twice a season instead of every episode sucking like an open airlock.

Jeri Ryan launched Obama's career, you know. He was running against her ex, and *somehow* their divorce records were illegally made public. She'd made the standard accusations, the media reported them as fact, and Obama was in the Statehouse.

Blogger CM April 30, 2015 5:38 PM  

So... wasn't there at some point some argument that the Hugos were for groundbreaking, innovative works and that a certain novel didn't qualify because it was "derivative"?

So wasn't the original argument nothing about sjw-ish-ness but that JS's novel was, in fact, drivative?

Something he quite clearly acknowledges in those arguments.

But he uses the wrong standard... y'all were just applying HIS OWN standards onto his works.

The blinders on these guys.

Blogger John Wright April 30, 2015 5:38 PM  

"Sir, I am sure you will grant me it is possible to be a Christian and an Ayn Rand fan."

It depends on what part of Ayn Rand produces admiration. She glorifies selfishness and identifies altruism as the original sin; she is an atheist hence one eyed and lacking all depth perception; she dismisses original sin as illogical when it is, in fact, the only thing in Christian theology that is plain as potatoes and obvious as a slap to the face.

But she is a lover of reason, and all old-school Christians admire that; she believes that those who do not work shall not eat, which is straight-up Abrahamic religion; she believes in objective reality, objective truth, and objective morality, so she has got all parts of the Christian theology that apply to the material world correct.

And, despite her romantic attraction to adultery, she is a romantic, and her men are male and her women are female, just as both the Christian God and the pagan god and goddess Mars and Venus all agree.

She is a heretic of a particularly Jewish type: brilliant, bookish, and divorced from reality. The only other Jew I can bring to mind of a similar personality is her arch rival and antimatter version, Karl Marx.

I also seem to be the only one in the world who actually admires her writing craft as craft. She cobbled together the most tightly written and tightly themed book I have ever written. She is a better author than she is a philosopher in my opinion: I can pick flaws in her metaphysics and her brave but doomed attempt to deduce ethics from empirical reality. I cannot picked flaws with her novel technique. Even the 40 page John Galt radio speech is well written as a dramatic capstone to a novel about philosophy.

Indeed, I cannot bring to mind any other book which has philosophy as its central conflict.

But Dagny should have ended up with Reardon. Galt is too bland for her.

OpenID cailcorishev April 30, 2015 5:41 PM  

Today's SJW is tomorrow's racist, sexist, homophobe.

Yeah, it's been funny to watch Star Trek be left behind as the goalposts move. Its makers have been patting themselves on the back for 50 years for putting a black woman on the bridge (I'll take their word for it that that was a big deal at the time), but now feminists criticize them because her skirt was so short and she didn't get many lines.

Blogger Jim April 30, 2015 5:44 PM  

Ah, 7 of 9, the only reason I ever watched that steaming mess known as Voyager.

What? Not the Doctor? He was a complete troll for the SJW position, always going on about how everyone was oppressing him only to have the rest of the crew show him what an ass he was being because reality.

Doctor episodes were awesome.

Anonymous Steve April 30, 2015 5:53 PM  

ticticboom - Although they had to throw in SJW crap with those 1950's episodes

That was a low point in a great show. It didn't even make sense within the larger context of the show.

So, Ben Sisko, generally a cool cat and a senior ranking Starfleet officer from the 24th century... in a universe where humanity has overcome war, poverty and racism and flies around the galaxy doing pretty much whatever the hell it likes... is butthurt about stuff that happened several centuries ago on Earth? And not even the really bad stuff, like the Rwandan genocide, or WW2, or slavery.

No, he was upset that black guys in the 50's weren't getting published in science fiction. And annoyed at Vic Fontaine for being a holographic simulation of a lounge singer from that era.

Frankly, that makes about as much sense as Chief O'Brien being haunted by Bloody Sunday, and throwing a hissy fit at a holodeck simulation set in the 1970's.

And another thing... were black men really discriminated against in 50's science fiction? Maybe (though it didn't stop Samuel R Delaney in the 60's). But it's 2015 now, so where are all the black sci fi authors?

The only ones I can think of are K Tempest Bradford and the lovely Miss Jemsin. And that's thin gruel indeed. Bradford has never bothered to write a novel - too busy eating and crying about white male authors - and Jemsin writes fluffy fantasy romance books for a niche audience.

I would pay good money to read "Shaft in Space", but Ernest Tidyman died 30 years ago. And he was white, anyway.

Blogger wrf3 April 30, 2015 6:01 PM  

Jon Broomfield wrote: Not being a Christian I may be ignorant, but certainly the emphasis in Christianity is on the individual's relationship to God and his individual salvation, not the group's.

That's more a product of culture, particularly American culture, than Christianity, IMO. There is at least one account in Acts where the gospel is proclaimed to the head of a household and the whole household believes. And, I'm by no means a historian, but I remember being told that in some tribes (Germanic?), if the leader converted, the entire tribe converted.

Furthermore, there's a nice passage in Corinthians that talks about the relationship between Christians:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot would say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear would say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

Objectivists and Christians both up hold the sanctity of the individual conscience. From that, all else follows.

Again, that's certainly not true from the Christian viewpoint. God does what He will with an individual's conscience.

Now, I think it's true that the Objectivist and the Christian can discover a common objective system of morals although I'm not sure your derivation would be the same as mine. If you end up with "love you neighbor as yourself" then you're on the right track.


Blogger Salt April 30, 2015 6:06 PM  

Not the Doctor? He was a complete troll for the SJW position, always going on about how everyone was oppressing him only to have the rest of the crew show him what an ass he was being because reality.

Then he got the emitter; SJWism validated.

Blogger wrf3 April 30, 2015 6:07 PM  

WhiteKnightLeo wrote: @wrf3: And we are against the Christians, because it is fundamentally unfair to compare Man to a standard you admit is impossible.

Who says? Give me your objective standard of morality that shows this to be true and that I must agree with the derivation. (Hint: you can't. It's impossible).

Furthermore, this is actually a wonderful thing, as it makes everyone equal before God. All have failed. No one is any better than anyone else.

I feel no guilt for failing to live up to a standard whose advocates admit is impossible.

You're missing a critical piece of the puzzle. It isn't the standard. Pick any external standard. You won't live up to it. It's the way the brain is wired. It's why you won't be able to convince me, or anyone else, that you've come up with an objective standard of morality that I must follow.

OpenID cailcorishev April 30, 2015 6:08 PM  

I also seem to be the only one in the world who actually admires [Rand's] writing craft as craft.

No, there are at least two of us. I can see how it's not everyone's cup of tea, but her writing works great for me. Particular scenes and plot points bug me, but not the writing.

I've long thought it's a crying shame that she didn't reject her home country's atheism along with its ideology. I think she said in one of her books that her parents were religious and she always saw them as weak, so she went the other way and never looked back. Too bad they weren't atheists; maybe she would have turned rabidly Christian. She gets so many things pitch-perfect right, but then she tries to tie atheism and "selfishness" into it (even though her heroes are frequently altruistic; they just reframe it as selfish) and it's annoying.

Anonymous Jon Bromfield April 30, 2015 6:11 PM  

John C. Wright writes:

"...she dismisses original sin as illogical when it is, in fact, the only thing in Christian theology that is plain as potatoes and obvious as a slap to the face."

Those of us not raised Christian have a hard time with the doctrine of Original Sin.

(Oh dear, how can a newborn babe be sinful?)

In our youth we glob onto Rousseau and the notion that Man is intrinsically good and moral. Age and experience teaches us otherwise.

Yes, Rand was not perfect (fallen?), but she would have been with the Christians against the Submitters at Tours.

And count me as another who admires her writing craft. If you haven't yet, listen to THE FOUNTAINHEAD read as an audible book. The eye tends to miss the structure and music of her prose, but the ear doesn't.

Anonymous Steve April 30, 2015 6:11 PM  

Salt - the Doctor was just a cheap knockoff of Arnold Judas Rimmer, the original holographic prat.

Anonymous Blume April 30, 2015 6:48 PM  

Steve

Steven Barnes is Black and I believe has a book similar to shaft in space. I actually cant remember what books of his I have read. But i friended him on facebook and found out he is black and open to game but he hates Vox.

Anonymous The Frau April 30, 2015 7:00 PM  

Contestant: Alex, I'll take Totally Obsessed for $500

Alex: This blogger has made one of America's most popular Sci Fi writers his creepiest obsession.

Contestant: What is Theodore Beale?

Alex: We need to check with our judges......Yes, that's correct. We would have also accepted Vox Day, Vox Popoli, The Whiner or He Who Rigs Awards To Win.

OpenID cailcorishev April 30, 2015 7:26 PM  

And another thing... were black men really discriminated against in 50's science fiction?

As I recall, Bennie wasn't discriminated against as an author anyway. The magazine's readers didn't know he was black, just as they didn't know one of the writers was a woman (she used initials, I think). The problem was he wanted to write a SF story with a black hero, and the editor said it wouldn't sell, which was probably true, but it didn't make him feel any better.

It was actually a pretty well-done episode (and only one) if you buy the premise; but as you say, his level of anger over 1950s racism made no sense, considering an Earth that had been racially egalitarian for at least a couple centuries.

The impressive thing is that they had a black lead actor and didn't do a "racism message" episode until the sixth season. They had plenty of opportunity to, considering the backdrop of Cardassian/Bajoran racism, and later the changeling/solid conflict. That show really benefited from the fact that the core Roddenberry followers were still busy on TNG when it started, and then went from there to Voyager, so the DS9 people were mostly left alone.

Blogger Vox April 30, 2015 7:38 PM  

But i friended him on facebook and found out he is black and open to game but he hates Vox.

Well, I guess we won't worry about publishing him, then.

Anonymous Steve April 30, 2015 8:04 PM  

Blume - thanks, I'll take a look.

he hates Vox.

I know he's the Supreme Dark Lord and all that, but unless Vox has a secret sideline going where he kidnaps people's beloved family pets, I can't understand where the antagonism towards him comes from.

cailcorishev - Ben Sisko is my favourite Star Trek captain. I liked that he was trying to be a good Dad, and the ruthless pragmatism he showed in episodes like "In The Pale Moonlight". He wasn't a pompous, do-gooding hypocrite like Picard, who should've been spaced as soon as his superiors found out he gave up an opportunity to destroy the Borg.

(Elim Garak was the best character on DS9 though, and Quark was amazing, especially when you consider how difficult it must be to deliver a nuanced acting performance while wearing prosthetic buttocks on your forehead).

"Far Beyond The Stars" was a weird episode for a couple of reasons. As you note, for Sisko's oddly specific fixation with race in 50's America (could any of us easily differentiate social mores between, say, the 1650's and the 1690's?). But also because of the implication that all the events of DS9 were really just a story inside Benny Russell's head.

It was like an angry, depressing reprise of "The Inner Light". I don't think it was bad television, and Star Trek has done message fiction much, much more egregiously before and since - the episode where the TNG crew discovers that flying at high warp speeds is depleting the galactic ozone layer (or whatever) or the horrible episode of Enterprise about gay Vulcans with mind-meld-AIDS are particularly gag-inducing.

That episode of Enterprise - "Stigma" - was especially bizarre because it came out in 2003 - at least a decade after thinly-disguised moralising about AIDS victims had ceased to be in any way timely or relevant.

Yes, you're right. Stories about black astronauts probably wouldn't have made 50's publishers run for their cheque books. Of course, Starship Troopers had a Filipino protagonist in 1959. But Heinlein didn't spell that out till near the end. I'm not old enough to know how much of a surprise that was to readers at the time, or if it raised any eyebrows among his publishers.

OpenID thehaproject April 30, 2015 8:19 PM  

I know I'll get lambasted for it, but I actually enjoyed Redshirts. Laughed my ass off reading it. It was my understanding that that was the point. Didn't know who John Scalzi was at the time I read it, didn't care.

Still don't care.

OpenID cailcorishev April 30, 2015 8:52 PM  

Ben Sisko is my favourite Star Trek captain. I liked that he was trying to be a good Dad

Yes, that's such an important part of his character. In the very first episode, there's a scene where Jake is whining about their spartan quarters. Ben calls him over and gives him a quick man-to-man talk with "We're just going to have to rough it for a while," and gives him a light slap on the cheek that just sells the father-son relationship perfectly. They never overdo it, but by the time you get to The Visitor in the third or fourth season, it's the foundation for one of the best episodes of Trek ever.

Good point about DS9 possibly being Bennie's dream. I think that was so annoying I'd forgotten about it. Although you could also handwave it by saying that Ben and Bennie were both real but had some sort of mental connection through time so that Ben's real life became Bennie's inspiration. That works okay, I think.

And yes, Garak was excellent, though I might have to rank him as the second best character after Chief.

Blogger 223366 April 30, 2015 8:56 PM  

"SJW's always lie." Needs to be emphasized in everyone's mind. They always lie because they are "of the Left." And the Left is based entirely upon lies. It promises wealth and delivers poverty. It promises equality and delivers masters and subjects. It promises peace and delivers strife. It promises brotherly love and delivers vicious divisions that it encourages and exploits. It promises security and delivers fear. It's possible to go on at grat length about the Left in this context.

"SJW's always lie." ALWAYS.

Blogger 223366 April 30, 2015 8:58 PM  

"SJW's always lie." Needs to be emphasized in everyone's mind. They always lie because they are "of the Left." And the Left is based entirely upon lies. It promises wealth and delivers poverty. It promises equality and delivers masters and subjects. It promises peace and delivers strife. It promises brotherly love and delivers vicious divisions that it encourages and exploits. It promises security and delivers fear. It's possible to go on at grat length about the Left in this context.

"SJW's always lie." ALWAYS.

Blogger Dave W. April 30, 2015 9:03 PM  

It amuses me to no end that Scalzi is just terrified of saying John Ringo's name. HI-larious!

Anonymous Heh April 30, 2015 9:11 PM  

Steven Barnes is Black and I believe has a book similar to shaft in space. I actually cant remember what books of his I have read.

I thought his books were mediocre before I knew he was black, so I don't have to feel bad about being raciss about that anyway.

Blogger Russell April 30, 2015 9:34 PM  

"I know I'll get lambasted for it, but I actually enjoyed Redshirts."

Cool. SP/RP is all about finding what you like. If you liked it, no problems.

"Still don't care."

Now you're getting it!

Anonymous tiredofitall April 30, 2015 10:15 PM  

"Contestant: Alex, I'll take Totally Obsessed for $500

Alex: This blogger has made one of America's most popular Sci Fi writers his creepiest obsession.

Contestant: What is Theodore Beale?

Alex: We need to check with our judges......Yes, that's correct. We would have also accepted Vox Day, Vox Popoli, The Whiner or He Who Rigs Awards To Win." - The Frau

A few problems with your premise.

One, Scalzi as "one of America's most popular Sci Fi writers", in what weird parallel world are you from? He's a mid-wittted mid-list author at best whose sole talents are aping great writers of the past and shameless self promotion. (I left out master liar and obfuscator because it seemed too obvious to mention.)

Two, you think Vox is obsessed with Scalzi? Maybe in the way that a cat is obsessed with batting around a mouse before it eventually eviscerates it and gets bored with the now lifeless mouse.

Three, if Vox is a "whiner or a rigger of awards", what does that make Scalzi who has openly and shamelessly done "award pimpage" since 2004?

Four, you left the "d" off the end of your name.

Blogger Poor Guy April 30, 2015 10:23 PM  

"He Who Rigs Awards To Win." - The Frau

How could Vox possibly rig an award? He isn't running the show. The puppies simply played by the rules, and if you are looking for Whiners, look the other way.

Blogger buwaya puti April 30, 2015 10:35 PM  

Ayn Rands parents were Jews.
Filipinos had pretty good press in the 1950s. Not a lot of it, but what there was was good, and they were often topical.
They were exotic, loyal Asian allies facing the communist threat. Their contingents were ever-present in international conferences, reliably taking the US side.
Carlos Romulo (PR man extraordinaire) was ubiquitous in all such gatherings, and invariably interviewed. He was a great favorite of the press.
They had an air of heroism due to the events of WWII.
They had good journalists (one was Ninoy Aquino) covering the deeds of the Filipino contingent Korea, in good English.
They had just defeated a communist insurgency, of the sort that was seen as a grave global threat. President Magsaysay, the victor of that fight, had recently (1957) perished in a tragic plane crash.
Juan Rico in Starship Troopers, refers to Magsaysay.
Why Filipinos in Starship Troopers ? I think because Heinlein saw them in the newspapers.

Blogger buwaya puti April 30, 2015 10:44 PM  

Ayn Rand was a great hater, driven by vengeance, who obsessed about and studied her enemies intensely. That was the best part of her books. They are still valuable for that reason.

Anonymous The Frau May 01, 2015 12:41 AM  

"One, Scalzi as "one of America's most popular Sci Fi writers", in what weird parallel world are you from?"

The one in which Amazon ranks his books as #18 in the list of 100 most popular sci fi authors on Amazon (living or dead).

"Two, you think Vox is obsessed with Scalzi? Maybe in the way that a cat is obsessed with batting around a mouse before it eventually eviscerates it and gets bored with the now lifeless mouse."

Maybe. Or maybe it's the kind of obsession a jealous wanna be has. Either way, it's a crazy obsession.

"Three, if Vox is a "whiner or a rigger of awards", what does that make Scalzi who has openly and shamelessly done "award pimpage" since 2004?"

It's not an "if". And it makes Scalzi the 18th most popular sci fi writer on Amazon and the object of a wanna be's obsession.

Blogger Dave W. May 01, 2015 1:22 AM  

"on Amazon". You're funny, HausFrau. Tell me, did you have some sort of inspiration that THIS TIME, your harsh language would make us wail and gnash our teeth? Go back and try harder.

Blogger bob k. mando May 01, 2015 1:55 AM  

The Frau May 01, 2015 12:41 AM
The one in which Amazon ranks his books as #18 in the list of 100 most popular sci fi authors on Amazon (living or dead).




uh, ANY "All Time Top Science Fiction Author" list which does NOT include Heinlein ( 52 ), Asimov ( 26 ), Clarke ( 71 ), Zelazny ( ?? ) or Herbert ( 49 ) in the top 20 is clearly fucking absurd and ridiculous.

Blogger Steve Moss May 01, 2015 2:23 AM  

Zelazny is obviously no. 1.

Blogger Jim May 01, 2015 6:35 AM  

Then he got the emitter; SJWism validated.

To the contrary. It was when he got the emitter that he became even more of an ungrateful ass, and got smacked down even harder. See "Author, Author."

Anonymous Harsh May 01, 2015 8:37 AM  

Maybe. Or maybe it's the kind of obsession a jealous wanna be has. Either way, it's a crazy obsession.

Women and pathetic Gammas think it's an obsession. Others get it.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 01, 2015 10:08 AM  

uh, ANY "All Time Top Science Fiction Author" list which does NOT include Heinlein ( 52 ), Asimov ( 26 ), Clarke ( 71 ), Zelazny ( ?? ) or Herbert ( 49 ) in the top 20 is clearly fucking absurd and ridiculous.

It's a lie anyway. Scalzi's not number 18. He's number 34. If you rank science fiction and fantasy together, as most publishers, libraries and bookstores do, he's number 82.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 01, 2015 10:09 AM  

And that's assuming, of course, that Amazon's rankings are actually meaningful instead of ephemeral. Which is a tough assumption to swallow.

Blogger John Wright May 01, 2015 10:19 AM  

"John Wright: Since boasting isn't admired by Objectivist standards, I'd say you weren't much of a fan."

I cannot make sense of this sentence. Since I have read every word Ayn Rand ever wrote, and many of the words Leonard Peikoff ever wrote, I am assuming this sentence of one of those shameless denial-of-reality statements made for ritual reasons rather than to convince anyone or convince oneself.

One cannot base a philosophy on selfishness, a philosophy that dismisses humility as a positive evil, that scorns altruism, which is not an inflation of the role of the mind of man from start to finish. Ayn Rand herself calls the disciples of Objectivism "Men of the Mind" -- a boast.

It is all boasting, son. Get used to it.

Blogger John Wright May 01, 2015 10:26 AM  

"Those of us not raised Christian have a hard time with the doctrine of Original Sin. (Oh dear, how can a newborn babe be sinful?)"

I was not raised Christian, but my atheist belief system did not permit me to misunderstand what an opposing doctrine says, especially after it has been explained to me more the twice.

The doctrine of original sin says that a little baby has a human nature. Someone has to teach that baby how to talk when he becomes a child, but no one has to teach the baby how to lie when he becomes a child. This is because he has an innate predisposition toward untruth: lying is natural to human beings.

You have a problem with a strawman version of the doctrine. Now that you have heard the real version, is there anything you have a problem with?

Blogger John Wright May 01, 2015 10:27 AM  

"The Whiner or He Who Rigs Awards To Win. "

For Leftists, democracy is "rigging votes."

Blogger John Wright May 01, 2015 10:30 AM  

" Didn't know who John Scalzi was at the time I read it, didn't care. Still don't care."

Then, whether you admit it or not, you are one of us. If you care that the story is good, but do not care about the personal life of the author, you are one of us.

Blogger 223366 May 01, 2015 11:58 AM  

It is worth discussing Ayn Rand's defense of capitalism. I count myself a huge fan of hers, and like Mr. Wright have read virtually everything she's written. However---and this is one huge "however"---she unfortunately got two things wrong. Those two mistakes undermine all of Objectivism. They are as follow:

1. Rand displayed irrational (pun intended), unreasoning (pun intended) disdain, hostility, and even hatred toward people of faith. It was an awful and crucial mistake. All she needed to do was explain there was no place in the philosophy of Objectivism for faith ("the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen") and be respectful. Instead she was hateful.

2. The second huge mistake Miss Rand made was accepting the SJW lie that capitalism is based on selfishness, greed, and rapacity. Rand accepted that lie, and said "I will defeat you even doing so" (with one hand tied behind her back as it were). It was a crucial tactical and strategic error. George Gilder has comprehensively and decisively refuted that definitional lie in Wealth and Poverty, The Spirit of Enterprise, and other books. Gilder explains that the truth is the opposite: "The moral core of capitalism is the essential altruism of enterprise." (Even so, Gilder praises Rand, saying her defense of capitalism at a time when no one else was willing or able to do so was "incredibly bold," and that "we are all in her debt.")

As Gilder explains in his seminal essay, "The Soul of Silicon," written for the Pope, "The altruism of the capitalist goes [to extremes]. Not only must the entrepreneur comprehend the wants of others; he must also collaborate with others in his business. And most of all, he must wish that others succeed. The businessman must be full of optimism and hope for his potential customers. He must want them to prosper.

"The spirit of enterprise is generous and optimistic about human nature. 'Give and you will be given unto' is its fundamental theme. Altruism--an orientation toward the needs of others--is its moral and commercial compass. The argument, from Adam Smith to Gordon Gekko, that capitalism is a valuable system chiefly because it recognizes and exploits human greed and rapacity is the opposite of the truth.
Greed, in fact, impels people to seek first their own comfort and security. The truly self-interested man most often turns to government to give him the benefits he lacked the moral discipline to earn on his own by serving others.

"Above all, [the capitalist] must want the poor to prosper, if only because the poor always compose the world's largest untapped market. He must begin by saving--by forgoing personal consumption to serve others. And he must hope for and celebrate the successes of others."

The essay, which limns the essential core of capitalism and refutes the lies of the SJW Left, may be read at http://www.forbes.com/asap/1998/0601/110_4.html.

Anonymous Jon Bromfield May 01, 2015 1:19 PM  

"You have a problem with a strawman version of the doctrine. Now that you have heard the real version, is there anything you have a problem with?"

Gosh, no! I was one of those adolescent atheists whose disdain for Christianity was based on Miss Rand's teachings and the incomplete when not false narratives of other atheists.

Fortunately I am blessed with an independent mind, so once I exited the Age of Infinite Wisdom (12 to 25 years of age) I realized my understanding of the faith was shallow and mostly erroneous. The turning point was discovering the truth about the Galileo vs. Catholic Church confrontation.

Now I'm a wobbly agnostic, but I respect both Christianity and its adherents. Something I cannot say about those whose sickness of spirit causes them to go apoplectic at any sign of the cross.

Anonymous Amok Time May 01, 2015 4:52 PM  

Ok, i have had it!!

Lets settle this with a cage match at the Octagon between Beale and Scalzi. Scalzi, sometimes mistaken for a Navy Seal, may be a tough opponent for the Ninja-like Beale.

A suitable trophy, for the winner, might be a Hugo, nose first, into a expansive mound of green lawn.

Anyway, may the best man win!

Blogger Dick and Lenay August 11, 2015 12:10 AM  

Dick and Lenay . I am a cancer survivor and a domestic abuse survivor. I have three sons, two of whom have juvenile diabetes. I have worked in the healthcare industry in some capacity for the past 30 years and as an entrepreneur. I am now combining my passion for both fields in this blog with a goal to provide helpful information on weight loss. My bigger goal is to help fund a cure for juvenile diabetes. - See more at: About Us
Natural Weight Loss
Lose Weight
Weight Loss
Diet
Weight Management

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts