On August 10, officials at the Dragon Awards reconsidered their policy of not letting authors withdraw their names from the competition, which resulted in Littlewood and Jemisin withdrawing. Scalzi, after consulting with the officials, decided to stay in the competition, but can’t attend because he’s booked somewhere else for Labor Day weekend. Interestingly, Littlewood and Jemisin both released statements that they were withdrawing because they didn’t want to be used as political pawns.
Littlewood’s position is easy to understand, as her novel The Hidden People was on Vox Day’s list of recommendations for the award. (Can you still call it a Rabid Puppy slate when he calls it recommendations?) Appalled at being targeted, Littlewood jumped to make it clear she didn’t want to be tainted by Rabid Puppy support. This pretty much mirrors similar behavior from authors in the last couple of years. But Jemisin’s statement is more interesting. “There’s a nasty tendency on the part of some organizations to try and use tokens,” she says on her blog, “— most often women and people of color — as ornamentation and flak shielding. It’s a way of saying, ‘Hey! Look! We’re diverse. We’re fair. [Person X’s presence] proves it!’ when in fact the fairness may be an unearned veneer and the diversity a reluctant afterthought.”
This suggests even Jemisin is noticing how often her name appears on awards ballots when plenty of other talented and deserving writers-of-color are out there. Evidently she suspected the Dragon Awards committee might have inserted her name, but it turned out to be fans after all (described as “justice warriors” by President of Dragon Con, Pat Henry). Whatever, these withdrawals reduce the gender diversity of the award even further, leaving the ballot at approximately 82% men.
In light of yesterday’s Hugo results where all the fiction awards went to women, there seems to be a growing split between male and female interests during the SFF awards cycle. Is there any chance this might improve in the near future?
Lela E. Buis 
Aug 12, 2017 @ 01:12:13
The diversity issue only matters if you consider the Dragon to be a real award. If you think of it as a fake award meant to boost the sales of books by white supremacists, then it’s easy to see why decent people (of any color) wouldn’t want to be associated with it.
According to George R.R. Martin, Eric Flint had intended to promote the Dragons and draw enough broad interest in them to make them into something meaningful, but when Eric got sick, no one stepped up. The results of that are clear: the finalists mostly consist of obscure works, mostly by the handful of extremists who viewed the award as a way for them to gain attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 21, 2017 @ 20:48:57
Extremist? Hardly.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 05:28:53
Are the Dragons a Real Award? Compared to the Hugos? Hmm what’s World Con’s attendance? What’s Dragon Con’s? How much do you have to pay to vote of the Hugos? For the Dragons? Nuff said
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 07:10:34
Thing is, we don’t know how many people are voting in the Dragon Awards. The administrators declined to disclose the number of voters, ostensibly to prevent vote-packing – which itself indicates that the total number is on the small side. Vote-packing could hardly be an issue if tens of thousands of DragonCon attendees were taking part, after all. I’ve spoken to DragonCon attendees online, and they didn’t seem particularly interested in the Dragon Awards.
Now, if you want to see an award with a high voting turnout, look at the Goodreads Choice Awards. Last year the fantasy category alone had more than 317,000 votes cast, which I’m pretty sure is considerably more than even the most over-optimistic estimate of the Dragons’ voting base.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 09:29:40
>Are the Dragons a Real Award? Compared to the Hugos? Hmm what’s World Con’s attendance? What’s Dragon Con’s? How much do you have to pay to vote of the Hugos? For the Dragons? Nuff said.
The Dragons are a Real Award, but it’s uncertain how they’ll eventually stack up in prestige against the Hugos. WorldCon attendance was 5944 this year, and DragonCon’s was 77,000 last year. You have to pay $50 to vote on the Hugos and nothing for the Dragons.
One of the criticisms of the Dragon Awards last year is that they were announced in a daytime session that was attended by only about 120 people. If you’ve been to DragonCon, you’ll know this is how they handle a number of awards given out at the Con. However, I think they do have a bigger awards banquet that would be more prestigious. We’ll see how they handle it this year.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 10:30:40
@Daniel —
“Are the Dragons a Real Award? Compared to the Hugos? Hmm what’s World Con’s attendance? What’s Dragon Con’s? How much do you have to pay to vote of the Hugos? For the Dragons? Nuff said”
Ummm, Daniel, size is not the same thing as “realness”. Neither is the cost of membership.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 01:23:33
Thanks for posting the link, but Contrarius already posted it in another thread. Clearly the Dragon Award ballot has come from a different process than the usual awards, as it has very little correspondence to the other SFF awards. In looking at the scores you’ve noted, you have to remember that demographics at Goodreads is 75% female, which will affect the ratings. Attendance at DragonCon is 65% male, which may affect the vote. There’s no established correlation between ratings at GR and award wins. I think this is just another demonstration of how male/female interests have split.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 03:06:33
@Lela —
“demographics at Goodreads is 75% female, which will affect the ratings.”
Again, Lela, a skewed sex ratio isn’t going to make up the difference between thousands of ratings and single- or double-digit ratings. It’s ridiculous to think so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 12, 2017 @ 01:53:01
greghullender said: “If you think of it as a fake award meant to boost the sales of books by white supremacists…”
Then you might be Greg Hullender. Because I’m quite sure you are the only one out there who thinks that. You are a very unique and special snowflake, sir.
greghullender also said: “…the finalists mostly consist of obscure works…”
Oh, you mean like the Hugos, the entire nominations this year consisting of books that have not sold 10K copies. I’d hazard that they have not sold much more than 10K between them.
People like you are why Littlewood had to withdraw from a potentially sales-positive award. She can’t afford to be approved of by the “Wrong Crowd.” It could literally cost her the writing career she’s been working so hard on.
By the way, isn’t the whole point of awards to draw attention to the winners?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 12, 2017 @ 03:22:06
@thephantom —
“Oh, you mean like the Hugos, the entire nominations this year consisting of books that have not sold 10K copies. I’d hazard that they have not sold much more than 10K between them.”
Not true at all. Remember, BookScan only covers print books.
Let’s look at the current Amazon sales rankings:
All the Birds in the Sky — #6705 in the Kindle store
A Closed and Common Orbit — #9314
Death’s End — #6694
Ninefox Gambit — #5833
The Obelisk Gate — #1596
Too Like the Lightning — #8548
And now let’s compare to just a few of the puppy-affiliated Dragon nominations:
Escaping Infinity — #25,540
Rise — #81,995
Space Tripping — #94,092
The Secret Kings — #31,826
A Sea of Skulls — #66,735
Swan Knight’s Son — #32,183
Star Realms — #88,709
But yeah, sure, you go right ahead and keep trying to tell us that it’s the HUGOS that nominate unpopular books.
ROFLMAO.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 04:31:35
I’d just like to point out that Rise and Space Tripping arrived via Inkshares, not the Puppues.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 05:08:03
@Doris —
“I’d just like to point out that Rise and Space Tripping arrived via Inkshares, not the Puppues.”
That’s a good thing to point out. There are more groups than the pups taking advantage of the evident lack of voting controls in these awards.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 01:59:44
Concerning Greg’s comment, the minority demographics actually aren’t that bad at 30%. Also, 10% of the Dragon Award ballot is Hispanic/Portuguese/Native American, a notable improvement over the Hugos for this demographic. The gender issue is the big standout.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 02:12:52
Lela said: “The gender issue is the big standout.”
The largest variance from the demographic middle, I’d go that far.
But given the mechanism of selecting, the nomination process, is that variance significant? As in, does it -mean- something? I find it unlikely that on-line voters for a book award know or care about the gender of the authors.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 07:31:49
It’s a matter of participation again. It looks like there’s less participation by the Goodreads population, for example, in nominations for this award.
No amount of voting controls can increase participation. Are female voters boycotting the Dragon Award?
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 12:16:15
Lela said: “No amount of voting controls can increase participation. Are female voters boycotting the Dragon Award?”
They could be. Certainly there is a movement in certain circles to paint the Dragon Awards as a bunch of dude-bros with SS tattoos. Politics again.
I think its more likely that the GoodReads types don’t have the Dragons on their radar. Its a con, the award is a con event, and not a very well attended one from accounts of previous years. And GoodReads has its own awards.
LikeLike
Aug 21, 2017 @ 13:28:02
I don’t understand the comment about attendance at DragonCon. Attendance at that is more than an order of magnitude higher than attendance at WorldCon. Both the Hugos and the Dragon Awards allow online voting, and the Dragon Awards, while brand new, put up higher total numbers of votes.
LikeLike
Aug 21, 2017 @ 16:23:15
@sifttheashes —
“Both the Hugos and the Dragon Awards allow online voting”
Sure. But the Hugos have very strict controls on their online voting system, while the Dragons specifically tell us themselves that their ONLY control is email addresses. Which, of course, are both free and very easy to get more of, thus encouraging ballot-box stufing.
“and the Dragon Awards, while brand new, put up higher total numbers of votes.”
We have no idea how many votes the Dragons get, because the Dragon admins refuse to release their numbers. They still haven’t released numbers from LAST year’s awards.
Remember: the Dragon admins themselves state clearly on their website:
1. they ONLY record email addresses from each voter; and
2. they can change anything about any of the votes or the awards at their own sole discretion.
In other words, they can make it up as they go along to suit their own whims.
LikeLike
Aug 21, 2017 @ 14:02:49
siftheashes said: “I don’t understand the comment about attendance at DragonCon. Attendance at that is more than an order of magnitude higher than attendance at WorldCon.”
I meant that the number of voters in the Dragon Award is smaller than the total attendance of Dragon Con, and that the award ceremony attendance would be small compared to the con as a whole. Also that Dragon voters would be a smaller number than Goodreads voters, but I could be wrong about that.
Dragon Con is indeed an order of magnitude larger than WorldCon’s best year. I don’t think we know how many voters the Dragon Awards have though, it was my understanding the numbers were not released.
I do think that the Dragon Awards taps a completely different demographic of fans, people not at all represented by the Hugos or by Goodreads.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 12, 2017 @ 02:05:23
Lela said: “But Jemisin’s statement is more interesting. … “It’s a way of saying, ‘Hey! Look! We’re diverse. We’re fair. [Person X’s presence] proves it!’ when in fact the fairness may be an unearned veneer and the diversity a reluctant afterthought.”
I actually agree with that. I’ve always said breaking out the race/sex/whatever of authors is the most crass bigotry possible, and 100% politically motivated. I don’t know or care about the personal details of the author. It doesn’t matter to the story, and I can’t tell from the writing. What matters is the words on the page.
Unfortunately, Jemisin saying that about the Dragons is the most vile slander. Her book was nominated by fans, fair and square, the same as the other books. Her comment is a slap in the face to everyone who voted for her, and completely typical of the way she operates on her blog.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aug 12, 2017 @ 07:27:59
Jemisin does tend to be in-your-face political, and her comments have proved divisive in the SFF community before.
The question is whether fans voted for her because of the quality of the book, the color of her skin or her relationship with Vox Day. Once awards are politicized, then the nominations can become suspect this way. Unfortunately, the same goes for the Hugos.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 09:47:12
All the Birds in the Sky — #6705 in the Kindle store
A Closed and Common Orbit — #9314
Death’s End — #6694
Ninefox Gambit — #5833
The Obelisk Gate — #1596
Too Like the Lightning — #8548
And now let’s compare to just a few of the puppy-affiliated and InkShare-affiliated Dragon nominations:
Escaping Infinity — #25,540
Rise — #81,995
Space Tripping — #94,092
The Secret Kings — #31,826
A Sea of Skulls — #66,735
Swan Knight’s Son — #32,183
Star Realms — #88,709
But yeah, sure, you go right ahead and keep trying to tell us that it’s the HUGOS that nominate unpopular books.
And you go right ahead and keep trying to tell us that people didn’t actually like Jemisin’s book. They just keep buying it because it’s the politically correct thing to do.
Yeah. Right.
LOL.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 13:36:23
Contrarius said: “Let’s look at the current Amazon sales rankings:”
No, let’s not. How about you look at lifetime sales of each book? That’s how you tell what is selling. Amazon rank is even more meaningless than ratings numbers, because rank changes hourly. Amazon rank is an Amazon Inc. marketing tool, not a legit measurement of sales.
Hugo awarded books are not great sellers, for the most part. Not representative of the general run of taste, so it seems. Certainly not representative of -my- taste, to say the least.
Putting that in the context of Lela’s continuing series of posts on diversity of taste, the Hugos and associated SF/F “literary” awards represent a very narrow range. The people involved are politically radical and highly motivated to pushing a political agenda. They don’t want more participation and move to crush it, vigorously. Kick them Puppies.
The Dragon Award represents participation from people outside the little “literary” echo chamber, and y’all are moving to crush it as hard and fast as you can.
No less than Greg Hullender of Rocket Stank Rack (yes, that’s sarcasm), who assures us he’s read a billion short stories for RSR and knows what he’s talking about, calls the Dragons “a fake award meant to boost the sales of books by white supremacists”.
You, Contrarius, take the comment by Dorris Sutherland about participation from Inkshares as evidence of “lack of voting controls.” Because clearly, participation from previously unheard-from groups is bad, is evidence of cheating, and must be eliminated by voting controls. Additionally, you are desperately trying to show that Dragon nominees are obscure nobodies that informed readers could never care about, and that they all cheated.
At a guess, you have read none of these books, and neither has the Great Hullender, Reader Extraordinaire. You have made -zero- comments about the stories represented. All your comments are assertions of cheating. For which you have presented zero evidence, but rather have spent many comments denigrating any comment that the Dragons do have voting controls in place. Also without evidence to support your claim.
Between the two of you, I see no evidence of any interest in the stories, but a great deal of effort being spent to smear a group of political opponents. Everything you have said here since the subject came up is that.
Hence, Lela’s point that there’s no diversity of opinion in the awards. Hence my point that the whole thing is political, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the authors or the work presented. That was the reason for Sad Puppies, and its the reason we aren’t playing this year. Our point has been amply demonstrated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 12, 2017 @ 14:05:07
@phantom —
“No, let’s not.”
Sorry, too late. 🙂
I know you don’t want to see them, because you don’t want them to disrupt your carefully constructed fantasy. Too bad.
“How about you look at lifetime sales of each book?”
I’d be happy to. Unfortunately, such numbers are very hard to come by. And no, old Bookscan numbers don’t count. As I’ve already reminded you, Bookscan only counts print books — and only those sold retail in brick-and-mortar stores (they literally count the number of times the barcode is scanned at a retail cash register). Those numbers don’t include ebooks, audio books, library books, mail-ordered books that aren’t scanned, and so on.
But hey — if you wish to claim that neither Amazon sales rankings nor GR ratings numbers reflect sales, then by all means feel free to provide rebutting evidence.
Be specific.
We’ll be waiting.
“Hugo awarded books are not great sellers, for the most part.”
Let’s see your evidence.
And let’s see a comparison with the Dragon nominees.
Be specific.
We’ll be waiting.
“At a guess, you have read none of these books, and neither has the Great Hullender, Reader Extraordinaire. You have made -zero- comments about the stories represented.”
ROFLMAO.
That’s incredibly rich, coming from a guy who has admitted repeatedly to not having read the Hugo nominees. In fact, I’ve read — let’s see — eight of the Dragon nominees.
How many of the Hugo nominees have YOU read, hmmmm??
I eagerly await your evidence about relative lifetime sales rankings.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 13:55:57
I expanded a bit on my previous list. First number: this morning’s Amazon sales ranking. Second number: this morning’s number of GR rankings. I’ve placed parentheses around works of authors that were nominated in this year’s Hugos. This is not at all a complete list of the Dragon noms — I’m mostly contrasting Hugo noms and known popular works with the puppy-affiliated names that I’m familiar with.
Now, tell me again how GR ratings have nothing to do with sales? Sure, the correlation is not at all perfect, but it *is* obvious.
And tell me again how it’s the HUGOS that are supposedly not nominating popular works?
LOL.
1,373 — 67,150 — A Court of Wings and Ruin by Sarah J. Maas
(1,387 — 12,488 — The Obelisk Gate by N.K. Jemisin)
3,647 — 26,271 — The Hammer of Thor by Rick Riordan
(3,880 — 13,276 — Babylon’s Ashes by James S.A. Corey)
(5,444 — 10,499 — Death’s End by Cixin Liu)
(5831 — 4,316 — Ninefox Gambit)
(7,174 — 18,004 — All the Birds in the Sky)
(7,314 — 814 — The Changeling by Victor LaValle)
(8,212 — 2,927 — Too Like the Lightning)
9,518 — 6,407 — American War by Omar El Akkad
(10,273 — 7,436 — A Closed and Common Orbit by Becky Chambers)
12,187 — 9,168 — The Collapsing Empire by John Scalzi
16,246 — 1,625 — Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge by Larry Correia and John Ringo
16,907 — 1,385 — Walkaway by Cory Doctorow
17,657 — 2,513 — Defy the Stars by Claudia Gray
21,548 — 2,890 — Blood of the Earth by Faith Hunter
25,734 — 40 — Invasion: Resistance by J.F. Holmes
26,693 — 30 — Escaping Infinity by Richard Paolinelli
27,102 — 37 — No Gods, Only Daimons by Kai Wai Cheah
35,265 — 63 — Swan Knight’s Son by John C Wright
47,947 — 14 — The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier
73,633 — 70 — Star Realms: Rescue Run by Jon Del Arroz
75,292 — 42 — A Sea of Skulls by Vox Day
96,059 — 23 — Another Girl, Another Planet by Lou Antonelli
199,597 — 6 — Codename: Unsub by Declan Finn and Allan Yoskowitz
240,302 — 10 — Live and Let Bite by Declan Finn
463,815 — 31 — Rachel and the Many Splendored Dreamland by L. Jagi Lamplighter
LikeLike
Aug 21, 2017 @ 20:53:48
You really have little understanding of the metrics of indie book sales. Sales peak one to two weeks after publishing. Four to five months after publication, most Indie book publisher’s sales have dropped way down, since we don;t have media backers to provide constant advertising.
LikeLike
Aug 21, 2017 @ 21:52:15
@John —
“You really have little understanding of the metrics of indie book sales.”
If you have sales numbers that are any more reliable than what I’ve already posted, please feel free to produce them. Having solid facts to look at is always good for a discussion like this.
OTOH, vague and unsupported claims do nothing for it at all.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 17:29:38
Contrarius, you have no access to any evidence that is the least bit relevant or believable. Just admit it and get on with your life.
My evidence, by contrast, is your own behavior and the known history of the Hugo awards. For thirty years they’ve (for the most part) ignored popular books and authors, to indulge in political favoritism toward the Left.
Of course to do that it helps to be more than 30 years old, and have lived through it. So perhaps I have an unfair advantage over you.
Long term trend is grimdark nasty Left-leaning wins over popular, by about two sigmas or better. Outliers exist, I’m sure you are scrambling to dig up a couple even now. Don’t bother. Everybody can see the trend. It isn’t subtle.
Likewise, everybody can see you and Gregie trashing the Dragon Awards based on zero evidence. Bunch of nerds having some fun, and your guys are calling them white supremacists. So classy, Contrarius.
I’m not defending the Dragons. I didn’t vote in them. I only read one book on the nomination list. I have no dog in that fight. But you do. Pure partisanship, straight up.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 18:19:28
@phantom —
“Contrarius, you have no access to any evidence that is the least bit relevant or believable. Just admit it and get on with your life.”
You know, Randy Rainbow has a great song called “Alternative Facts” on Youtube. You ought to check it out sometime. Meanwhile, I’ll stick with **real** facts. 😉
“My evidence, by contrast, is your own behavior”
Your absence, by contrast, is completely absent.
No surprise there.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 18:20:55
@me —
LOL. Sorry, typo. That’s what I get for hitting “post” too fast.
That should, of course, read “Your EVIDENCE, by contrast, is completely absent.
But the typo version was pretty funny too.
😉
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 22:43:42
Since the discussion seems to be getting a little heated, maybe this is a good time to step in and say again that this is an argument with no solution. What people like to read is what they like to read, and it would be best to look for a collaborative solution–or at least tolerance–to help mend the sharp political divisions going on. The bad-mouthing will damage the reputation of both the Hugos and the Dragons, because what applies to one pretty much applies to the other.
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 09:17:32
@Lela —
“what applies to one pretty much applies to the other.”
That’s nonsense.
The main problem with the Dragons is not with what they are nominating and awarding, but the way in which they are going about it.
The Hugos have strict controls on voting — the Dragons don’t.
The Hugos have complete transparency on the votes — the Dragons don’t.
There’s nothing wrong with having more awards in the sff field, and there’s nothing wrong with having awards that favor different aspects of that field. But there is *plenty* wrong with awards that have little or no transparency, regulation, or accountability.
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 10:05:07
First, you don’t know what kind of controls the Dragon Award has so you can’t make pronouncements about how effective they are. Did you read the WorldCon document below about trying to sort out people who bought multiple memberships? Presumably members did this under their own names because they thought it would be acceptable. How many people bought memberships under different names or addresses?
Second, running down one award as substandard just makes people question the other awards, e.g. if Jemisin feels she’s being used as a token black in the Dragon Awards, then it’s a short distance to thinking she might also be used as a token black in the Hugo Awards; if there are are poor controls in the Dragon Awards to control multiple voters, then there might be poor controls in the Hugo Awards, etc. (Presumably, preventing perception is why they’ve published the document on sorting out the problems.)
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 10:16:14
@Lela —
“First, you don’t know what kind of controls the Dragon Award has”
We’ve already been over this ad nauseam, Lela. The website itself tells us all we need to know: 1. only email addresses are checked; 2. administrators can change the vote and results at their whim.
“Did you read the WorldCon document below about trying to sort out people who bought multiple memberships?”
I haven’t read it, but its very existence strengthens my point: the Hugo voting is entirely transparent, and the Hugo administrators are open and honest about any complications that turn up. The Dragons are entirely the opposite.
“Second, running down one award as substandard just makes people question the other awards”
Fortunately, the Hugos stand up to scrutiny very well. There’s no point in hushing up problems with an award just to avoid having people examine the others. You know, that was the reasoning often used when crimes like child abuse at schools have been hushed up in the past. (in fact, Nashville is currently getting a rather jarring exposure to this reasoning because of multiple alleged child rapes that a local private school seems to have tried to sweep under the carpet.)
” if Jemisin feels she’s being used as a token black in the Dragon Awards, then it’s a short distance to thinking she might also be used as a token black in the Hugo Awards”
LOL.
If you seriously believe so, then you don’t really understand what Jemisin was saying or how the voting works at all.
“f there are are poor controls in the Dragon Awards to control multiple voters, then there might be poor controls in the Hugo Awards”
Fortunately, as I mentioned above, the Hugos can easily prove otherwise.
No Award should be afraid of scrutiny.
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 13:48:35
1) We’ve already established I disagree with your interpretation of the Dragon Award terms and conditions. I think these provide reasonable safeguards when combined with their use of SurveyMonkey, which provides the tools for verification and validation of votes.
2) The Hugo’s won’t stand up to scrutiny. Two years ago Justice Warriors were offering to pay for WorldCon memberships for people who would vote against the Puppies. The Hugo committee has no defense against this kind of fraud. This history of the award also indicates that I could buy a Hugo for one of my stories with a fairly modest investment in memberships. As long as I buy the votes secretly, no one would ever know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aug 13, 2017 @ 13:57:25
@Lela —
“1) We’ve already established I disagree with your interpretation of the Dragon Award terms and conditions. ”
Sorry, Lela, but they are stated in plain English. “email addresses only” and “at our sole discretion” are not difficult to understand.
“when combined with their use of SurveyMonkey, which provides the tools for verification and validation of votes.”
Ahhh, but you have no evidence whatsoever that they are actually using any of those safeguards.
“Two years ago Justice Warriors were offering to pay for WorldCon memberships for people who would vote against the Puppies. ”
Stop and think for a moment. Which is more likely to encourage ballot-box stuffing: a vote that costs $40 a pop, or a vote that’s free?
Hmmmmmm, let me think about that….
;-D
“The Hugo committee has no defense against this kind of fraud.”
Of course they do. All they have to do is look at the name on the credit card.
Keep trying.
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 16:16:54
So did they? Were these memberships rejected? Since they didn’t make any disclosure about it, we can only assume the votes were accepted. It’s nice additional income for them, you know.
The point is what critic Tom LeClair had to say about it (quoted previously in my series about the honesty of awards), that you’re better off not digging too deeply into how any award runs. There are likely abuses within all of them. You have no evidence at all that the Dragons are worse than the average.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aug 13, 2017 @ 16:29:48
@Lela —
“So did they? Were these memberships rejected?”
I already told you — I haven’t read that document. But there’s nothing hinky about people buying multiple memberships for their own family members, for instance. If you have any evidence that multiple purchases were made with the intent of fraudulent voting, then please present it.
Be specific.
We’ll be waiting.
“You have no evidence at all that the Dragons are worse than the average.”
Of course I do — and I’ve already presented it multiple times. You just insist on ignoring it.
No surprise there.
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 16:54:23
@Lela —
Since you were so concerned about multiple memberships, I looked up the document you were referencing. Here’s the relevant section (I’ve added a few notes in parentheses). Once again, you see that the Hugo admins are open and honest, and not afraid of scrutiny. Again, exactly the opposite of the Dragons.
I hope this alleviates your concerns!
§6.2: Multiple memberships in the same name, and other edge cases for the voting population.
Many nominating voters had memberships of more than one of the qualifying conventions (for example, this year you could nominate if you had a membership to the 2016 or 2017 conventions — I had both myself) . A number of people had bought multiple memberships of the same qualifying convention in their own name (again, this should not be surprising given the number of people who travel to cons with spouses and/or other family members). Several societies and exhibitors had bought multiple memberships without giving separate names (again not surprising). A few voters had also bought additional memberships for unnamed guests. Sadly, some voters were deceased.
§6.2 of the Constitution states:
In all matters arising under this Constitution, only natural persons may introduce business, nominate, or vote, except as specifically provided otherwise in this Constitution. No person may cast more than one vote on any issue or more than one ballot in any election
On that basis, we made the following determinations:
● In the case of a person holding membership of more than one of the qualifying conventions, the vote was attributed to their W75 membership, or to their MAC2 membership if they did not have a W75 membership, unless the MAC2 membership details were clearly out of date in which case it was attributed to their W76 membership.
● In the case of several memberships in the same convention held in the same name, provided it was clear that the same person is involved and not a namesake, the vote was attributed to the membership bought first.
○ Where there were reasonable grounds to believe that we were dealing with
two or more different people with the same name, they all got votes.
● In the case of organisations which had bought multiple memberships without giving separate names, no votes were attributed to any of those membership unless and until names of individual voters (“natural persons”) were supplied.
● Members identified as “Guest of X” and not otherwise named did not get votes (they are not “natural persons” unless and until they are identified by name).
● Members known to be deceased did not get votes.
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 19:30:03
Contrarius said: “Stop and think for a moment. Which is more likely to encourage ballot-box stuffing: a vote that costs $40 a pop, or a vote that’s free?”
Your assumption that no one but you thinks is getting very old. Let’s go way, way back in time to 2015, shall we?
Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies swept the Hugo nominations. By accident. Through a confluence of factors, enough people voted in the nominations to push out everything else.
How many people was that, Contrarius? How many votes did it take to sweep the nominations?
Let me help you. It was under 1000. If you wanted to get a particular book on the ballot, you could probably get it done with 500 votes. Another 500 votes would get you a rocket in the final vote.
If I’m a publishing house, I can guarantee myself a Hugo and it will only cost me maximum $40 grand.
How far does forty thousand bucks go in the world of advertising, Contrarius?
Let me help you again. Not very far. $40K is chicken feed when you’re talking about a national book ad campaign. The local newspaper here in Hooterville where I live, a 1/2 page ad for one day is $1000.00 Magazines and etc. are much more.
Getting back to 2015, we -know- that memberships were bought for third parties so the SMOFS could beat the Puppies. We even know how many more memberships than normal were purchased. About 3,000. How many were straw votes, Contrarius? You don’t know. But some certainly were. People were bragging about it in their blogs and raising money for it.
So maybe -you- should think about that for a moment.
And as to the Dragons, you have no evidence at all. No one does, the award numbers have not been published. You are accusing people you don’t know of malfeasance, based on -nothing.-
Why are you doing that? Politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 13, 2017 @ 19:52:14
@phantom —
“How many people was that, Contrarius? How many votes did it take to sweep the nominations?
Let me help you. It was under 1000.”
Phantom, are you implying that a single individual or small group of individuals representing the puppy viewpoint fraudulently purchased multiple memberships in order to vote multiple times?
You are probably the first person in the puppy discussion that I’ve seen actually imply such a thing.
And if you are actually NOT implying such a thing, then why would you think the actions of the pups have anything to do with the subject of purchasing multiple memberships?
“If I’m a publishing house, I can guarantee myself a Hugo and it will only cost me maximum $40 grand.”
No, actually, you can’t. Because there are controls on the voting process. See the above excerpt from the Hugo admins for a couple of examples.
“Getting back to 2015, we -know- that memberships were bought for third parties so the SMOFS could beat the Puppies.”
No, actually, you don’t.
If you believe otherwise, please provide your evidence. Not rumor or innuendo — actual evidence.
Be specific.
We’ll be waiting.
“We even know how many more memberships than normal were purchased. ”
Which does NOT mean that memberships were bought for third parties.
“About 3,000.”
Actually about 2,400 more than the previous year..
Here’s the years surrounding the pup campaign again:
2013 — 1,343 nominating ballots, 1,848 final ballots
2014 — 1,923 nominating ballots, 3,587 final ballots
2015 — 2,122 nominating ballots, 5,950 final ballots
2016 — 4,032 nominating ballots, 3,130 final ballots
2017 — 2,464 nominating ballots, 3,319 final ballots
Remember, many of those — I don’t know the exact number, though I could probably dig out the estimates; I think it was several hundred in the biggest year — belonged to the puppies themselves. Others, like mine, were new memberships purchased by people who didn’t appreciate the trolling efforts of the pups (that’s why I started voting in the Hugos myself).
You can tell that the pup campaign raised long-term interest in the sff community by the fact that in 2017 there were still 1500 more final ballots than in 2013, even after the vast majority of pups had run away. That’s not fraudulent votes — that’s an increased voting pool.
You have no evidence at all that any of those votes were fraudulent.
“How many were straw votes, Contrarius?”
If you are associated with the pups, you could probably answer that question better than I. It’s more likely that the pups were attempting to vote fraudulently than anyone else, since they were the ones actively trying to subvert the awards.
“People were bragging about it in their blogs”
Please post quotes of anyone bragging about having purchased multiple memberships for the purpose of fraudulent voting, with the appropriate URLs.
Be specific.
We’ll be waiting.
“And as to the Dragons, you have no evidence at all.”
For evidence, we have the Dragon admins’ own words. Are you going to call the Dragon admins liars now?
“You are accusing people you don’t know of malfeasance, based on -nothing.”
As I’ve told Lela before, there is nothing fraudulent about the way the Dragon awards are set up. They’ve been very open and honest about their voting system and its lack of controls. As I’ve said before, “only email addresses” and “at our sole discretion” are both easily understandable English and clearly stated on their site.
Again — do you wish to accuse the Dragon admins of lying?
Because that’s your only alternative here.
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 21:20:59
Contrarius said: “Phantom, are you implying…”
I see the familiar Leftist Reading Comprehension Problem has appeared, right on cue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 14, 2017 @ 08:32:53
As far as I know, there are no reports of individual Puppies buying multiple memberships to vote in the Hugos. Instead, the reports have been that Justice Warriors were asking to buy people’s votes. I don’t have time to look for it right now, but later in the week, I’ll see if I can find one of the reports. The Internet is forever, you know.
Here’s another question about the controls at the Hugos: Should organizations be allowed to bring large voting contingents to the con, as mentioned in your posting above?
For example, 12 of 24 finalists this year were from Tor. As I understand it, the publisher pays for the finalists to attend. Plus, the company will have sent various editors and representatives to appear on panels, run the vendor table, etc. All they have to do is report the names and these are voting memberships. Plus, companies appear to be free to buy supporting memberships. This means that large publishers with deep pockets to buy in will have an undue advantage over small publishers without the funds to buy multiple voting memberships. How does this affect the results?
The Dragon Award have taken monetary gain out of the equation, but the Hugo clearly falls on the commercial side. They’re selling votes to the highest bidder. Read back through my series on awards if you missed how this works. On the one hand, charging to vote may reduce the individual purchase of multiple memberships, but it increases the influence of large publishers who can buy as many memberships as they want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 14, 2017 @ 09:37:47
Lela said: “The Internet is forever, you know.”
Lots of examples at Vile770, Making Light, The Mary Sue, TOR.com etc. as Contrarius well knows. If she was paying attention in 2015, anyway. People were asking for donations at those blogs and similar ones. Brad Torgersen would have mentioned it I’m sure.
Lela said: “This means that large publishers with deep pockets to buy in will have an undue advantage over small publishers without the funds to buy multiple voting memberships. How does this affect the results?”
One word: Redshirts. Plenty of other examples of log-rolling over the years, I can’t be bothered to dig them out for a person who can’t/won’t comprehend the written word.
Recall also the uproar that arose when the Sasquan voting data was given to a couple of “researchers” for “analysis” after the Assterisk Affair. That data would have included identifying information about each voter, including names, emails and IP addresses, along with their votes.
Had someone like Vox Day purchased multiple votes, that would have been made public. Had someone like TOR done the same, that would -not- have been made public. One does not bite the hand that feeds.
But never mind. I’m going to stop blogging and go read Monster Hunter: Siege. I’ll let you know how it goes. ~:D
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 10:39:29
@phantom —
“I see the familiar Leftist Reading Comprehension Problem has appeared, right on cue.”
I see the familiar Rightist Failure to Present Evidence Problem has appeared, right on cue.
“Lots of examples at Vile770, Making Light, The Mary Sue, TOR.com etc”
If there are lots of examples, then you shouldn’t have any problem providing a few in support of your accusation.
Your failure to actually produce **any** says volumes about the lack of validity of that accusation.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 10:54:38
@Lela —
“Here’s another question about the controls at the Hugos: Should organizations be allowed to bring large voting contingents to the con, as mentioned in your posting above?”
That’s a good question — but leave out the “large” part, which was not actually mentioned in that excerpt. It actually reads: “Several societies and exhibitors had bought multiple memberships without giving separate names (again not surprising). ”
These are talking about attending memberships, not supporting ones (“exhibitor” by its definition presupposes attendance). And I think it’s natural for exhibitors to purchase memberships for all the employess/helpers working their exhibit booth during a con. As for societies? A little fuzzier, I suppose, depending on what roles those folks have at the con.
But if they had been talking about *supporting* memberships, that would get even fuzzier, since that would not involve con attendance.
“For example, 12 of 24 finalists this year were from Tor. As I understand it, the publisher pays for the finalists to attend. Plus, the company will have sent various editors and representatives to appear on panels, run the vendor table, etc. All they have to do is report the names and these are voting memberships.”
There’s nothing abnormal about companies paying for their employees to attend things like this — that kind of practice holds across whole industries, not just the Hugos.
“How does this affect the results?”
Not much.
Remember, the final vote count (counting all passes) in this year gave Obelisk Gate 1664 votes over 1009 for second place. That’s a great big gap. And the group you are most concerned about, Tor, only took home one award — so they obviously didn’t have a very big impact.
“They’re selling votes to the highest bidder.”
And yet again you come up with a wild accusation that you have absolutely no evidence to support.
No surprise there.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 19:03:43
Contrarius said: “There’s nothing abnormal about companies paying for their employees to attend things like this…”
Yeah? Who says? Lemme see some proof to back that up there. Got a link there, huh huh huh? If you want to play the link game you got to pony up.
Contrarius said “I was laughing out loud at Phantom’s claim about publishers supposedly blithely spending $40,000 a pop just to win a Hugo.”
That’s because you can’t read. Quote: “If I’m a publishing house, I can guarantee myself a Hugo and it will only cost me maximum $40 grand.”
Hardly anybody votes in these things. The deciding constituency is under 500 most years, probably in the 200 range. TOR’s employees and dependents make a sizeable voting block. So do those of other publishers.
What’s a Hugo worth in sales to a publisher? Over $20k? In a non-Puppy year, that’s profitable.
Keep laughing, kid.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 19:38:42
@phantom —
“Contrarius said: “There’s nothing abnormal about companies paying for their employees to attend things like this…”
Yeah? Who says? Lemme see some proof to back that up there. ”
Sure, happy to oblige with a couple of quick examples. If I post more than one URL, though, my post will automatically get sent to moderation — so I’ll just post a couple of webpage titles, and you can google the URLs for yourself.
— “Selecting the Right Employee for Conference Attendance”
— “When Is Travel or Seminar Attendance Compensable?”
— “Compensating Non-Exempt Employees for Out-of-Town Travel and Meeting Attendance”
There are many similar examples out there, but those should get you started.
You’re welcome.
“Contrarius said “I was laughing out loud at Phantom’s claim about publishers supposedly blithely spending $40,000 a pop just to win a Hugo.”
That’s because you can’t read. Quote: “If I’m a publishing house, I can guarantee myself a Hugo and it will only cost me maximum $40 grand.””
How quickly you forget your own words, phantom. You also said: “$40K is chicken feed when you’re talking about a national book ad campaign.”
You also forgot, though, that you had previously claimed that all six Hugo nominees put together sold only 10,000 copies. Which means an average of less than 2000 copies per book. Let’s be generous and call it 2000 copies. Ebooks generally sell for $10 or less; hardbacks for maybe $20 or less; paperbacks $15 or less. Let’s be generous and call it $20 per book, whether ebook or dead tree.
Following on from your previous claim, each Hugo book only earned $40,000 MAXIMUM GROSS for the publisher — not net, GROSS. Yet somehow you think that a publisher is gonna shell out that dough just to win an award?
Seriously??
“What’s a Hugo worth in sales to a publisher? Over $20k?”
Oh, but phantom. You’re also forgetting that the puppy types have claimed that nobody pays attention to the Hugo awards anymore. I believe you’ve made similar claims yourself, but I’d have to go back through Lela’s blogs to be sure. And if nobody pays attention to the awards, then how do those awards generate any sales at all? Hmmmmm?
Stop digging that hole, phantom. It’s only getting deeper.
LikeLike
Aug 13, 2017 @ 08:57:09
Interesting document here about sorting out the WorldCon vote.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 13:03:47
Phantom: “Amazon rank is even more meaningless than ratings numbers, because rank changes hourly. Amazon rank is an Amazon Inc. marketing tool, not a legit measurement of sales.”
May I have permission to quote that the next time I see a Puppy-affiliated author posting screencaps of Amazon rankings as evidence of their mass popularity? 🙂
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 14:15:57
@Doris —
It’s a good things that we don’t need permission to hold these guys to account when we catch them contradicting themselves in such obvious ways.
I was laughing out loud at Phantom’s claim about publishers supposedly blithely spending $40,000 a pop just to win a Hugo. First he claims that all six Hugo nominees combined sold only 10,000 copies, and then he claims that a single publisher of a single one of those books would be willing to fork out $40,000 just to buy an award? Seriously, can this guy even do rudimentary algebra?
No need to answer that. 😉
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 12:49:06
Doris V. Sutherland said: “Souldancer was different. I didn’t care about the characters at all. I mean, this is what its dialogue is like:
[snipage]
This is junk. It’s like something out of a Star Wars parody.”
This could be one of those “differences in taste” that keep cropping up, because I like that bit of dialog. That sounds like a laugh. Correia puts stuff like that in all the time, it makes the stories hilarious.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 18:48:00
Truth is truth, Doris. Amazon rank is who’s outselling who on Amazon since the last ranking update. Ranks change all the time.
Larry Correia does a Book Bomb, and author LawDog goes from the basement to the third floor in 12 hours.
What does that mean in overall popularity and overall sales? What’s the sales difference between #1500 and #1400? Is it 1000 sales, 100 sales or three sales? I don’t know, Amazon doesn’t list the sales. Just the rank.
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 02:27:55
You may very well be right, but my point is that I never came across anyone placing stock in Amazon rankings until I saw Puppy-aligned authors doing it. Remember The Corroding Empire? One of the recurring arguments from Vox’s circle was that it must have been more popular than the Scalzi book it was riffing on…. because at one point, it had a higher Amazon sales rank. That’s an argument I’ve seen bubble up again more recently during the whole Scalzi/Niemeier thing at the Dragon Awards: i distinctly remember Niemeier or one of his friends citing Scalzi’s Amazon rank as evidence that his book doesn’t deserve to win a Dragon.
So if you’re right here – and I won’t deny that you may well be – then that means that Niemeier and co are wrong. Perhaps you should be arguing with them right now – they’re the ones who brought Amazon rankings into the discussion, Contrarius is just playing “when in Rome”.
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 09:52:34
Doris V. Sutherland said: “One of the recurring arguments from Vox’s circle was that it must have been more popular than the Scalzi book it was riffing on”
I pay zero attention to Vox Day and his followers. All I know is that Scalzi was doing all right with Old Man’s War, but this latest thing of his I got no farther than the cover blurb. It is another example of More Of The Same Crap that is all we get from the Big Five these days. A story about a collapsing empire. Yay. How uplifting. It has been done before, and most likely better.
I expect that “Niemeier and co” find themselves in the same information desert Contrarius lives in. Amazon rank is all that’s listed, its a number, it’ll do. Its a handy stick to beat your ideological enemies and not much more. Evidently they have decided Little Johnny S. needs a beating. Frankly, given his internet behavior the last few years, I can’t disagree with them.
You know what I don’t see in any of this? Books. I don’t see anybody sticking up for Jemisin’s Hugo Award winning book. I didn’t read it, because like the Scalzi thing, its More Of The Same Crap as far as I’m concerned. Nasty characters doing bad things, in Hell.
There is nobody saying “I loved this book because this character did this, and that thing happened, and this theme was great, and that paragraph really spoke to me…” I have not seen that.
I’ve seen the word “challenging” used a lot in reviews. That’s reviewer code for “I’m required to approve of this book or I will get in trouble, but I quit after the fifth chapter because it was skeeving me out.”
I’ve seen is “Nora’s an SJW so screw her!” and “Ms. Jemisin is a POC, respect!!!11!” This is equally bullshit on both sides of the equation.
I conclude that either nobody liked it, or nobody read it. If -you- read it, maybe explain why its So Much Better than Rick Riordan’s book. Or Correia’s, or whoever’s.
I also don’t see anybody saying “The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier is not a good book because…” Mostly I see people similar to Contrarius braying they’ll never read it due to Puppy-Alignment, and Nora’s book was SO much better… even though they haven’t read that one either.
Currently I’m reading Monster Hunter: Siege. Started last night, after putting marble tile in the bathroom all day yesterday and sniping at Contrarius during my breaks. I’m at chapter 8 right now. Already, a character has asked “what happens if we give the moon rock to the werewolf?” so I’m pretty happy with my purchase. More awesomeness awaits, no doubt.
Doris V. Sutherland also said: “Contrarius is just playing “when in Rome”.”
Contrarius is trolling like a child. You can tell by the way every comment starts with LOL. She was such an idiot yesterday that Sarah Hoyt banned her. Hoyt hardly ever bans people, Contrarius was really running her mile.
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 10:50:03
‘There is nobody saying “I loved [The Obelisk Gate] because this character did this, and that thing happened, and this theme was great, and that paragraph really spoke to me…” I have not seen that. […] I conclude that either nobody liked it, or nobody read it. If -you- read it, maybe explain why its So Much Better than Rick Riordan’s book. Or Correia’s, or whoever’s.’
Well, The Obelisk Gate wasn’t my personal choice at the Hugos this year (I picked Too Like the Lightning) and I haven’t yet read Riordan’s The Hammer of Thor or Correia/Ringo’s Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge so I can’t draw a comparison – but then, I’ve personally never argued that Jemisin’s book was necessarily better than those two. As for Brian Niemeier, I haven’t yet read Secret Kings (I plan to do so for research purposes) but I read the first two novels in the series and was unimpressed by them.
Last year, I read all six of the nominees for the Dragon Award for Best Horror Novel, including Niemeier’s Souldancer. My personal choice was Disappearance at Devil’s Rock by Paul Tremblay, a ghost story about a mother trying to find her missing 14-year-old son. Why did it appeal to me? Well, for one thing, sustaining a novel-length ghost story is itself no mean feat (that’s why most of the best-remembered ghost tales are short stories) and I thought Tremblay pulled it off well. Secondly, it had psychological depth. Tremblay made me empathise with the plight of his protagonist as she sought her missing child. Politics didn’t enter my choice, as it was a broadly apolitical novel (its most obvious message was “kids shouldn’t talk to strangers”, which few people would argue with).
Souldancer was different. I didn’t care about the characters at all. I mean, this is what its dialogue is like:
—
“Are you going to kill me?”
Tefler seems to ponder the question. “I mainly wanted to kill you because I thought you killed my mom. Since you are my mom, I guess you’re in the clear.”
“Then I should visit your grandmother. Care to join me?”
—
This is junk. It’s like something out of a Star Wars parody. When Niemeier’s pals dismissed Paul Tremblay’s novel (and most of the other nominees) as unworthy of their attention, do you really think that this was an unbiased decision?
‘I’m at chapter 8 right now. Already, a character has asked “what happens if we give the moon rock to the werewolf?” so I’m pretty happy with my purchase.’
Ramsey Campbell already answered that in 1973 ;D
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 11:03:48
@phantom —
“I expect that “Niemeier and co” find themselves in the same information desert Contrarius lives in.”
You’re right on this, at least. It would be great to have the actual sales numbers — but, as I mentioned previously, they are generally not available. It’s possible to get Bookscan numbers if you’re sufficiently associated with the industry, but as I also mentioned those only count dead tree books that have their barcodes physicially scanned at actual cash registers — so their usefulness is very limited.
“Amazon rank is all that’s listed, its a number, it’ll do. Its a handy stick to beat your ideological enemies and not much more.”
The rankings aren’t perfect, but they are much better than a handy stick. Repeated recordings of those rankings, as I’ve already shown you, verify the relative popularity of books over time and how the sales patterns change over time.
“I don’t see anybody sticking up for Jemisin’s Hugo Award winning book.”
If you want to see what I think about specific books, you are welcome to visit my reviews and comments on Goodreads (user name Contrarius), sffworld (user name Contrarius), and/or the Westeros literature forum (user name Contrarius+). Those are the places I most frequently discuss books. You haven’t seen much discussion of individual books here because the discussions have been mostly about the awards SYSTEM, not the content of the books themselves.
” I didn’t read it, because like the Scalzi thing, its More Of The Same Crap as far as I’m concerned. Nasty characters doing bad things, in Hell.”
This sort of comment is just hysterically funny. You admit that you haven’t read the book, but then you turn right around and condemn it from the depths of your admitted ignorance. Do you not even realize how ridiculous that makes you look?
“I’ve seen the word “challenging” used a lot in reviews. That’s reviewer code for “I’m required to approve of this book or I will get in trouble, but I quit after the fifth chapter because it was skeeving me out.””
No, it isn’t. But I’m not surprised that you think so.
Many of the most revered books in English literature are described as “challenging”. Being required to think is not a bad thing, however often your buddies may tell you otherwise.
“I also don’t see anybody saying “The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier is not a good book because…” ”
Again, because this discussion isn’t about the content of the individual books. It’s about the system.
“Mostly I see people similar to Contrarius braying they’ll never read it due to Puppy-Alignment”
Please stop lying. I have never said any such thing, and I haven’t seen anyone else saying that either.
But again, your accusation is hysterically funny coming from someone who admits to not having read the Hugo noms.
“Currently I’m reading Monster Hunter: Siege.”
I enjoyed the first couple of Monster Hunter books (you can see my reviews for them from back in 2011 on Goodreads, if you get interested). They were fun. But they were popcorn and candy, and I got tired of them. The Hugos look for steak, not candy.
“Contrarius is trolling like a child. You can tell by the way every comment starts with LOL.”
Except that the comments don’t actually do that. But you already knew that. 😉
As I mentioned previously — it always amuses me that supposedly staunch defenders of free speech hit the “ban” button as soon as it becomes clear that they can’t “win” a debate otherwise. And note which participant was throwing around all the personal attacks and rough language yesterday. Hint: it wasn’t me. I don’t need childish insults to get my points across.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 19:12:15
@phantom —
“Ranks change all the time.”
You’re missing the forest for the trees, phantom.
Here are this afternoon’s Amazon sales rankings (paid) for the same books I listed previously. Are the rankings exactly the same as a couple of days ago? No, of course not. Do they still show the huge gap between Hugo-affiliated works and Puppy-affiliated works? Yup, you betcha.
Truth is truth, phantom.
1671 — A Court of Wings and Ruin by Sarah J. Maas
(1366 — The Obelisk Gate by N.K. Jemisin)
4807 — The Hammer of Thor by Rick Riordan
(4142 — Babylon’s Ashes by James S.A. Corey)
(7098 — Death’s End by Cixin Liu)
(8363 — Ninefox Gambit)
(7679 — All the Birds in the Sky)
(7398 — The Changeling by Victor LaValle)
(9685 — Too Like the Lightning)
2550 — American War by Omar El Akkad
(14,073 — A Closed and Common Orbit by Becky Chambers)
9796 — The Collapsing Empire by John Scalzi
25,892 — Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge by Larry Correia and John Ringo
15,317 — Walkaway by Cory Doctorow
21,360 — Defy the Stars by Claudia Gray
18,115 — Blood of the Earth by Faith Hunter
(sorry, this one is now free, so there’s no paid ranking for it) — Invasion: Resistance by J.F. Holmes
27,943 — Escaping Infinity by Richard Paolinelli
32,684 — No Gods, Only Daimons by Kai Wai Cheah
117,713 — Swan Knight’s Son by John C Wright
48,672 — The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier
140,134 — Star Realms: Rescue Run by Jon Del Arroz
121,874— A Sea of Skulls by Vox Day
186,943 — Another Girl, Another Planet by Lou Antonelli
277,495 — Codename: Unsub by Declan Finn and Allan Yoskowitz
111,910 — Live and Let Bite by Declan Finn
170,474 — Rachel and the Many Splendored Dreamland by L. Jagi Lamplighter
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 20:56:45
But wait! Contrarius said: “Following on from your previous claim, each Hugo book only earned $40,000 MAXIMUM GROSS for the publisher — not net, GROSS.”
So if the maximum gross sales from a Hugo Award winning book is $40K, Contrarius, it wasn’t much of a seller, was it? 4000 copies at $10 a piece for paperback, 1,600 copies at $25 each hardcover. Nobody bought it.
Didn’t I start this conversation saying that? Why yes, I believe I did.
I agree with you then. Hardly worth bothering to jigger an award for a book that sells 1600 hardcovers.
So now, how come the Hugo always goes to books with such crap sales, Contrarius? What’s up with that?
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 21:43:18
“But wait! Contrarius said: “Following on from your previous claim, each Hugo book only earned $40,000 MAXIMUM GROSS for the publisher — not net, GROSS.”
So if the maximum gross sales from a Hugo Award winning book is $40K, Contrarius, it wasn’t much of a seller, was it? 4000 copies at $10 a piece for paperback, 1,600 copies at $25 each hardcover. Nobody bought it.”
LOL.
Phantom, I was using your own numbers to calculate that hypothetical profit — as I already clearly stated. The point, which seems to have gone entirely over your head, is that your two claims contradict each other. Specifically: if the books sold as poorly as you claim they did, then the publisher would never be paying large sums of money to buy an award, as you claim they are willing to do.
I hope this clears up your confusion.
“So now, how come the Hugo always goes to books with such crap sales, Contrarius? What’s up with that?”
They don’t actually do that, of course. As I’ve already shown you multiple times with the Amazon sales rankings.
Welcome to reality.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 22:01:02
Contrarius said: “Phantom, I was using your own numbers to calculate that hypothetical profit…”
Meaning you have zero data and are now making stuff up from whole cloth.
Okay then.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 22:14:19
Nice performance over at According to Hoyt, Contrarius. You just LOLed yourself into getting banned.
You are not good at this arguing thing, you know? You should stick to echo chambers like China Mike’s.
LikeLike
Aug 14, 2017 @ 23:25:18
@phantom —
“Contrarius said: “Phantom, I was using your own numbers to calculate that hypothetical profit…”
Meaning you have zero data and are now making stuff up from whole cloth.”
Noooooo, meaning that your claims contradict each other.
But that’s okay. I’ve realized now that facts and hypotheticals both go zooming right over your head.
I can’t say I’m all that surprised.
“Nice performance over at According to Hoyt, Contrarius. You just LOLed yourself into getting banned.”
Yeah, it always amuses me when supposed defenders of free speech get so itchy with the “ban” button whenever it’s the only way for them to “win” a debate.
That’s one thing I respect about Lela, in fact. She is actually capable of carrying on civil discussions with people she disagrees with, and without muzzling her opposition.
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 10:52:16
Contrarius said: “That’s one thing I respect about Lela, in fact. She is actually capable of carrying on civil discussions with people she disagrees with, and without muzzling her opposition.”
Then maybe you should -show- some respect, eh? Lela has the patience of a saint.
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 11:09:30
@phantom —
“Then maybe you should -show- some respect, eh? Lela has the patience of a saint.”
I hate to break it to you, but the act of disagreeing with someone and pointing out their errors is not the same thing as disrespecting them.
That seems to be another problem amongst the right — any sign of disagreement tends to be seen as a personal attack. Witness all the childish insults over on Hoyt’s forum yesterday.
LikeLike
Aug 21, 2017 @ 14:24:35
Contrarius, it’s your obvious and utter disdain for anyone who might disagree with you that annoys people. Do you really think you’re smarter and better read than anyone who has a different opinion than you could possibly have?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 21, 2017 @ 16:29:34
@sifttheashes —
“Contrarius, it’s your obvious and utter disdain for anyone who might disagree with you that annoys people. Do you really think you’re smarter and better read than anyone who has a different opinion than you could possibly have?”
Actually, there are plenty of people who disagree with me without earning my disdain. That is earned by people who make claims without facts to back up their claims — especially those who make claims that contradict easily verifiable facts — and by people who continue to insist on serious logical errors (like making claims that contradict each other) even after those errors are pointed out to them.
As a wise person once said: you are welcome to your own opinions, but you are not welcome to your own facts.
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 11:22:58
Mr. Phantom says, “I don’t see anybody sticking up for Jemisin’s Hugo Award winning book.”
This is a flat-out lie, since on Camestros Felapton’s blog people had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Phantom *himself* over why Jemisin’s books were wonderful. (Mr. Phantom, who admits to never reading Jemisin’s work, kept circling back to his claim that they were bad books because they deal with subjects he doesn’t want to read about.)
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 11:33:23
@delagar —
“This is a flat-out lie”
Now, now. We have already established that phantom’s memory tends to be very short and very inaccurate. Surely he just forgot.
😉
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 12:36:50
delegar said: “This is a flat-out lie, since on Camestros Felapton’s blog people had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Phantom *himself* over why Jemisin’s books were wonderful.”
Yes, and that review by Mr. Floppy was what convinced me I didn’t want to read the book even more than the cover blurb and the first chapter. Its a review of a travelogue through Hell with a side-order of slavery. I believe the word “challenging” came up, although that may have been a different review. I found the presented arguments for “wonderful” lacking, and said so. Repeatedly.
Maybe you should post the link to what was actually said over there, delegar, if you’re going to slander me in public. Then people can make up their own minds.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 19:12:24
I recall at least one thread involving The Phantom where I’ve explained what I thought was great about The Obelisk Gate. I’ve done so on several occasions with several Puppies, but they never recall those conversations (I honestly suspect they just assume I’m lying, maybe because I have cats, which makes me an SJW).
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 19:21:23
@Kathodus —
“I recall at least one thread involving The Phantom where I’ve explained what I thought was great about The Obelisk Gate.”
Yup, we established that phantom actually took part in at least two discussions that were specifically about Jemisin’s books. Of course, he apparently forgot them very conveniently — or perhaps believed they were just a figment of his fevered imagination?
“maybe because I have cats, which makes me an SJW”
If I have both cats and dogs, does that mean I can argue both sides of the issue?
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 19:29:49
@Contrarius
“If I have both cats and dogs, does that mean I can argue both sides of the issue?”
Hmm… I suspect dogs just agree with their people on issues they don’t much care about (politics, literature), as opposed to important issues (feeding time, walks). Cats, on the other hand, are well known to manipulate their people through toxoplasmosis, and they care about people sitting for long periods of time.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 19:56:29
@Kathodus —
” I suspect dogs just agree with their people on issues they don’t much care about (politics, literature), as opposed to important issues (feeding time, walks). Cats, on the other hand, are well known to manipulate their people through toxoplasmosis, and they care about people sitting for long periods of time.”
Plus, everyone knows that cats rule and dogs drool.
😉
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 22:54:59
Kathodus said: “I’ve done so on several occasions with several Puppies, but they never recall those conversations…”
As it happens Kathodus, I recall having the conversation but indeed, I can’t remember what you said about Obelisk Gate. Possibly because it was couched in disdainful prose ripping the Puppies. Or perhaps not, I can’t remember that part either. Usually these “conversations” with you start with something like what we got from Greg Hullender right at the top of this thread. That was lovely.
I read the blurb for O.G. and decided I wasn’t having any. I read the Flopatron review and thanked Heaven I followed my first impression from the blurb. I still can’t fathom what any of you -like- about any of the books in that series. They’re unremittingly horrible.
Maybe, just for a first-time-ever change of tack, you could try explaining what was good about it and leave the politics out of it.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 23:13:42
@phantasist —
“Maybe, just for a first-time-ever change of tack, you could try explaining what was good about it and leave the politics out of it.”
Aaaaaaand there you go again with yet another fact-free accusation.
Extensive reviews of Fifth Season and Obelisk Gate — you participated in the comment threads yourself. Puppy-politics free until you yourself introduced them:
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 00:11:49
@Phantom
“As it happens Kathodus, I recall having the conversation but indeed, I can’t remember what you said about Obelisk Gate. Possibly because it was couched in disdainful prose ripping the Puppies.”
Weird. I remember a lot of what you’ve said in the past, despite your constant insults against anyone left-of-center.
I found one of the times that I’ve talked about the Broken Earth trilogy. I’ve gone more in-depth before, but my basic overview:
@Phantom
“It is a mess. Have you read it? Like listening to a Yoko Ono album while eating glass. At best, and allowing for the convoluted presentation, it is -depressing-.”
@Kathodus
Caveat: I like the Yoko Ono I’ve heard.
I’ve read the first two books in the Broken Earth series. It is not a mess. Yes, it is told non-linearly. That’s a thing people have been doing for a long time. If I recall correctly, my introduction to that was with “Pulp Fiction,” and I’ve been interested in that sort of thing since then. I do agree it’s depressing, and that none of the characters are at all likable. Joe Abercrombie’s First Law series is also depressing with unlikable characters all around, and that’s possibly my favorite series of the past decade or so. I’m sure you’d disagree – our tastes differ.
@Kathodus
ETA for accuracy: The second Broken Earth book is not written non-linearly. I don’t recall if there are flashbacks or the like, but it isn’t written like the first. Which, man, now that I think about it – that was very well done. Won’t get into spoilers here, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sep 02, 2017 @ 13:53:01
@phantom —
“Perfect example. What about that book is anything I want to hear about? How does the author redeem that experience in the story?”
I don’t understand why that conflict is so objectionable to you. I mean, in the first Monster Hunter book, the main character starts out by killing his own boss very gorily, IIRC, and goes on to splatter countless opponents throughout the book. What makes that more acceptable to you than Liu’s scenario?
Let me stipulate that, as I’ve mentioned before, I enjoyed the first couple of Monster Hunter books — and I did NOT much like Liu’s books. So this isn’t a slam against Correia; I just don’t understand your viewpoint on what is or is not objectionable.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 23:53:11
@phantasm —
Here’s a few more miscellaneous reviews about Obelisk Gate for your education:
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/489497592/riveting-obelisk-gate-shatters-the-stillness
http://www.fantasyliterature.com/reviews/the-obelisk-gate/
http://www.afantasticallibrarian.com/2017/05/n-k-jemisin-the-obelisk-gate.html
http://www.deathisbadblog.com/further-thoughts-on-the-obelisk-gate/
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 12:43:03
@phantom —
“Maybe you should post the link to what was actually said over there, delegar, if you’re going to slander me in public. ”
You seem to be confused about the meaning of the term “slander”, phantom.
Let me help you out with that:
2slander noun
1
: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation
2
: a false and defamatory oral statement about a person — compare libel
You originally claimed, and I quote: “I don’t see anybody sticking up for Jemisin’s Hugo Award winning book”.
But this is a false statement. As delagar pointed out, you yourself have participated in a discussion in which people “stuck up” for Jemisin’s book. Therefore, you have indeed seen people sticking up for the book.
Therefore, delagar made a factually accurate statement when he said “on Camestros Felapton’s blog people had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Phantom *himself* over why Jemisin’s books were wonderful. ”
And truth is an absolute defense against charges of slander (or libel, which is the term more technically accurate here).
Stop digging that hole, phantom. You’re still getting deeper, and deeper, and deeper…..
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 23:43:36
Could we keep things respectful and on topic, please?
LikeLike
Aug 15, 2017 @ 23:58:09
I would like to point out that I don’t mean to run down the Hugo Awards in particular with the comments above. There are always going to be problems in administrating awards, and avoiding one set of problems just means you end up dealing with another set. The way the Hugos are run appears to give advantage to commercial interests, and the way the Dragons are run gives advantage to any (fan) group that can marshal a large enough voting contingent.
Both systems have advantages, and both are subject to abuses. I sure both awards organizations make an attempt to achieve fairness, and I’m also sure better participation in both would help this to happen.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 04:11:26
@Lela —
“Could we keep things respectful and on topic, please?”
I, for one, would be happy to. That would be much easier, though, if everyone would stick to making only truthful statements.
“I would like to point out that I don’t mean to run down the Hugo Awards in particular with the comments above.”
Lela, your aims have been very obvious throughout. Don’t start being disingenuous now. Seriously, wild and utterly unsupported accusations like “They’re selling votes to the highest bidder” have only one interpretation.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 07:21:28
Contrarius, truth is relative; just stop with the personal attacks.
Selling votes to the highest bidder is integral to the system once you start tying votes to the paid memberships. Again, no award system is perfect. They will all have faults.
If you’ll look back through the series on awards, you’ll see that I’ve discussed others, including the Nebula Awards. That one is very elitist, for example, because it only allows people to vote who have paid a membership fee and been published by certain approved publishers–expanded recently to also include independents who have made a certain amount in sales during the year.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 09:56:05
@Lela —
“Contrarius, truth is relative”
Lela, “alternative facts” are not real facts.
“just stop with the personal attacks.”
What personal attack? Seriously, folks, pointing out logical and factual failures is not a personal attack. Pointing out self-contradictions is not a personal attack.
Here’s a personal attack: “That’s because you can’t read.”
Here’s another personal attack: “Contrarius is trolling like a child.”
Guess what? I didn’t write them.
“Selling votes to the highest bidder is integral to the system once you start tying votes to the paid memberships. ”
That’s nonsense, Lela. Utter and complete nonsense. You have not one shred of evidence to back up your accusation, yet you continue to make it.
There are many awards that require paid memberships to vote in — Nebula, World Fantasy, BSFA, and so on. Yet you have focused your attacks on the Hugo. Why is that?
“If you’ll look back through the series on awards, you’ll see that I’ve discussed others, including the Nebula Awards.”
Lela, you have a blog post titled “Does the Hugo really represent fandom?”. You have a blog post titled “More thoughts on whether the Hugo actually represents SFF fandom”. You have a blog post titled “Award Winners that Don’t Hold Up over Time” which attacks only Hugo winners. Your focus is pretty obvious.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 17:19:03
Actually, I think it’s you that’s overly focused on the Hugos. You really should go back and read the whole series I’ve done on awards and award programs. I’ve pointed out pros and cons for different systems, as well as some of the problems that creep in.
About selling to the highest bidder: If the organization sells voting memberships and doesn’t limit the number of memberships one person or one organization buys, then the opportunity for abuse is integral to the system. That’s interpretation, but it’s also based on economic analysis. “Selling to the highest bidder,” isn’t something people will normally call out because of the prestige of the award, but I’m doing an investigative series here. In general, the profit motive reigns, or else the awards won’t continue.
Apparently the Hugos depend on the No Award tool to stop known challenges like the Puppy activism, or a few years back, an attempt by Scientology to manipulate the system. This suggests that the nomination system is more open to gaming, and then dedicated “trufan” members are expected to see the problem and handle it in the final vote. However, the total domination of the Puppies in 2015 suggests there was fear their contingent was large enough to outvote the No Award. Hence the advertising for more sympathetic voters.
Regarding truth: Truth is not the same thing as facts. It’s one of those things that depends on opinion. When someone says “truth,” it means you need to look at their facts to see if they are actually “alternative.” Does that clarify?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 16, 2017 @ 18:26:52
@Lela —
“About selling to the highest bidder: If the organization sells voting memberships and doesn’t limit the number of memberships one person or one organization buys, then the opportunity for abuse is integral to the system. That’s leaning to fact rather than opinion.”
Lela, I’ve already shown you the specifics of how the Hugo admins deal with multiple memberships. And, again, those were ATTENDING memberships, not supporting ones — which means they cost around a couple of hundred bucks a pop, not just $40. Nobody is going to be buying a lot of extra attending memberships just to get extra votes.
“This suggests that the nomination system is more open to gaming, and then dedicated “trufan” members are expected to see the problem and handle it in the final vote.”
Right. And that’s why EPH was instituted — to decrease the effects of gaming in the nomination phase.
“However, the total domination of the Puppies in 2015 suggests there was fear their contingent was large enough to outvote the No Award. Hence the advertising for more sympathetic voters.”
Except that, as I’ve already shown you, those extra memberships were:
1. chosen at random
2. in no way constraining how that member nominates or votes
3. encouraging multiple people to make the offer to their own communities to increase diverse representation.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 01:56:02
As promised, here’s a link to Mary Kowal’s blog, where various sources are listed that offered to buy supporting memberships for WorldCon 2015. Although she’s careful to say there are no strings attached and that she only means to increase participation, it’s a competition and Kowal falls in the SJW camp. Discussion at File 770 here figured that about 70 memberships were offered in all.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 04:07:08
@Lela —
“As promised, here’s a link to Mary Kowal’s blog, where various sources are listed that offered to buy supporting memberships for WorldCon 2015. Although she’s careful to say there are no strings attached and that she only means to increase participation”
Good. Finally. Here’s the two essential facts from your source:
1. There was an OFFER. There is no evidence whatsoever that she was actually taken up on her offer.
2. The offer came with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. There was no slate requirement, no specific votes dictated. Puppy affiliates could have taken her up on the offer just as easily as anyone else.
IOW, that offer does not actually fulfill either of your (or phantoms’) claims for it. There is NO evidence that multiple memberships were bought for voting on specific works — none at all.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 04:25:51
@Lela —
Here’s the most relevant quote. I’ve added asterisks:
“And to my readers — If you can afford it, I encourage you to buy a membership to WorldCon and become part of fandom. If you cannot afford it… I will buy a supporting membership to WorldCon for ten people, **chosen at random**, who cannot afford it. **I am in no way constraining how that member nominates or votes**. All I ask is that you read the nominations and join the conversation.”
Also this:
“I’d prefer it if people make the offer to their own communities **so that we get diverse representation** among the supporting members. ”
Take careful note of those phrases:
1. chosen at random
2. in no way constraining how that member nominates or votes
3. so that we get diverse representation
There was no effort to buy specific votes AT ALL.
Your claim fails.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 07:50:47
I think “diverse” is a keyword here. I’ll have to concede the point that she doesn’t specify how people should vote on her website. However, it’s heavily implied, and this offer was widely recognized as an attempt to buy votes.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 09:58:05
@Lela —
“I think “diverse” is a keyword here.”
Sure it’s a key word. It’s a key word that means:
: differing from one another : unlike
2
: composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities
It does NOT mean anything about everyone voting in the same way.
Again, “alternative facts” are not real facts, Lela.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 09:58:55
@me —
Woops, sorry about that underlining. I didn’t do it on purpose — something about the copy/paste got it going, I guess!
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 17:04:22
Right, and the Puppies are supposed to be trying to reduce diversity, right? So a vote for the other side is a vote for diversity?
The way the diversity count fell out for the Dragon’s was interesting this year, as it’s a different structure from say, the Nebulas or Hugos. Maybe it’s actually the more “organic” vote.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 17:10:42
@Lela —
“Right, and the Puppies are supposed to be trying to reduce diversity, right? So a vote for the other side is a vote for diversity?”
You are trying way too hard to read nefarious intent into an offer that was explicitly made to buy memberships **at random** and **without any constraints**, Lela. It’s not a good look for you.
“The way the diversity count fell out for the Dragon’s was interesting this year, as it’s a different structure from say, the Nebulas or Hugos. Maybe it’s actually the more “organic” vote.”
Sure, it’s organic. It’s an organic result of people who are willing to stuff ballot boxes with multiple votes and whatever interaction that willingness has with the whims of the Dragon admins as they do whatever they want “at their sole discretion”.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 17:41:04
Why would Kowal spend $500 to buy memberships without any cause? Arrange for others to spend an estimated $3500 for this purpose? Surely she had some reason for wanting to suddenly increase “diversity” in 2015. Why do you suppose she did that?
About “not a good look” for me: Investigative articles may not be very popular, for the reason they require people to look at institutions and review uncomfortable opinions of what might be going on under the surface. Again, go back and read the series on awards. This is what it’s about.
I need to say I’m not making accusations that Kowal or Tor actually did try to game the Hugo system. These are just examples of cases where their actions might be interpreted that way. When half the 2017 Hugo ballot was published by Tor, that looks very much like what Vox Day arranged in 2016 for Castalia House with his voting contingent. When Kowal advertises to increase “diversity” by buying memberships for others, it could be taken as buying votes. Shouldn’t we be asking questions about it?
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 18:21:57
@Lela —
“Why would Kowal spend $500 to buy memberships without any cause?”
Why would Bill Gates pledge $4.6 billion to charity? Why would church members pledge 10% of their yearly income in church tithings? Why would I donate money yearly to the ACLU, which just this week has been defending white supremacists?
Believe it or not, Lela, sometimes people think giving away money to other people is a good thing to do, whether or not they agree with the people they’re giving money to. In Kowal’s case, there was a very good cause — namely increasing participation in the awards, however those participants ended up voting — just as I will continue to donate to the ACLU, no matter who they defend.
“About “not a good look” for me: Investigative articles may not be very popular,”
LOL.
“Investigative articles” earn good reputations by producing solid evidence of wrongdoing, Lela. You haven’t come up with any. So far, your article has more resemblance to a tawdry gossip column than to “investigative” anything.
“I need to say I’m not making accusations that Kowal or Tor actually did try to game the Hugo system.”
Yes, you are, Lela. “Selling votes to the highest bidder” was quite clear.
“When half the 2017 Hugo ballot was published by Tor, that looks very much like what Vox Day arranged”
Sigh.
Look at the other awards, Lela. Many or most of those same Tor works were nominated for the other awards as well. Again: the Hugo voting process is well-controlled and quite transparent. That’s why it’s so easy to see what Vox did and how many votes he was able to wrangle.
“When Kowal advertises to increase “diversity” by buying memberships for others, it could be taken as buying votes. ”
Only by people who are desperately straining to find nefarious deeds where there are none. I’ll repeat again, since you keep ignoring the facts:
1. chosen at random
2. in no way constraining how that member nominates or votes
3. encouraging multiple people to make the offer to their own communities to increase diverse representation
I’ll repeat — this isn’t a good look on you.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 22:12:54
If that’s what you want to believe, I’ll just leave you to it.
LikeLike
Aug 17, 2017 @ 17:57:08
Incidentally — You know those “awful” Jemisin books, that nobody actually likes and nobody actually reads and that don’t actually sell any copies, even though they’ve won two Hugos and are selling in the top 2000 at the Kindle store?
Yeah, it turns out those books are so unpopular that they are currently in development for a new TV series at TNT.
Who knew that TV types would choose the worst and least popular books to make their series from?
😉
LikeLike
Aug 17, 2017 @ 18:23:55
Hopefully they’ll make the characters more likable. As I said in my reviews, the concept behind these books really is first rate, so I’m glad she’s getting some interest. TV shows pay much better than novels.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 18:30:47
Lela said: “Why would Kowal spend $500 to buy memberships without any cause? Arrange for others to spend an estimated $3500 for this purpose? Surely she had some reason for wanting to suddenly increase “diversity” in 2015. Why do you suppose she did that?”
It is a mystery, apparently. We are not allowed to believe our eyes.
This is why I never post links anymore. It is absolutely pointless. Nothing is ever evidence, nobody ever said what they clearly said, nothing ever happened, there’s nothing to see here, moveon.org .
Unless a Puppy or other Conservative is involved. Then everything is evidence.
On a completely different subject, I finished MH: Siege this morning after eating it all in one go. That’s the mark of a good book, when you don’t want to put it down. Review to follow.
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 21:37:24
Would you like to do a guest blog here reviewing it?
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 22:53:34
Sure, with the proviso it won’t be a long review. I’m doing a bathroom, time is a bit scarce the next few days.
LikeLike
Aug 17, 2017 @ 17:53:34
@phantom —
“This is why I never post links anymore. It is absolutely pointless. Nothing is ever evidence, nobody ever said what they clearly said, nothing ever happened, there’s nothing to see here, moveon.org .”
Kowal is a great example of why it’s so important to insist on seeing the specific evidence instead of just the vague claim. So often, the evidence doesn’t actually support the claim at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 17, 2017 @ 18:28:43
There’s enough there to make her offer troubling. Many people interpreted this as an offer to buy votes, and the appearance seriously degrades the quality of the award system. You’re not concerned about this at all?
LikeLike
Aug 17, 2017 @ 18:51:45
@Lela —
“You’re not concerned about this at all?”
I would be very concerned if someone said “I will buy memberships for anyone who promises to vote for x” or “If anyone wants to vote for x and can’t afford it, I’ll buy your membership”. And I remember having those concerns about Kowal’s offer before I saw the actual offer, when I had just heard rumors third hand. Fortunately, I for one am well aware of how unreliable rumors are, so way back then I went over to her blog and checked it out for myself to see what the actual facts were.
But no, I’m not concerned about an offer for which the recipients were to be chosen at random and which specifically encouraged a diverse population of recipients through multiple benefactors. That sounds like something everyone should be able to get behind if they’re truly interested in increasing award participation, as opposed to just trying to force their own choices down the voters’ throats.
LikeLike
Aug 17, 2017 @ 20:08:06
Lela said: “There’s enough there to make her offer troubling.”
The term “dog whistle” comes to mind, for some reason. Clearly that’s impossible, only conservatives have dog whistles.
LikeLike
Aug 17, 2017 @ 22:15:03
@phantom —
“The term “dog whistle” comes to mind, for some reason. Clearly that’s impossible, only conservatives have dog whistles.”
Yeah, because phrases like “chosen at random” and “in no way constraining how that member nominates or votes” are evidently so difficult for conservatives to understand.
Where’s my eye-rolling emoji when I need it?
LikeLike
Aug 16, 2017 @ 23:21:15
Okay. I can do an intro with info about the book, etc. You can contact me directly through the “contact” page.
LikeLike
Aug 25, 2017 @ 20:37:30
Here’s a telling illustration of the mindset of the typical Dragon Award voter.
On Declan Finn’s blog today:
In military science fiction: “My vote will go to Jon [Del Arroz]. I haven’t read any of the nominees this year, but for friendship’s sake, I’ll vote for Jon.”
In fantasy: “I know Larry, John and Vox.
I’m vaguely aware of Faith Hunter … I think
I’m voting for John.
My bet? Also John Ringo. Because Vox might have people, but have you MET John Ringo?”
(I thought awards were supposed to be about the BOOKS, not the people?)
In miniatures/etc.: “Again, not my scene. [Rolls 6-sided die]. Um … Star Wars?”
In PC/console game: “I’ll vote for (coin toss) Final Fantasy.”
(Yeah, he obviously put so much thought into his votes for those game categories….)
Tell me again how the Dragons are all about the quality of the work?
LikeLike
Aug 25, 2017 @ 21:30:43
Do you think the same thing might happen in other award system? For example, do you think voters read all the finalists for the Nebulas and the Hugos? Those 600 page books are sort of weighty to slog through.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 04:04:53
@Lela —
“For example, do you think voters read all the finalists for the Nebulas and the Hugos?”
We’ve talked about this before. The Hugo FAQ very specifically advises voters to NOT vote for a work they haven’t read.
From the Hugo FAQ:
“No, don’t nominate or vote for something you have not read or seen, and don’t vote based on reputation — the Hugos are meant to honor your choices and judgments, not the rumor of someone else’s.”
Of course many folks won’t have read everything — but if they haven’t read it, it shouldn’t go on their ballot.
But of course, Arroz is publicly acknowledging that he’s doing exactly that — he’s voting based on friendship, author popularity, and the roll of a die, instead of even trying to vote based on quality.
No surprise there!
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 22:45:01
“We’ve talked about this before. The Hugo FAQ very specifically advises voters to NOT vote for a work they haven’t read.”
Uh huh. So, all those people saying they were going to no-award the Puppies without reading them because racists shouldn’t be given a forum, that was different. Right?
And all those people this year warning everyone not to read the John C. Wright piece in the Hugo packet because he’s a racist/sexist/homophobe, that was different. Right?
And everybody totally read Stix Hiscock’s seminal work this year. Right?
For that matter, everybody who voted for Nora waded through that whole soggy mess? Suuure they did.
By the way, since when does some guy’s blog post become Dragon Awards policy? Did the Dragon Award faq suddenly change to “Vote for whoever Declan Finn says!”?
Just some questions that occurred to me.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 10:30:46
@phantom —
“So, all those people saying they were going to no-award the Puppies without reading them because racists shouldn’t be given a forum, that was different. Right?”
Of course it was. We’ve been over this many times already, phantom.
“No Award” was specifically designed to be used to eliminate troll and unworthy nominations. Them’s the rules.
Again quoting from the official rules:
“You should vote for No Award as your first choice if you believe that none of the nominees are worthy of the Award, or that the Award category should be abolished. If you vote for No Award in any other position it means that you believe the nominees you placed above No Award were worthy of a Hugo, but that those not placed above it were not worthy. ”
By definition, nominees that got on the list by system-gaming are not worthy of winning.
And again, declining to read works is not at all the same thing as voting for works to WIN that you’ve never read.
“And all those people this year warning everyone not to read the John C. Wright piece in the Hugo packet because he’s a racist/sexist/homophobe, that was different. Right?”
Of course, nobody actually said that.
What they actually said was to not bother reading it because it was a terrible story.
And sure, that was different — just as some folks said (and I sympathized with) that Death’s End was terrible writing. Remember, everyone is allowed to voice their opinions of the stories and whether they’re worth reading or not. Again, declining to read a work is entirely different than voting FOR a work to win that you admit you haven’t even read.
But you already knew that.
“And everybody totally read Stix Hiscock’s seminal work this year. Right?”
I did, as did many others. But yet again — declining to read a work is not at all the same thing as voting FOR a work that you admit you haven’t even read.
“For that matter, everybody who voted for Nora waded through that whole soggy mess? Suuure they did.”
Umm, yeah, I’m pretty sure they did. It’s a very popular trilogy. And have you SEEN the reviews for The Stone Sky (book #3), which has just come out? I wouldn’t be surprised if it wins the Hugo next year, at the rate things are going right now.
Remember, phantom — the fact that you don’t like the subject matter of Jemisin’s books has nothing at all to do with their literary worthiness or their popularity.
And it’s pretty funny that you seem to keep insisting that a TV production company would be developing a series based on books that nobody actually likes. 😉
“By the way, since when does some guy’s blog post become Dragon Awards policy? Did the Dragon Award faq suddenly change to “Vote for whoever Declan Finn says!”?”
Straw man. I never said it was “Dragon Awards Policy”. It just happens to be the actual practice of prominent Dragon Awards participants.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 13:32:58
Contrarius said: “Of course it was. We’ve been over this many times already, phantom.”
I just like making you say it again. You are playing Calvin Ball, my dear.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 15:00:14
@phantom —
“You are playing Calvin Ball, my dear.”
It’s pretty telling when you admit to not understanding the rules of reality, honey bunch.
😉
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 09:04:40
I’d say that’s no surprise in any award. Also, I bet what goes around, comes around. Other people vote for him for the same reasons.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 09:37:53
@Lela —
“Other people vote for him for the same reasons.”
Of course they do. Because when we’re being honest, we know perfectly well that the Dragons are about politics — not actually about the quality of the works at all.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 11:16:50
But then, don’t politics affect other awards, too? See excerpt below from one of my recent articles on the awards system. This was personal experience, and I just happened to be lurking and caught the discussion.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 16:05:49
@Lela —
“But then, don’t politics affect other awards, too?”
You’re comparing apples and watermelons, Lela, and you know it.
There’s a vast difference between a disagreement over what works are eligible for an award and open admissions that the votes for award candidates are based solely on political considerations.
Declan Finn has managed to campaign himself into being a candidate for Dragon awards in two different categories. And even HE admits that his votes are strictly political rather than based on quality.
You know what that means, of course. It means that if he wins, he has already admitted that his win will mean nothing at all in terms of the quality of his own work. It will be nothing more than a crass example of politicking, vote-buying, and ballot-box stuffing.
Which is exactly what we’ve been saying about the Dragons all along.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 22:31:41
>There’s a vast difference between a disagreement over what works are eligible for an award and open admissions that the votes for award candidates are based solely on political considerations.
Erm, both these are covered in my example. Did you not understand it? Or do you not think diversity challenges are a political issue?
Again, based on the diversity challenge, management of this award discussed the issue of 1) having to accept the work, and 2) having to ensure it won the award because of the challenge. It did win the award, even though it was only very marginally SFF.
This organization might be especially sensitive to challenges about diversity, but I doubt it. I expect other awards committees will be equally motivated to prevent accusations of racism and/or discrimination against minorities in their operations.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 10:12:13
@Lela —
“Again, based on the diversity challenge, management of this award discussed the issue of 1) having to accept the work, and 2) having to ensure it won the award because of the challenge. It did win the award, even though it was only very marginally SFF.”
Yeah, sorry, but I’m not going to put too much weight on third-hand overheard gossip, especially knowing how inaccurate several of your other claims have been in the recent past. 😉
OTOH, it’s interesting to see you pivot from “the Dragons are the true representation of sff fandom” (I’m paraphrasing) to “well, all the awards are crooked anyway”. 😉
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 10:34:15
This isn’t third hand overheard gossip. It’s first hand. I was actually there for the discussion, though I can’t say what happened afterward that led to the disputed work winning.
I’ve not said anything like your paraphrase. Does that mean you’re arguing under the assumption that I’m in favor of the Dragons over the Hugos?
I agree that there are problems with the Dragon Awards, though not to the extent you’re making out. I already said that likely none of the awards will stand up to scrutiny. There are just too many moving parts for complete control.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 13:22:30
@Lela —
“This isn’t third hand overheard gossip.”
You know the quip “pics or it didn’t happen”? Have you ever played the game “Chinese telephone”?
Yeah, there’s a reason why *real* investigative reporters (not to mention law enforcement) require corroborating evidence before they believe every piece of rumor, gossip, or hearsay that’s reported to them.
“I’ve not said anything like your paraphrase.”
Of course you have.
Here’s a couple of examples talking around the issue — and these are direct quotes, not paraphrases:
1. “The way the diversity count fell out for the Dragon’s was interesting this year, as it’s a different structure from say, the Nebulas or Hugos. Maybe it’s actually the more “organic” vote.”
2. “The Puppies have already made the point that a large segment of readers is not served by the Hugo or Nebula awards. There (in the Dragons) they are.”
3. “The Dragon Award have taken monetary gain out of the equation, but the Hugo clearly falls on the commercial side. They’re selling votes to the highest bidder.”
In reality, the authors being nominated for the Dragons themselves admit and encourage voting for politics and cronyism, and freely admit that they are voting for works they’ve never even read.
That isn’t “organic” anything, Lela. That’s pure politics and gaming the system.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 13:41:20
Lela said: “This isn’t third hand overheard gossip.”
Calvin Ball rules, Lela. Anything you say is gossip. Anything Cantankerous says is a fact.
I’ve seen the phenomenon you describe in a hospital setting, where patient care and a big whack of money were on the line. People make decisions based on PC nonesense like “diversity” all the fricking time.
That’s why I don’t work in hospitals any more. My nerves can’t take seeing stuff like that.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 13:56:05
@phantom —
“Anything you say is gossip. Anything Cantankerous says is a fact.”
Except, of course, that I’m always happy to back up my claims with evidence.
Funny how that works.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 15:44:49
Well, I’m not going to out the people I overheard talking, or even identify the organization, if that’s what you’re hoping. However, I am thinking about a blog post on getting trapped by your own ideology.
None of those quotes you’ve supplied amount to the same thing as your paraphrase. You’re just thinking that’s what I think. It’s kind of a waste of your energy arguing against it.
If you want it spelled out, I’m for a collaborative solution to the split. I’d like to see the awards become less political and go back to being about good stories that add something to the genre.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 16:57:57
@Lela —
“I’d like to see the awards become less political and go back to being about good stories that add something to the genre.”
Fortunately, the Hugos are well on their way to achieving that goal, now that the pups have mostly turned tail and scarpered off to cheaper and easier to scam pastures like the Dragons. And if the Dragons ever get their act together and institute meaningful voting controls, perhaps they’ll eventually get there as well.
One thing I’d like to see is an award that specifically recognizes self-pubbed work. That would help to get recognition for the “little guys” slaving away in the trenches. Heck, maybe that could even be a new category for the Hugos one of these days.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 17:54:13
Cantankerous said: “Except, of course, that I’m always happy to back up my claims with evidence. Funny how that works.”
Sure. Facts mean one thing when they’re about your favorite author, and the opposite when the same fact is about Castilia house. Calvin Ball. It is funny. I get a laugh every time.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 18:03:35
Contrarius said: “Fortunately, the Hugos are well on their way to achieving that goal, now that the pups have mostly turned tail and scarpered off to cheaper and easier to scam pastures like the Dragons.”
See, this is why we wonder about your capacity to read the English language, and your commitment to reasoned argument. Lela says “collaborative solution” and you come up with the above.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 18:06:41
@phantom —
“Sure. Facts mean one thing when they’re about your favorite author, and the opposite when the same fact is about Castilia house.”
What in the world are you talking about? Facts are facts, phantom, no matter who they are applied to.
And we’ve never even mentioned my favorite author in these discussions.
I’m sorry to see you remaining so thoroughly confused, phantom. Seriously, if there’s anything I can help you with, any questions I could answer for you to help you understand what’s going on, all you have to do is ask.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 18:10:13
@phantom —
“Lela says “collaborative solution” and you come up with the above.”
Phantom, I’m sorry to see that you have already forgotten my earlier comments about collaboration.
As I’ve already stated multiple times in these discussions — if folks think they should have a bigger voice in the Hugos, they need to participate in them. There is no collaboration without participation. But the Hugo admins have no way to force people to participate — participation, and thus collaboration, is up to the people who are actually interested in doing it.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 22:05:49
Apropos of absolutely nothing, I thought this might be an interesting addition to the conversation:
http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2017/08/book-shenanigans.html
Gaming the NY Times Best Seller list. In the various links it becomes apparent that this type of thing happens all the time, just with a touch more panache than this example.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 22:19:32
Interesting blog, Phantom. This is more of “how things work” in the publishing industry. Any idea where the list of stores that report to the NYT Bestseller List is? B&N, Amazon?
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 23:06:40
Thanks, Lela. 🙂 The List is supposed to be Super Secret, known only to the Keeper of the Holy Records at the NY Times. In fact, every publicist worth her paycheck has it, and uses it.
The present example is remarkable more for the ham-handedness of its approach. Hint, they didn’t buy a full-page ad in the Times first. The scam gets used all the time, that’s how overtly political books like “Tales of My Parental Unit” by Senator B. Foghorn get on the Best Sellers list.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 23:22:59
I found the info on buying in at Forbes. Price is a little steep for independent authors. Other articles complain about legit high sales being ignored, and call the NYTimes list more a “Staff Favorites” list. Hm.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 22:24:02
@phantom —
Yeah, heard about that. That’s money, not politics, though.
But related to gaming of the best sellers list, have you heard about the recent analyses of fake Amazon reviews? There’s some interesting results with at least one of VD’s books. You can read more details here:
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 22:42:37
Ha. Well, I’ve known the Amazon reviews were unreliable for a long time. People use those as a political weapon for/against anything they agree/disagree with. It’s interesting someone has tried to come up with a test for reliability.
LikeLike
Aug 26, 2017 @ 22:53:28
Contrarius said: “But related to gaming of the best sellers list, have you heard about the recent analyses of fake Amazon reviews?”
You remember when I told you that review counts don’t mean anything? Why do you think I said that?
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 10:15:55
@phantom —
“You remember when I told you that review counts don’t mean anything? Why do you think I said that?”
Phantom, phantom, phantom. You walked right into this one.
First, the link I provided analyzes the **size** of the ratings (high vs. low), not the **numbers** of the ratings.
Second, I would be okay with any analysis that shows the Castiala House-affiliated books get even fewer “honest” ratings than they appear to. If you’ll think back on the listings I provided previously, you’ll remember that they were already far down the list on rating numbers. Sliding them even further down that list does nothing to damage my argument at all.
Sorry about that. 😉
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 11:52:39
Contrarius said: “Phantom, phantom, phantom. You walked right into this one.”
What is it with you, anyway? Reviews are not policed for accuracy or validity. People game them all the time. In aggregate they mean exactly nothing about the work in question. Statistics made using reviews are a derivative of meaningless.
If you want to know about the work, you read it. Having done that, you can form an opinion about the reviews and the reviewers. If you find a reviewer you think is trustworthy, you can go by their opinion. That’s how reviews work.
Contrarius continued: “I would be okay with any analysis that shows the Castiala House-affiliated books get even fewer “honest” ratings than they appear to.”
Yes, we know. You are a political partisan, and you seem very keen for any data that casts shade on people you don’t like. However as anyone can plainly see, reviews are not data. They are opinion at best.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 13:53:41
@phantom —
“Reviews are not policed for accuracy or validity. People game them all the time.”
Absolutely true.
“In aggregate they mean exactly nothing about the work in question.”
Absolutely false.
You’re missing the forest for the trees again, phantom. The existence of false data (fake reviews) does not negate the presence of true data (real reviews). Again, you have to look at the overall patterns, not the individual data points.
Let’s update my list of Dragon and Hugo nominees one more time. Here’s today’s current sales rankings and ratings numbers (paid sales rank, followed by # of Amazon reviews):
1,447 – 1,377 — A Court of Wings and Ruin by Sarah J. Maas
(1,021 – 264 — The Obelisk Gate by N.K. Jemisin)
4,188 – 754 — The Hammer of Thor by Rick Riordan
(3,551 – 517 — Babylon’s Ashes by James S.A. Corey)
(7,487 – 395 — Death’s End by Cixin Liu)
(12,205 – 209 — Ninefox Gambit)
(12,033 – 336 — All the Birds in the Sky)
(10,723 – 72 — The Changeling by Victor LaValle)
(14,826 – 128 — Too Like the Lightning)
3,796 – 206 — American War by Omar El Akkad
(15,412 – 288 — A Closed and Common Orbit by Becky Chambers)
11,679 – 455 — The Collapsing Empire by John Scalzi
31,817 – 458 — Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge by Larry Correia and John Ringo
15,561 – 105 — Walkaway by Cory Doctorow
53,366 – 103 — Defy the Stars by Claudia Gray
17,347 – 331 — Blood of the Earth by Faith Hunter
38,874 – 55 — Invasion: Resistance by J.F. Holmes
101,858 – 57— Escaping Infinity by Richard Paolinelli
57,813 – 56 — No Gods, Only Daimons by Kai Wai Cheah
115,732 – 72 — Swan Knight’s Son by John C Wright
free (no paid ranking) – 20 — The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier
191,458 – 76 — Star Realms: Rescue Run by Jon Del Arroz
free (no paid ranking) – 58 — A Sea of Skulls by Vox Day
567,674 – 14 — Another Girl, Another Planet by Lou Antonelli
162,274 – 4 — Codename: Unsub by Declan Finn and Allan Yoskowitz
391,999 – 14 — Live and Let Bite by Declan Finn
333,204 – 16 — Rachel and the Many Splendored Dreamland by L. Jagi Lamplighter
For the third time in a row, the patterns are blindingly obvious. Hugo nominees — top of the charts in both sales and reviews; puppy-affiliated nominees — bottom of the charts in both sales and reviews. For the third time in a row.
That’s what we call a pattern, phantom. And patterns are what we call clues.
And wow, look at Obelisk Gate climbing those sales charts. Every time I check, it’s higher and higher in the rankings. But I bet all those people are just hate-buying it, right? 😉
“If you want to know about the work, you read it. ”
Uh-huh. Just like you read Obelisk Gate and the other Hugo nominees, right?
“Having done that, you can form an opinion about the reviews and the reviewers.”
You formed your opinion of Obelisk Gate and its reviews, and all the other Hugo nominations, without ever reading the books, didn’t you? Hmmm.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 17:34:57
Contrarius said: “The existence of false data (fake reviews) does not negate the presence of true data (real reviews).”
Yes, obviously it does, particularly when you can’t tell one from the other. Wherever you studied statistics, you should sue them. They ripped you off.
“Here’s today’s current sales rankings and ratings numbers…”
Which mean -nothing- in the face of a determined manipulation campaign by the author, or the author’s friends, or the author’s enemies. New York Times Best Seller List. Or, on the positive, non-lying side, Larry Correia’s Book Bomb, where one blog post from him moves a book from #660,023,001 in Fantasy up to #20, in less than 24 hours.
“For the third time in a row, the patterns are blindingly obvious.”
For the third time in a row, you’re not measuring anything. Not sales, not the quality of the book, not even the opinion of the readers. It is a marketing device to get people to buy books.
“That’s what we call a pattern, phantom. And patterns are what we call clues.”
Yes, that’s what you call a pattern. But it doesn’t apply to Castilia House authors, because you decided it doesn’t.
“Uh-huh. Just like you read Obelisk Gate and the other Hugo nominees, right?”
No, I read the cover blurb, and some of the first chapter from the Fifth Season. That was enough to make my decision. I read zero of Obelisk Gate, same author same series. I didn’t find it boring or find fault with her sentence structure, you know. The whole concept and plotline of the book is actively distressing. When you step in poo, do you taste it to make sure?
“You formed your opinion of Obelisk Gate and its reviews, and all the other Hugo nominations, without ever reading the books, didn’t you?”
I base my opinion on a long lifetime of reading. I know about the books. The subject matter, the themes being “explored” or more likely exploited for effect, I’m not interested. I’ve seen it done before, and better, or in the case of Jemisin I’d sooner sit in a snowbank. Glowing reviews of something I’ve decided was double-plus ungood? That tells me everything I need to know about the reviewer. Everything that reviewer gives a five star, I’m definitely going to hate.
This is not surprising. A lot of us use Rotten Tomatoes backwards. The more big NY and LA reviewers like something, the more I’m giving it a pass.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 17:46:51
@phantom —
“Yes, obviously it does, particularly when you can’t tell one from the other.”
No, obviously, it doesn’t. No data is perfect; that does not mean that no data is valuable or productive. In fact, all measurements involve error.
Look up “observational error” one of these days.
“Which mean -nothing- in the face of a determined manipulation campaign by the author, or the author’s friends, or the author’s enemies.”
Yet again, you are ignoring the forest for the trees. You keep getting caught up in individual data points — individual books that you know or imagine to have been manipulated — and ignoring the overall PATTERN of sales shared over multiple books.
“For the third time in a row, you’re not measuring anything.”
Says the guy who can’t produce any evidence to back up his claims.
😉
“Yes, that’s what you call a pattern. But it doesn’t apply to Castilia House authors, because you decided it doesn’t.”
Umm. What? I included Castalia authors in that list — overall, they fit the pattern very well.
“No, I read the cover blurb, and some of the first chapter from the Fifth Season. That was enough to make my decision. I read zero of Obelisk Gate, same author same series.”
Yeah, because everyone EXCEPT you has to actually read a book before passing judgment on it. Right. LOL.
“I base my opinion on a long lifetime of reading. I know about the books.”
But, again, everyone EXCEPT you has to actually read a book before passing judgment on it. Right. LOL.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 20:19:35
Calvin said: “Yeah, because everyone EXCEPT you has to actually read a book before passing judgment on it. Right. LOL.”
Didn’t you say that the Hugos are voted on by people who diligently read every page? Yes you did. Calvin Ball.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 11:26:01
@phantasia —
“Didn’t you say that the Hugos are voted on by people who diligently read every page? Yes you did.”
No, I didn’t.
Really, phantasia, I fear for the state of your memory.
To refresh the regrettable gaps in your recollections, please reread my post from Aug 26, 2017 @ 04:04:53 .
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 15:51:43
At this point, the Hugo award still does boost sales and readership. That’s why it’s sought after. I’m expecting that Castalia House has also seen a big boost in sales from their involvement in this fracas.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 16:54:05
@Lela —
“At this point, the Hugo award still does boost sales and readership. That’s why it’s sought after.”
Which, of course, completely contradicts the oft-heard puppy claim that nobody pays any attention to the Hugos anymore.
“I’m expecting that Castalia House has also seen a big boost in sales from their involvement in this fracas. ”
“Big” is a very relative term. As you can see from the list I posted earlier today, Castalia-affiliated works are still at the bottom of the rankings.
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 19:09:40
Can I just say — ewwwwww?
I noticed that Vox Day’s entry in the Dragon Awards sweepstakes (A Sea of Skulls) is free today, so I downloaded it and read the first few pages.
The book opens with a young girl’s family being killed (onpage) by orcs, then the girl being raped (onpage, in detail) by the same orcs while lying amongst the dead bodies of her friends and family (another orc nearby is concurrently raping the young girl’s mother, who is already dead), then the girl going Carrie on the orcs and turning them into living torches, then the girl being filled with crossbow bolts and dying.
This is the sort of positive, life-affirming sff that phantom thinks the Hugos should have more of?
Seriously?
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 20:31:07
Calvin said: “This is the sort of positive, life-affirming sff that phantom thinks the Hugos should have more of?”
Oh, you mean like the child death and slavery of The Fifth Season, or the Ancillaries of Ancillary Sword, people who were murdered, over-written and repurposed as weapons or slaves? Sounds like a perfect match. I don’t understand your objection, Calvin. This is more of what you wanted, isn’t it?
Or is it that the sentences aren’t pretty enough?
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 11:29:37
@phantasia —
“Oh, you mean like the child death and slavery of The Fifth Season, or the Ancillaries of Ancillary Sword, people who were murdered, over-written and repurposed as weapons or slaves?”
But, phantasia — You’re the one who thinks the Hugos need to change — not me. And you’re the one who seems to think that offerings from the puppy-affiliated would be good solutions to that perceived need — not me. Have you already forgotten your own claims?
So, now that I’ve reminded you o your own positions — how is this supposed need to make Hugo offerings more positive and life-affirming served by authors who write fiction that’s even more dark and gory than what the Hugos are already nominating?
Hmmmm???
LikeLike
Aug 27, 2017 @ 22:10:32
I just noticed that Calvin said: “…I downloaded it and read the first few pages.”
You made a decision about a whole book from the “first few pages.” Wow. How can this be? C’est impossible!
You should really go back and read the whole thing you know. Linger fullsomely over each new atrocity, and delve deeply into the cesspool to sample the muck at the bottom. Then you can report back on the true texture of the diseased crap in there.
I mean, how can one comment on a work based on the first few pages? That’s so… wrong! Its against Hugo rules and everything.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 11:33:07
@phantasia —
“You made a decision about a whole book from the “first few pages.” Wow. How can this be? C’est impossible!”
But, phantasia, I’m only following your own example. Or, as we saw earlier, are you the only one permitted to do such things? Hmmm???
“Then you can report back on the true texture of the diseased crap in there.”
Now, now, phantasia. We all know that the puppies write positive and life-affirming fiction that would save the Hugos from irrelevancy if Hugo voters would only open their hearts and minds to the Real SFF that puppies represent. Right?
LikeLike
Aug 28, 2017 @ 02:29:27
Okay, since Handbook for Mortals gaming its way onto the NYTimes bestseller list has been brought up, can I just mention something?
One of the earliest red flags that something was fishy about that book was the fact that next to no one in the YA fan community online was talking about it, despite its alleged popularity. From the Pajiba report:
“Googling it leads to several other books with the same title, but most of the coverage for it is press release based. There’s little real excitement or details on it coming from the YA blogging world, which is a mighty community who are not quiet about the things they’re passionate about (believe me, first hand experience here).”
We’ve brought up how it’s possible for a publisher to obtain fake Amazon reviews, but that doesn’t counter the corollary argument: that a lack of online conversation would still indicate a lack of popularity. Many of the Dragon finalists – which are purportedly fan favourites – have inspired next to no discussion online (and I’m not talking solely about the Puppies or conservative authors). Word of mouth is important for any book, and I would have thought it’d be especially important for a small press book as it won’t have a big advertising budget.
Let me put it this way: Blood of Invidia is up for Best Horror, but I defy you to find a horror forum where the members are familiar with it. If the Dragons truly represent the general tastes of fandom, doesn’t that seem a bit odd?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 28, 2017 @ 10:44:08
Doris Sutherland said: “If the Dragons truly represent the general tastes of fandom, doesn’t that seem a bit odd?”
Maybe. Could be shenanigans.
Or, it could be that the people who nominated those things don’t hang out in horror forums. People were given the free opportunity to vote, and they voted for Bob The Vampire because they liked it. Bob The Vampire has zero industry buzz and zero Goodreads, but the author has been plastering it all over Podunk Idaho and it has a couple hundred raving fans.
The only way to tell is go read it, and see if it is any good or if its another “Handbook for Mortals.” If it is utter and complete high school English class trash like Handbook is supposed to be, we can assume shenanigans are in force. If the NY Times Best Sellers gets gamed, then the Dragons can get gamed.
On another note, Doris, I don’t personally think the Dragon Awards represent the “General Tastes of Fandom” with a capital GTF. I would venture however that it may well represent a big slice of fans that are not represented in the “prestigious awards” circuit.
Put it this way: Of the awards circuit this year, Dragon has the only nomination list that includes any books I have actually read. The other awards commonly have books with lots of buzz. Books that I’ve looked at in the store and declined to pay ten bucks for.
So, maybe Bob The Vampire managed to game his way into the nominations, and maybe he can even squeeze out a win. Hubbard did it at the Hugos, right? In the grand scheme of things, that guy is a d*ck and his career is going nowhere. One guy who cheated doesn’t represent anything.
LikeLike
Aug 28, 2017 @ 10:58:18
For the record, I don’t mean to imply that any one at the Dragon Awards cheated – my impression is simply that there was a low turnout from the wider fandom, allowing a number of relatively niche authors to get into the ballot ahead of books that were more popular,
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 11:40:02
@phantasia —
“Or, it could be that the people who nominated those things don’t hang out in horror forums.”
Riiiiiiiiiight.
The people who made the horror nominations don’t hang out in the venues frequented by real horror fans; the people who made the fantasy nominations don’t hang out in the venues frequented by real fantasy fans; the people who made the science fiction nominations don’t hang out in the venues frequented by real fantasy fans — and so on.
That, phantasia, is what we call a clue.
“People were given the free opportunity to vote, and they voted for Bob The Vampire because they liked it.”
Ummmm, no.
Declan himself told you straight out how Dragon voters are actually choosing what to vote for:
1. personal loyalty — “friendship’s sake”
2. author reputation — “Because Vox might have people, but have you MET John Ringo?”
3. random chance — “[Rolls 6-sided die].” “(coin toss)”
” the author has been plastering it all over Podunk Idaho”
Dingdingding! Campaigning and politics — has nothing to do with the quality of the work at all.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 11:51:10
Calvin said: “Declan himself told you straight out how Dragon voters are actually choosing what to vote for…”
Sure. Because Declan Finn speaks for Dragon voters. They do what Declan says. Uh huh.
This is where I say “lol”, I think.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 11:59:54
@phantasia —
“Sure. Because Declan Finn speaks for Dragon voters. They do what Declan says. Uh huh.”
He managed to get himself nominated in two different categories — someone is certainly listening to him. 😉
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 12:22:48
Incidentally —
I just heard that The Ballad of Black Tom, by Victor LaValle, another of those evil old Hugo nominees — yeah, those negative, life-destroying, awful books that nobody ever reads and nobody likes and nobody ever buys, and that nobody ever pays attention to anyway — is in development by AMC as a series.
And yet again those dumb TV producers pick a story that nobody likes and nobody reads and that nobody bought anyway. Hmmmm. How do they ever stay in business? ‘Tis a puzzlement!
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 12:55:24
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-suffers-historic-decline-us-1033385
https://apnews.com/be3224d9360b4d899870bf167e6d2db0/Can-broadcast's-new-fall-programs-really-be-called-'new‘?
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 13:27:11
@phantasia —
Those articles have nothing to do with this discussion; there is no guarantee of success in Hollywood.
Or are you now going to try to claim that nobody bought or enjoyed Stephen King’s Dark Tower books either?
LOL.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 14:47:56
Calvin said: “Those articles have nothing to do with this discussion…”
‘Course not. Nothing is evidence unless Calvin posts it. Calvin ball.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 15:11:45
@phantabulist —
‘”Course not. Nothing is evidence unless Calvin posts it. Calvin ball.”
The discussion was about novels, and which novels Hollywood chooses to turn into movies and TV series.
IIRC, the only novel treatment mentioned in those two articles you linked to was from The Dark Tower series — which was a very popular series and sold bazillions of copies.
Reality ball. You ought to try it sometime.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 16:28:26
Calvin said: “Reality ball. You ought to try it sometime.”
Okay.
Movies: “Summer Box Office Suffers Historic Decline in U.S.”
TV: “Surprise is off the table for the Big Five, which have succumbed to formulas and spinoffs.”
Massively successful businesses. (Hint, this is sarcasm.)
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 19:18:46
@phantabulist —
“Massively successful businesses. (Hint, this is sarcasm.)”
1. “The global film industry shows healthy projections for the coming years, as the global box office revenue is forecast to increase from about 38 billion U.S. dollars in 2016 to nearly 50 billion U.S. dollars in 2020. The U.S. is the third largest film market in the world in terms of tickets sold per year, only behind China and India. Just under 1.2 billion movie tickets were sold in the U.S. in 2016. ”
https://www.statista.com/topics/964/film/
2. The current success or failure of the movie and TV industries has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that these industries will in fact choose popular books to make their movies and series from rather than unpopular ones.
Keep trying, phantabulist. You’re batting zero so far.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 19:27:51
@me —
And for some more US-centric numbers:
“The U.S. filmed entertainment industry encompasses movie theaters, TV subscriptions and electronic home video consumption. Box office receipts are projected to grow from $9.9 billion in 2016 to $10.9 billion in 2020, an increase of 1.2%. Home video will reach $20.9 billion, up from $20 billion in 2016 during the same period, and of that, both streaming video and TV video on-demand will jump from $11 billion to over $15 billion by 2020. The United States has a mature subscription TV market and thanks to rising bundle prices and premium service increases, will grow modestly from $101.8 billion to $102.3 billion by 2020.”
https://www.selectusa.gov/media-entertainment-industry-united-states
Still batting zero, phantabulist. Keep trying.
And especially keep trying to answer this question: What makes you think that the current success or failure of the movie and TV industries has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that these industries will in fact choose popular books to make their movies and series from rather than unpopular ones?
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 19:56:49
And yet, “Summer Box Office Suffers Historic Decline in U.S.”
I’m done here, Calvin. You can waste more of Lela’s bandwidth on your own.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 20:02:22
@phantabulist —
“And yet, “Summer Box Office Suffers Historic Decline in U.S.””
And yet, “summer box office” is not at all the same thing as “yearly profits”.
And yet, “summer box office” has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that movie and TV companies will choose to make movies from popular books rather than unpopular ones.
“I’m done here, Calvin.”
Of course you are, phantabulist. As usual, you have no facts with which to back up your phantastical claims.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 23:01:41
This might also have to do with having a great agent in Hollywood, or otherwise connected with the film industry. I doubt very much that all Hugo finalists just automatically get an offer from film or TV.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 23:08:47
@Lela —
“I doubt very much that all Hugo finalists just automatically get an offer from film or TV.”
Of course they don’t — the vast majority never will. Of course, that wasn’t the point at all.
Here’s the actual point: phantom frequently makes the claim that Hugo nominees and winners don’t sell well, and that few or no people actually enjoy reading them, and that nobody pays any attention to them anyway. But in reality, several recent nominees (I can think of three off-hand from this year alone; there may well be more) have been picked up for movie or TV production. And, guess what — movie and TV production companies aren’t in the habit of offering deals to the authors of UNsuccessful or UNpopular books. That would make lousy business sense.
IOW, this is just one more of the many nails already in the coffin of phantom’s many unsupported claims.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2017 @ 23:44:18
It’s another argument just for argument’s sake. Lots of films and TV shows are made from obscure novels, too, that never won an award. Ever heard of The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney or Psycho by Robert Bloch?
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 00:32:24
@Lela —
“Lots of films and TV shows are made from obscure novels, too”
Ummmm, not really.
“Ever heard of The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney or Psycho by Robert Bloch?”
Seriously? You’ve never heard of these?
Body Snatchers “only” has 16,000 ratings on GR.
Psycho “only” has 40,000 ratings on GR.
If you’ve never heard of these books, you’re about the only person who hasn’t.
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 01:00:09
Well, it’s only taken 50 years for them to accumulate those ratings. The point is that they were pretty obscure when they were first optioned for films. They didn’t win Hugo awards. But, the authors had agents that connected them with Hollywood. Bloch, especially, had a long list of films made from his novels. Psycho was only the first.
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 01:12:44
@Lela —
“Well, it’s only taken 50 years for them to accumulate those ratings. ”
LOL.
In case you haven’t noticed, GR wasn’t around back then. 😉
“The point is that they were pretty obscure when they were first optioned for films.”
That’s nonsense.
Bloch won the Hugo for a short story in the same year that Psycho was published. Psycho also won the Edgar Allan Poe Award. Bloch was well known, and the book was a hit, and has been hailed as a turning point in American horror fiction.
Body Snatchers was originally published as a serialized story in Collier’s Magazine — a popular mainstream publication at the time. It would have been very familiar to the general public.
Yes, both Bloch and Finney had multiple books made into movies — because they were POPULAR.
Stop digging that hole, Lela. You’re only getting deeper.
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 01:14:33
@me — Sorry, I should clarify that the Edgar Allan Poe award is now more commonly referred to as simply the “Edgars”. They are, of course, awarded by the Mystery Writers of America.
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 02:52:16
Here’s a good quote about Psycho: “Five decades have given the movie the patina of a classic, but in the 1960s critics considered it shock schlock that cheaply exploited the audience.” The Body Snatchers actually got terrible reviews, too. Poorly written, messy plot, etc.
P.S. It was the film Psycho that won the Edgar, not the novel.
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 10:04:10
@Lela —
You’re forgetting that critical reviews are not at all the same thing as popularity or sales. Just consider Fifty Shades of Gray — universally panned by critics, but one of the biggest sellers of all time. (And, of course, also made into a movie — **because the novel was so popular**.)
As for Pscyho, it won the Edgar **for its screenplay**, and Bloch was honored by the Edgar for being the author of **the novel**.
You have no evidence at all that either of these novels was unpopular when printed. Gee, I wonder why?
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 10:43:26
@Lela —
“Ever heard of The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney or Psycho by Robert Bloch?”
“One of the most famous horror novels in history, Robert Bloch’s Psycho is a true classic for anyone who collects modern first editions. Bloch had already been an established science fiction writer, and was even a toastmaster for the famed Hugo Awards just a year before Psycho was published. …. ”
https://www.biblio.com/psycho-by-bloch-robert/work/31554
Notice that Bloch was already a well-known writer, and even toastmaster at the Hugos the year before. And I’ve already mentioned that he won a Hugo for a short story the year Psycho was published.
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 15:25:18
My point is about quality. Being picked up for film or TV has nothing to do with the quality of the writing or being the “best” in any year. It’s just about what’s marketable for film and TV.
Somehow I expect the finalists for the Dragon Awards would more likely make a great summer movie.
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 17:22:29
@Lela —
“My point is about quality.”
No it wasn’t — you were very distinctly trying to make a point about whether I’d “heard of” the books, and whether or not they had been “obscure” novels. Sadly, you tried to make your point while using one of the best-known horror novels of all time as your supposedly “obscure” example! ;-D
” Being picked up for film or TV has nothing to do with the quality of the writing or being the “best” in any year. ”
So what? I never said anything about quality in the context of movie and TV deals.
Here yet again, to refresh your memory, is what I actually said:
“Here’s the actual point: phantom frequently makes the claim that Hugo nominees and winners don’t sell well, and that few or no people actually enjoy reading them, and that nobody pays any attention to them anyway. But in reality, several recent nominees (I can think of three off-hand from this year alone; there may well be more) have been picked up for movie or TV production. And, guess what — movie and TV production companies aren’t in the habit of offering deals to the authors of UNsuccessful or UNpopular books. That would make lousy business sense.”
My point was about success and popularity, not about “quality”.
“Somehow I expect the finalists for the Dragon Awards would more likely make a great summer movie.”
Oh, yeah, sure. Everybody wants to see a movie that opens up with a girl getting raped by a monster while lying amongst the mutilated bodies of her family and friends, with her mother’s dead body also getting raped nearby. Great family fare, there.
😉
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 21:28:56
I’m not going to argue about the benefits of a good agent. I don’t really care one way or the other whether some of the Hugo nominees got picked up for TV or film.
LikeLike
Aug 30, 2017 @ 22:04:26
@Lela —
“I don’t really care one way or the other whether some of the Hugo nominees got picked up for TV or film.”
Right. You weren’t the one who kept making the claim about the Hugos supposedly nominating and awarding unpopular works — that was phantom. So you didn’t really have a dog in that hunt. In fact, I was confused that you bothered to respond to my rebuttal of his claim in the first place. But hey — whatever floats yer boat!
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 09:01:53
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/movie-theater-chain-stocks-collapse-dismal-summer-1034001
Because Hollywood is doing such a good job, picking up great stories that the people want to watch. (Yes, that was sarcasm, helpful heads up for the reading impaired.)
What did really well the last few years? Movies made from COMIC BOOKS. In fact, comic books from the 1980’s, not the dreck we’ve been seeing from Marvel and DC the last twenty years. And yes, comic book sales from DC and Marvel most certainly are in the tank. Hugo-nominated comic from Marvel this year was Black Panther, and it was so bad they cancelled it. 10k copies.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 10:15:53
@phantom —
Yet again:
1. “summer box office” is not at all the same thing as “yearly profits”.
2. “summer box office” has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that movie and TV companies will choose to make movies from popular books rather than unpopular ones.
Reality, phantom. Give it a try.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 09:36:09
Hollywood is always interested in sex or violence, and there’s been a trend to horror and torture in TV. Maybe that’s why they’re interested in Jemisin and LaValle’s work.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 10:26:59
@Lela —
“Hollywood is always interested in sex or violence, and there’s been a trend to horror and torture in TV. Maybe that’s why they’re interested in Jemisin and LaValle’s work.”
Also see the current production of American Gods. Also the Expanse series, which is often on the darker side, not to mention Game of Thrones. All, of course, made from very popular books.
Sure, darker — and meatier — themes often sell well.
Here’s the current Amazon sales rankings for Jemisin’s trilogy:
The Fifth Season: #499 Kindle (wow!), #771 books — two years after publication!
The Obelisk Gate: #961 Kindle, #2823 books
The Stone Sky: #509 Kindle, #994 books
With sales rankings like that on the entire trilogy, it’s no wonder somebody has bought it for production.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 10:50:13
Have you -read- American Gods, Contrarius? It is the dumbest thing. Gods, down at the heels with no power to speak of, running cons on each other in cheesy tourist traps on Route 66. The boredom was intense.
I finished it because I wanted to see if it got worse toward the end, and I was not disappointed. Neil Gaiman, ew. I have not touched another thing from him since. Five thumbs way, way down on that one.
Celebrated by the cognoscenti, of course. And as TV, lots of room for all sorts of tawdry crap for us to fast-forward through.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:01:05
Tell us the truth here, Contrarius. Are you Jemisin’s publicist?
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:02:50
@phantom —
“Have you -read- American Gods, Contrarius?”
Sure, I’ve read it twice. Not my favorite book in the world — I read it the second time to see if my opinion would change, but it didn’t.
But we’re not talking about **quality** in relation to movies and TV series. We’re talking about popularity and what sells well.
And American Gods has sold extremely well over the years.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:04:20
Oh! But that also brings to mind Good Omens, which is now in development. And of course Gaiman’s other books which have been produced in various ways.
Because his works sell well.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:06:53
@Lela —
“Tell us the truth here, Contrarius. Are you Jemisin’s publicist?”
LOL.
I wish! I bet whatever publicist she has is making a few good bucks right now.
I’ve never met Jemisin, never had any interactions with her through any medium of any sort aside from buying her books. Sorry to disappoint!
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 10:42:09
“Hollywood is always interested in sex or violence, and there’s been a trend to horror and torture in TV.”
Since the 1980’s that’s certainly the case. Torture and horror on TV are the main reason I cut the cable seven years ago. Cable cutting is getting to be a very big deal out there, as people are abandoning the big TV conglomerates for Netflix and Hulu.
This is not to say that the same torture/horror nonsense isn’t there, but on Netflix you don’t have to -watch- it. I’ve been watching Blacklist the last little while, its a fun show as long as I can fast-forward all the torture parts. I got through Sense8 the same way, fast-forwarding torture, large boring talking-head or gawd-awful pr0nz sections to resume the story.
Media generally is horrible. I flipped around Netflix for ten minutes last night and ended up watching Little Witch Academia, a surprisingly good Japanese anime import that Netflix is running. I passed up every damn thing offered in my native language for a Japanese cartoon with subtitles. That’s pretty amazing.
Here’s a hint why media generally is horrible, from The Grauniad:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/aug/31/tv-reboots-will-and-grace-roseanne-curb-your-enthusiasm
This is further commentary on that link I posted above that ContraryCalvin didn’t like, the fact that Big TV is nothing but re-boots of ancient shows this year. They’re bringing back Will and Grace, if you can imagine such a thing. And Rosanne Barr. I’m sure they’d bring back All In The Family, except Carroll O’Connor and Jean Stapleton are dead.
They’re propaganda vehicles. They were explicitly propaganda when they were new, and they’re propaganda now. That’s what TV is for, according to the people making it these days. Winning elections, and making Middle America stay in line. They’re going to beat us with a bat until we smarten up and vote the way they want, and they don’t care how much money they lose doing it. They’ll make it up on the back side, in spades.
I’d say that is the real reason they’re interested in the likes of Jemisin and LaValle. They fit the narrative. Which includes torture and pr0nz. Eeew.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 10:48:40
@phantabulist —
“I’d say that is the real reason they’re interested in the likes of Jemisin and LaValle. ”
The real reason production companies do anything is to make money. They buy properties that they expect to help them do that.
Like Game of Thrones. Or The Expanse. Or American Gods.
That’s why they look for books that are selling well.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:00:17
Actually, TV is in pursuit of a certain demographic that has a lot of disposable income and is open to spending it, i.e. viewers under age 35. TV is totally willing to cancel a show with several million older viewers, hoping to get something in the slot that appeals to younger viewers. This is how they make money on their advertising.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:11:27
@Lela —
“Actually, TV is in pursuit of a certain demographic that has a lot of disposable income and is open to spending it, i.e. viewers under age 35.”
Yes — because that MAKES THEM MONEY.
“TV is totally willing to cancel a show with several million older viewers”
Sure. I never said that production companies were out to maximize viewership. They are all about maximizing PROFIT — which is exactly what I said.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:24:53
“The real reason production companies do anything is to make money.”
Explain CNN. Explain a re-boot of Will and Grace, a mediocre sit-com from the ’90s that was canceled eleven years ago because nobody cared. Explain Rosanne, again. Propaganda vehicles.
For that matter, explain Sense8, which will -never- earn back its production costs. Never ever.
American Gods sucked as a book and it will most likely suck as a TV show. Particularly after they shovel a truckload of SJW boilerplate into the script. Possibly some good writing could save it, but when was the last time we saw good writing on a TV show? It’ll be Murder She Wrote with a bit of Buffy the Vampire Slayer thrown on top.
What’s the biggest summer TV hit this year, Contrarious? The Defenders. And its not even on TV. Its also not that great, to be honest. Okay as mindless TV watching goes.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:34:10
@phantom —
“Explain CNN. Explain a re-boot of Will and Grace”
What needs explaining? Their respective companies expect them to make money.
“Propaganda vehicles.”
LOL.
Breitbart, anyone? FOX?
But in any case, you’re getting pretty far afield from the original topic of discussion, which was the purchasing of popular books to make movies and TV series from.
“For that matter, explain Sense8, which will -never- earn back its production costs. Never ever.”
Don’t need to explain it, either — it’s been cancelled because it failed to make money for Netflix.
Again — they’re all about the money. They don’t always succeed in making it, but that’s their goal.
“American Gods sucked as a book and it will most likely suck as a TV show.”
Yet again — we’re not talking about *quality* in the context of movies and TV. We’re talking about popularity — about profits.
Oh, I forgot to mention earlier: you shouldn’t give up on Gaiman just because of American Gods. I like some of his other work much better. OTOH, he doesn’t really do light and airy, so you might not like his other stuff either.
“It’ll be Murder She Wrote with a bit of Buffy the Vampire Slayer thrown on top.”
Both of which were very popular (IOW money-making) series.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 11:36:40
Lela said: “This is how they make money on their advertising.”
That used to be true, but now with streaming there are no ads. They get by with product placement. Netflix gets by with constantly increasing subscribership, their biggest problem right now is getting programing people want to see. That’s why they’re running Little Witch Academia and Korean dramas, so cranky bastards like me who hate torture and pr0nze will still have something to watch.
That’s what I’m watching half the time. Korean dramas and Japanese anime. It reflects my home culture better than Hollyweird and East Coast liberalism. How sad is that?
This time we are in right now is a huge shakeup in the industry. Lots of little companies out there scrambling for something to make that won’t suck and won’t cost a bomb to produce. One of my favorites from last year was Winona Earp. Cool show, fun story. Big companies are stuck in the Propaganda Industrial Complex, they’re shoveling out the Same Old Crap. Like “Will and Grace Return.”
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 13:55:18
Contrarius/Calvin, you continue to dodge the issue and play Calvin ball. What the hell is your point, exactly?
That CNN is profitable? It isn’t.
That Will & Grace is being produced to make a profit? It isn’t, it is being produced as a vehicle for Trump jokes. RTFA.
Are Trump jokes profitable? No, even SNL is backing off on them, as has been reported plenty of places the last six months.
Is Breitbart propaganda? Yes, and it is making a profit.
Is Fox propaganda? Only if “fair and balanced” counts as propaganda, and FOX is the -only- profitable news channel on the dial right now. It may have slipped since they started going SJW the last six months.
Do movie companies pick books for TV that are popular? Sometimes. Do the pick Hugo-worthy books? Sometimes. Are they making money at it? No. Not really. Your futile effort to shift the attention to yearly profits is a beautiful Calvin Ball move, Yearly profits -this- year are down 3% (RTFA) and the only reason they didn’t get crushed was the comic book movies. You know, the ones that made so much money they could carry all the crap that flopped.
You are trying to pretend, for some reason that I simply do not understand, that the media industries as a whole have not been losing market and money for at least the last ten years. The awards reflect that, going to things which are not popular and are not made into popular movies. As do their stock prices, which are on a long, steady down slope.
Since you like Amazon rank so much, guess what is taking up 7 of the top 20. Wild, blue sky guess. Since you want to make believe N.K. Jemisin’s Hugo winners are the acme of poopularity, how about you compare Nora’s last three with Larry C’s last three? Apples to apples, Calvin.
And really, why do any of you Liberals care in the slightest about the Dragons? Small award, small voting pool, buncha drooling Middle America basement dwelling comic nerds vote, probably stuffing the ballot box… why the outrage, Calvin? Who cares what nerds think?
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 14:39:28
@phantasist —
“Contrarius/Calvin, you continue to dodge the issue and play Calvin ball.”
Yeah, no.
You’re the one who brought up CNN and Will and Grace, not me, phantabulist/phantasist .
“What the hell is your point, exactly?”
I’ll refresh your failing memory yet again. Here’s a repeat of what I’ve already said two or three times:
“Here’s the actual point: phantom frequently makes the claim that Hugo nominees and winners don’t sell well, and that few or no people actually enjoy reading them, and that nobody pays any attention to them anyway. But in reality, several recent nominees (I can think of three off-hand from this year alone; there may well be more) have been picked up for movie or TV production. And, guess what — movie and TV production companies aren’t in the habit of offering deals to the authors of UNsuccessful or UNpopular books. That would make lousy business sense.”
“You are trying to pretend, for some reason that I simply do not understand, that the media industries as a whole have not been losing market and money for at least the last ten years.”
Yeah, no. I never said any such thing. But nice try.
Here’s what I’ve actually said — again:
Movie and TV production companies are in business to make money. They don’t always succeed, but that’s their goal. And because profit is their goal, when they buy books to make movies and series from, they will generally pick popular books — because, naturally, that increases the chance that people will want to watch the resultant movies and series.
Does it always work? Nope.
But if production companies made a general practice of buying unpopular books that nobody liked, they wouldn’t be in business long.
“Since you like Amazon rank so much, guess what is taking up 7 of the top 20.”
On the paid Kindle rankings (not free, phantasist), looks like mostly romance and mystery/thriller right now. I didn’t know you were a romance fan, phantabulist!
Kindle:
1. PS From Paris — Mark Levy
2. The Wyoming Kid — Debbie Macomber
3. Beneath a Scarlet Sky — Mark Sullivan
4. All the Little Children — Jo Furniss
5. When I’m Gone — Emily Bleeker
6. Before I Knew — Jamie Beck
7. Working Fire — Emily Bleeker
8. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone — JK Rowling
9. Hate to Love You — Tijan
10. When They Come for You — James Hall
11. From Sand and Ash — Amy Harmon
12. The Neon Lawyer — Victor Methos
13. The Barefoot Summer — Carolyn Brown
14. Glass Houses — Louise Penny
15. Before We Were Yours — Lisa Wingate
16. No Exit — Taylor Adams
17. The Lighthouse Keeper — Cynthia Ellingsen
18. The Day Diana Died — Christopher Andersen
19. Y is for Yesterday — Sue Grafton
20. Song of Admon — Adam Burch
On the paid Book rankings, it looks like mostly non-fiction and classic fiction:
1. Publication Manual of the APA
2. Astophysics for People
3. Wonder
4. Dogman
5. The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck
6. The End of Alzheimer’s
7. Strengths Finder 2.0
8. What Happened?
9. To Kill a Mockingbird
10. The Glass Castle
11. The Great Gatsby
12. Webster’s Spanish-English Dictionary
13. Hillbilly Elegy
14. The Handmaid’s Tale
15. The 5 Love Languages
16. The Whole30
17. 1984
18. They Say/I Say
19. Make Your Bed
20. The Official SAT Study Guide
Is there a point somewhere in here that you were trying to make?
“how about you compare Nora’s last three with Larry C’s last three? Apples to apples, Calvin.”
Sure, phantabulist.
Here’s Nora’s last three again:
The Fifth Season: #499 Kindle (wow!), #771 books (paper) — two years after publication!
The Obelisk Gate: #961 Kindle, #2823 books (paper)
The Stone Sky: #509 Kindle, #994 books (paper)
Here’s Larry’s last three:
Monster Hunter Seige: #1805 Kindle, #35,009 Books (hard)
Monster Hunters Sinners: #28,776 Kindle, #123,424 Books (hard), #937,426 (paper)
Monster Hunters Grunge: #33,752 Kindle, #560,342 Books (hard), #76,491 Books (paper)
You’re welcome.
You were saying?
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 15:11:09
P.S. Oh, and the author rankings?
In Science Fiction & Fantasy:
#1 is GRRM — why don’t any of the puppies ever ask why HE hasn’t gotten a novel Hugo?
#27 — NK Jemisin
#60 — Octavia Butler — the woman has been dead for years, and she’s still outselling Larry
waaaaaaaaay down the list —
#72 — Larry Correia
Again — you were saying, phantasia?
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 15:23:12
P.P.S. —
I should have specified that my previous author listing was for Science Fiction & Fantasy in BOOKS.
In Ebooks, Jemisin is #28 — and Correia doesn’t even make the top 100.
Oops.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 15:46:39
Didn’t I read somewhere that Correia makes six figures a year from his writing?
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 16:06:31
Calvin said: “You were saying?”
I was saying I don’t put much stock in Amazon ranking, Calvin. Where I looked, seven of the top twenty are J.K. Rowling and Larry was a lot farther up the list than that. Clearly the numbers you are looking at came from somewhere different than what I was looking at. Hence my mockery, Calvin. Multiple sets of conflicting numbers, same company.
But, external reality check, poor old Larry is reduced to building a new house on his own mountain, while Nora pays the bills with Patreon. There’s a message there somewhere…
“#1 is GRRM — why don’t any of the puppies ever ask why HE hasn’t gotten a novel Hugo?”
Because A) he’s a jerk and we don’t like him, and B) I’ve never read a thing he’s written that didn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth. Some people just lurrrve that GOT thing, I’m not one of them. Its torture/rape pr0nz. Plus its been centuries since he wrote anything.
This is why I don’t understand your distaste for Vox Day’s amazing book, “Sea of Guts” or whatever it is. Horrible people doing horrible things to each other, should be right up your alley. Very GRRM/Jemisin in nature.
I suspect politics is the real cause of your discontent.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 18:02:00
@phantasia —
“I was saying I don’t put much stock in Amazon ranking, Calvin.”
Of course you don’t. Because, ya know, they don’t say what you want them too. 😉
“Where I looked, seven of the top twenty are J.K. Rowling and Larry was a lot farther up the list than that.”
Sure, phantasist.
“Multiple sets of conflicting numbers, same company.”
They don’t actually conflict, phantabulist. But that’s okay, somehow I’m not surprised to see you confused over complex concepts like numbers and categories and facts.
“But, external reality check, poor old Larry is reduced to building a new house on his own mountain, while Nora pays the bills with Patreon. There’s a message there somewhere…”
Yup — the message is that you have absolutely no idea how much money either one of them makes, and that book sales is not at all the same thing as author income.
The other message is that despite all your claims to the contrary, Jemisin really does sell a lot of books.
But you already knew that. 😉
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 18:23:25
Oh, I found the category with the results you mentioned.
Guess what — that was one of the UF categories.
You know why Jemisin wasn’t high on that list?
**Because she doesn’t write UF.**
Funny how that works! LOL.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 18:03:43
@Lela —
“Didn’t I read somewhere that Correia makes six figures a year from his writing?”
I wouldn’t be surprised. For one thing, remember that Correia has published a lot more books than Jemisin has. Larry seems to be pumping them out at quite a clip.
For another thing, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jemisin is making six figures as well.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 19:06:02
https://www.amazon.com/charts/ref=sv_b_2 This is what I looked at. Seven of the top twenty, J.K. Rowling. That is what’s selling, according to Amazon.
As to whether Larry outsells Nora… in the complete absence of any evidence one way or the other, there’s no way to know. Even the NY Times doesn’t know. I’ll stipulate that Jemisin outsells Correia for the sake of the discussion. Hooray.
The point all along has been that there’s a fanbase for SF/F that is outside the scope served by the Hugos, and some of it is showing up in the Dragon Award nominations. I think that fanbase is bigger than the Hugo’s fanbase, and I think authors and publishers better damn well hope its bigger, because their overall numbers are -declining- year over year.
The other point is that the mainstream SJW-friendly media is A) dividing the USA and B) losing money doing it. Your assertion that a book getting picked by Hollywood means the book is good, or the book is popular, is not looking good in the face of:
declining TV viewership with massive cord cutting,
declining movie ticket sales, with a few hits carrying the whole industry.
declining book sales overall and particularly brick-and-mortar closings,
et cetera.
Clearly, the way things are going in the industry is not good. Clearly, the likes of the Hugo Awards voters have zero interest in increasing participation in SF/F and in fact are fighting as hard as they can to -exclude- people and drive the industry further in the direction it is going now. Clearly, there is a faction that has been motivated to eternally troll WorldCon, and from the looks of things they deserve each other.
Leaving me with not much to read or watch, and a media that thinks Melania Trump’s shoes are more important than a flood in a major US city.
Your ball, Calvin. Amaze me.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 19:45:31
@phantasia —
“https://www.amazon.com/charts/ref=sv_b_2 This is what I looked at. Seven of the top twenty, J.K. Rowling. That is what’s selling, according to Amazon.”
Ooooo, there goes your difficulty with categories again, phantasist.
Go to that link you posted. Reeeeeeeead the top of that category. It says, very clearly, “most read” (fiction only) — NOT “most sold”. Lotsa Harry Potter, no Correia.
Now, click on the words “most SOLD” (again, fiction only).
And here’s what you get:
1. Beneath a Scarlet Sky
2. Y is for Yesterday
3. Before We Were Yours
4. Game of Thrones
5. Handmaid’s Tale
6. Drunk Dial
7. The Good Widow
8. PS From Paris
9. Ready Player One
10. Kingpin
11. The Barefoot Summer
12. The Late Show
13. Wonder
14. It
15. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
16. Seeing Red
17. The Hideaway
18. 1984
19. No Exit
20. The Lighthouse Keeper
Only one Harry Potter, still no Correia.
Seriously, phantabulist, don’t you ever get tired of making dumb mistakes like this?
“As to whether Larry outsells Nora… in the complete absence of any evidence one way or the other, there’s no way to know.”
What we do know is that she is currently selling her three latest books at a much faster rate than Correia’s three latest books, and has been doing so consistently for at least the few weeks that we’ve been having this discussion. That’s what the rankings are based on — rate of sale.
“I think that fanbase is bigger than the Hugo’s fanbase”
Yet you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim. Funny, that.
“The other point is that the mainstream SJW-friendly media is A) dividing the USA and B) losing money doing it.”
Again — no evidence. And no surprise there.
“Your assertion that a book getting picked by Hollywood means the book is good, or the book is popular”
Ooooo, another straw man. Q’uelle surprise.
Yet again, what I said is this:
Movie and TV production companies are in business to make money. They don’t always succeed, but that’s their goal. And because profit is their goal, when they buy books to make movies and series from, they will generally pick popular books — because, naturally, that increases the chance that people will want to watch the resultant movies and series.
Please try to stick with what I actually say, as opposed to what voices in your head may be telling you.
“Clearly, the likes of the Hugo Awards voters have zero interest in increasing participation in SF/F and in fact are fighting as hard as they can to -exclude- people and drive the industry further in the direction it is going now.”
Aaaaaaaand yet again — no evidence.
And some obvious rebutting evidence: Hugo nominating participation has more than doubled since 2013, and final round voting has increased by more than 1000.
Oops.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 20:05:49
Contrarius, I think you can credit Vox Day for that. Well, okay. Larry Corriea some, too. That “Satan didn’t have any eligible works” comment likely caught a lot of attention.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 20:28:03
@Lela —
“Contrarius, I think you can credit Vox Day for that. Well, okay. Larry Corriea some, too.”
VD certainly gets some of the credit — it’s inspiring to see how many people will mobilize and get active when they see a beloved institution being vandalized.
But voter participation has been increasing since years before the pups, and is still increasing even now that they have mostly turned tail and scarpered off to cheaper and easier to scam pastures.
I’ve posted these numbers before, but here they are again:
2011 — 1,006 nominating ballots, 2,100 final ballots
2012 — 1,101 nominating ballots, 1,922 final ballots
2013 — 1,343 nominating ballots, 1,848 final ballots
2014 — 1,923 nominating ballots, 3,587 final ballots
2015 — 2,122 nominating ballots, 5,950 final ballots
2016 — 4,032 nominating ballots, 3,130 final ballots
2017 — 2,464 nominating ballots, 3,319 final ballots
My earlier post should have read **2011**, not 2013. Sorry for any confusion!
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 23:53:34
Calvin said: “Yet you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim. Funny, that.”
That’s because in Calvin Ball, nothing counts unless Calvin says. Funnier though, you have no evidence that I’m wrong. Lol. So here we are.
“Seriously, phantabulist, don’t you ever get tired of making dumb mistakes like this?”
No, not really, thanks for asking. Its not so much a mistake, but more that I can’t be bothered, knowing as I do that this is Calvin Ball. It won’t matter what I post. There’s not really much motivation to do anything in-depth, you know?
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 00:02:08
@phantabulist —
“That’s because in Calvin Ball, nothing counts unless Calvin says.”
Sure, phantasist. Whatever you saaaay.
😉
“Funnier though, you have no evidence that I’m wrong. ”
Of course I do. The fact that you keep desperately ignoring that evil old evidence doesn’t make that evidence go away.
Ostriches don’t really become invisible just because they hide their heads in the sand, you know.
“No, not really, thanks for asking. Its not so much a mistake, but more that I can’t be bothered”
Poor little phantasist. Can’t be bothered with facts because he has none.
There’s a term for that. “Sour grapes” sound familiar?
Run along now, little phantasist.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 15:00:36
I have to say, Larry does seem to be popular. I got a nice bump in the site traffic from his name appearing above Phantom’s recent review.
BTW, has everyone submitted their ballot for the Dragons? The results should be out this weekend.
LikeLike
Aug 31, 2017 @ 16:31:31
Lela said: “I got a nice bump in the site traffic…”
That was definitely due to LC’s name. ~:)
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 03:54:16
Sep 01, 2017 @ 15:27:49
Wow. I looked up a couple more years for the Hugo voting numbers, and they get even more impressive.
Now tell me again how Hugo participation is supposedly tanking?
Seriously, the energy some people put into ignoring reality is really amazing.
2008 — 483 nominating ballots, 895 final ballots
2009 — 639 nominating ballots, 1074 final ballots
2010 — 864 nominating ballots, 1094 final ballots
2011 — 1,006 nominating ballots, 2,100 final ballots
2012 — 1,101 nominating ballots, 1,922 final ballots
2013 — 1,343 nominating ballots, 1,848 final ballots
2014 — 1,923 nominating ballots, 3,587 final ballots
2015 — 2,122 nominating ballots, 5,950 final ballots
2016 — 4,032 nominating ballots, 3,130 final ballots
2017 — 2,464 nominating ballots, 3,319 final ballots
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 18:50:22
Remember that the sudden jump in 2014 was due to the Puppy activities. These continue to affect participation in the voting.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 19:06:06
@Lela —
Yup, as I’ve said, VD provided a definite bump in 2016. We’d have to go back and look closely at exactly when the pups started agitating to know exactly when they started exerting a significant effect. But if you look at the over all trend both before and after puppymania, that was obviously just a bump in an otherwise steady progression upwards.
Somebody else looked up even more, earlier numbers that are also interesting. Data before 2008 is incomplete, but here’s what we have now:
2000 — x nominating ballots, 1101 final ballots
2001 — 539 nominating ballots, 1075 final ballots
2002 — x Novel nominating ballots, x final ballots
2003 — 738 nominating ballots, 805 final ballots
2004 — x Novel nominating ballots, 1121 final ballots
2005 — 546 nominating ballots, 684 final ballots
2006 — x nominating ballots, x final ballots
2007 — x nominating ballots, x Novel final ballots
2008 — 483 nominating ballots, 895 final ballots
2009 — 639 nominating ballots, 1074 final ballots
2010 — 864 nominating ballots, 1094 final ballots
2011 — 1,006 nominating ballots, 2,100 final ballots
2012 — 1,101 nominating ballots, 1,922 final ballots
2013 — 1,343 nominating ballots, 1,848 final ballots
2014 — 1,923 nominating ballots, 3,587 final ballots
2015 — 2,122 nominating ballots, 5,950 final ballots
2016 — 4,032 nominating ballots, 3,130 final ballots
2017 — 2,464 nominating ballots, 3,319 final ballots
You can see that the numbers were fairly steady through the oughts, bouncing back and forth a bit, and then started rising right around 2010. Then if you simply ignore the bump of 2016 that was caused by VD, you’ll see that the rising pattern continues pretty much straight through the tens.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 23:35:04
But then Calvin said: “Then if you simply ignore the bump of 2016 that was caused by VD…”
Yes, just like if you ignore the stock prices of major media companies, they seem very healthy. And if you ignore all the movies that tank, Hollywood looks very successful. And hey, if you ignore all the book chains that have closed in the last ten years, the ones that are left standing have really nice coffee bars and a pretty nice selection of toys and tchachkas.
And we should do that, too. We should ignore those pesky numbers, because numbers just aren’t important in Calvin Ball.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 23:40:20
@phantasia —
Look at the chart and open your eyes, phantasist.
The upward trend is very obvious.
Welcome to reality.
https://contrariusest.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 23:16:36
I see a small increase in nominations and votes up to 2014, then a huge increase for 15/16, and a ~50% decrease for 16/17.
An organization that loses half its members in one year is not on a growth path.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 23:33:38
@phantabulist —
“I see a small increase in nominations and votes up to 2014, then a huge increase for 15/16, and a ~50% decrease for 16/17.”
That’s because you look at the world through puppy-colored glasses.
I’ve uploaded a chart of the vote totals for the last ten years. The upward trend is obvious.
https://wordpress.com/post/contrariusest.wordpress.com/20
Welcome to reality.
LikeLike
Sep 01, 2017 @ 23:38:44
Sorry, I don’t know if that previous link will work. Try this one if it doesn’t:
https://contrariusest.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 10:38:44
Kathodus said: “Joe Abercrombie’s First Law series is also depressing with unlikable characters all around, and that’s possibly my favorite series of the past decade or so. I’m sure you’d disagree – our tastes differ.”
Tastes do differ indeed. Meaning this in the most conciliatory way, Kathodus, all you said above is that you liked the non-linearity of the book, and you liked the “depressing with unlikable characters all around” story.
Which is fine, and I have no quarrel with it. However, I am left with nothing explaining what it was that you found enjoyable. -Why- do you like the depressing, unlikable characters?” That is the mystery.
I’m not asking as some kind of “gotcha” and I don’t expect you to defend your enjoyment, or the book. I only observe that I’ve seen plenty of comments (and plenty of reviews) like your one above, where people say things similar to what you did.
I firging hated everything about it, and I can go on for half an hour about why. That’s not important, I already know my opinion. You liked it. Okay, I got that. Totally cool. What did you like? Non-linearity, check. What else?
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 11:08:00
I’m interested in this, too. It seems that many people who say they like these books are unable to clarify why that is.
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 11:20:24
@Lela —
“I’m interested in this, too. It seems that many people who say they like these books are unable to clarify why that is.”
Read those reviews I posted for starters.
My most general thought on the subject of dark/grim fiction: when everything is sunshine and roses, there is no drama. When characters have nothing to lose and no trials to live through, there is no reason to get emotionally invested in their lives. The act of living through hard times is what makes a tale gripping.
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 12:35:15
Conflict and hardship is fairly standard for any kind of novel. What in particular about Jemison’s series suited you better than, say Cixin Liu’s scenario where humanity is imprisoned in Australia and resorts to cannibalism after an alien invasion? Or Neal Stephenson’s Seveneves drama where humanity is forced into outer space because of the breakup of the moon?
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 13:10:14
@Lela —
“Conflict and hardship is fairly standard for any kind of novel.”
But not all conflict is created equal. We could have the “conflict” of trying to steal a diamond and risking being caught by the police, or we could have the “conflict” of suffering through humiliation, rejection, and oppression for possessing a trait that is none of your choosing and that actually saves the population in times of trouble. Very, VERY different things.
“What in particular about Jemison’s series suited you better than, say Cixin Liu’s scenario where humanity is imprisoned in Australia and resorts to cannibalism after an alien invasion?”
Many things, from the quality of the prose to the quality of the characterization to the intensely personal quality of the conflicts in the Jemisin. Liu’s characters are cardboard and his prose is awkward at best, and both of those things seriously annoy me.
“Or Neal Stephenson’s Seveneves drama where humanity is forced into outer space because of the breakup of the moon?”
I put Seveneves at the top of my Hugo ballot the year it was eligible, in large part because I thought it embodied what the Hugos are all about, in part because I was impressed with its depth and detail, and in part because I was irritated with the serialized nature of The Fifth Season (no complete intra-book story arc, abrupt ending). Nonetheless, Jemisin’s prose is much better, her conflicts are more person-oriented and her characters are more memorable (I have no patience for sf that neglects character; Seveneves didn’t *neglect* character, but Jemisin is much better at it), her worldbuilding is much cooler, and her story structure was more imaginative, amongst other things.
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 18:46:02
@Phantom, @Lela
Sorry for the very late reply. Between a hangover Saturday, afternoon obligations, and record-breaking temperatures in a house with no insulattion or AC, I haven’t been up to anything remotely resembling a thoughtful response.
With the caveat that my brain is sieve-like, and I tend to forget things in between readings (my thoughts would be more coherent if I’d read the third book, but that’s a couple weeks away on Mount Tsundoku)…
Things I like about the Broken Earth trilogy (so far):
– The plotting. The first 1/4 or 1/3 of the first novel, I had to just float along, not sure who the three PoV characters were or how they related. At some point, I started having suspicions, and once it was clear, the story snapped into place, which I thought was a neat effect – suddenly my internal map of the story went from several seemingly-unrelated, charted areas and a lot of ???s and “here there be dragons” to a coherent world. There were still unknown or partially-understood elements and unresolved plot lines (unsurprising, given it’s the first book in a trilogy), but the world was starting to make sense.
– The world, which at first seems to be a fantasy world, but slowly takes on elements of science fiction, until just when I was pretty sure this was Dying Earth SF a la “The Book of the New Sun,” it flipped back to Fantasy again. Not much more than a cute trick, but I enjoyed it. And the world itself is very interesting – is the planet alive, or are the references an angry Father Earth simply mythological? There seems to be something to the living earth theory.
– The psychic powers. That’s some old fashioned “SF” stuff right there. Haven’t seen that in a while, and it’s an interesting mix of psychic powers and magic (I guess psychic powers could be called a sub-set of magic). It also reminds me of “Slan,” where a highly evolved subset of humanity is hunted down and murdered because of their “dangerous” powers. Though I got the idea that Vogt’s PoV was that the Slan were uber-men who deserved to rule over humanity – Jemisin’s take is not so naive.
– The characters. Yes, the characters have a dark outlook and are not heroes (not always anti-heroes, but not heroes). I personally prefer that kind of characterization, because it gibes with my experiences with humanity. It isn’t that people can’t be good or nice, it’s that nobody is purely good, and characters like that tend to throw me out of stories (there are always exceptions). On the other hand, to be fair, I do find some of the major characters icky. Some of that ick may wash off when their motives are made clear in book three. I don’t know.
– Finally, you can’t have a novel without prose. Jemisin’s writing is clear and readable, but also at times poetic, if you want to slow down and appreciate it. I frequently run into clear, readable prose, or poetic prose, but combining the two without sounding Literary (with a capital L and a turned-up nose) is difficult. She hasn’t reached the level of MckKillip’s Riddle-Master series, but that’s not an easy height to attain.
There is more, I’m sure, and I’ll probably wish I’d waited until I’d read the third book before writing this, but I doubt I will finish it before October, and these threads get very long and hard to navigate.
Apologies also for not including quotes from the text, or more specific examples, but 1) spoilers, 2) laziness, and 3) [and most importantly] my terrible memory. If I were able to quickly re-read the novels, I would have many Ah-ha! moments to write down, but I don’t have the time or the ability. I need to remember to take advantage of the Kindle’s ability to highlight passages more often – for some reason I find it very easy to quickly scan through the pages of a book to find a quote I remember dimly, but with Kindle, I need the highlights. I have tried to be as specific as possible, and I think those who’ve read the novels will get my points (whether they agree or not).
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 19:24:15
@Kathodus —
“The characters. Yes, the characters have a dark outlook and are not heroes (not always anti-heroes, but not heroes). [….]On the other hand, to be fair, I do find some of the major characters icky. Some of that ick may wash off when their motives are made clear in book three. I don’t know.”
Absolutely this. Especially with Alabaster. First we don’t really know what he’s done, or why, but we’re supposed to see him as sympathetic — to empathize with him in some way. Then we gradually come to know that he’s done something really awful, and we gradually come to see more of the pressures that led to his action, but we still also see his “good” side and “good” actions — and we have this continuing tension about whether we should still have sympathy for him or if we should see him as a monster, and whether we should blame him for it or the society. Very engaging stuff.
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 21:42:57
Kathodus said: “Things I like about the Broken Earth trilogy (so far):”
Thanks for making the effort.
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 13:38:13
Lela said: “Cixin Liu’s scenario where humanity is imprisoned in Australia and resorts to cannibalism after an alien invasion?”
Perfect example. What about that book is anything I want to hear about? How does the author redeem that experience in the story?
Usually they don’t, has been my experience. Liu certainly didn’t. Three books later, he still hasn’t.
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 13:54:25
Darn it, this thread is getting way too long. Somehow my response ended up way up the page. Trying again!
@phantom —
“Perfect example. What about that book is anything I want to hear about? How does the author redeem that experience in the story?”
I don’t understand why that conflict is so objectionable to you. I mean, in the first Monster Hunter book, the main character starts out by killing his own boss very gorily, IIRC, and goes on to splatter countless opponents throughout the book. What makes that more acceptable to you than Liu’s scenario?
Let me stipulate that, as I’ve mentioned before, I enjoyed the first couple of Monster Hunter books — and I did NOT much like Liu’s books. So this isn’t a slam against Correia; I just don’t understand your viewpoint on what is or is not objectionable.
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 14:11:07
Calvin, your name is not Kathodus. We are currently up to 232 comments of you being a -jackass-. You are no longer entitled to my viewpoint. If Kathodus comes back and continues the conversation, you can read along and find out. Otherwise, you get to live in the question.
LikeLike
Sep 02, 2017 @ 15:10:14
@phantabulist —
Phantabulist, this is a public comment thread. If you want your discussion to be restricted to chosen participants, then feel free to message those participants privately.
But of course, feel free to ignore anything I may post in response to your comments. I will not be insulted. 🙂
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 09:31:58
I think Phantom complaint might be that he’s trying to have a discussion about a topic he’s interested in and you’re trying to have an argument. Can you add something positive to the discussion about the good points of Obelisk Gate?
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 12:16:54
@Lela —
“I think Phantom complaint might be that he’s trying to have a discussion about a topic he’s interested in and you’re trying to have an argument.”
I asked the very same question Phantom did, Lela. Phantom asked Kathodus what she did like about a book, and why. I asked Phantom what he did NOT like about a book, and why.
“Can you add something positive to the discussion about the good points of Obelisk Gate?”
I already did. See my post Sep 02, 2017 @ 13:10:14 . Did you miss it?
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 14:02:05
Contrarius – 140,000 nominating votes for the 2017 Dragon Awards. You are cordially invited to take your Hugo Awards along with you as you both retire to Sci-Fi/Fantasy obscurity.
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 14:06:26
@DP Richard —
I’d love to see the actual vote totals, especially since the Dragons admins haven’t even released LAST year’s numbers.
Where did you see this “140,000” number? Please post a link. Thanks!
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 15:26:36
Ahhh. It looks like “140,000” may refer to the total nominations rather than to the nominators. For example, if one voter nominated 6 works in sf novel, and 6 works in f novel, and 6 works in horror novel, that would count as 18 nominations.
This is only speculation — I still have not seen any official numbers. If I do find something reliable, I’ll report on it.
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2017 @ 14:12:30
Ahh. I found some results.
Looks like 8000 final ballots, and pretty much industry-standard winners.
With any luck, the Dragons are starting to get their act together.
Congrats to all winners!
LikeLike