{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6748", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 6748, "subject": "George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "messages": 53, "voices": 19, "first": "2015-04-28T15:30:58+00:00", "last": "2015-04-29T20:19:39+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Nick Lee", "address": "starwaterstrain at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T15:30:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker piece. He\nalso brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some irony in\nthat, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that conservative,\nreligious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because they've been\n\"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree.\nSee arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit.\nHe's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think\nhe'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably couldn't\nunderstand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's some truth\nin the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF,\nadventure stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one hand,\nWolfe does write stories with adventure: knights, wizards, secret agents,\netc. He's also been writing for a long time. He doesn't write simple\nstories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to the classics of the\ngenre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards; he's a\nGrand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview from some\ntime back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a\ndifference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his ideology\nand everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer. The fans\nvote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most of which\nis more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit\ninto their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T15:37:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Some of the puppies justly venerate Wolfe.\n\nI tried to comment on that martin post and got labelled as spam ... oh\nwell.\n\nYes, difficulty has kept Wolfe from winning, but in my mind it really does\nmake the Hugo nothing but a trinket. (Unless by some miracle I ever win\none, in which case, of course, the Hugo is much more than a trinket ... and\nthe people I have called lowest common denominator the wisest and most\ndiscerning ...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 28, 2015 8:31 AM, \"Nick Lee\" wrote:\nhttp://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker piece.\nHe also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some irony in\nthat, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that conservative,\nreligious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because they've been\n\"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree.\nSee arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit.\nHe's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think\nhe'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably couldn't\nunderstand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's some truth\nin the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF,\nadventure stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one hand,\nWolfe does write stories with adventure: knights, wizards, secret agents,\netc. He's also been writing for a long time. He doesn't write simple\nstories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to the classics of the\ngenre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards; he's\na Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview from\nsome time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a\ndifference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his ideology\nand everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer. The fans\nvote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most of which\nis more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit\ninto their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew King", "address": "automatthew at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T15:46:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 28, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Marc Aramini wrote:\n\nSome of the puppies justly venerate Wolfe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I know for a fact that Vox Day and John C. Wright do." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T16:19:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in\nmy videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly -\nthough as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason\nenough, I think." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee wrote:\nhttp://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker piece.\nHe also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some irony in\nthat, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that conservative,\nreligious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because they've been\n\"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree.\nSee arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit.\nHe's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think\nhe'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably couldn't\nunderstand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's some truth\nin the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF,\nadventure stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one hand,\nWolfe does write stories with adventure: knights, wizards, secret agents,\netc. He's also been writing for a long time. He doesn't write simple\nstories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to the classics of the\ngenre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards; he's\na Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview from\nsome time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a\ndifference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his ideology\nand everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer. The fans\nvote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most of which\nis more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit\ninto their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T16:23:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with\nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged\nme _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...\nand I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nOne more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in\nmy videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly\n- though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason\nenough, I think.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker piece.\nHe also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some irony in\nthat, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that conservative,\nreligious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because they've been\n\"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree.\nSee arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit.\nHe's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think\nhe'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably couldn't\nunderstand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's some truth\nin the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF,\nadventure stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one hand,\nWolfe does write stories with adventure: knights, wizards, secret agents,\netc. He's also been writing for a long time. He doesn't write simple\nstories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to the classics of the\ngenre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards; he's\na Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview from\nsome time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a\ndifference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his ideology\nand everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer. The fans\nvote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most of which\nis more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit\ninto their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robin B. Smith", "address": "robinbsmith at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T16:26:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed. It's a problem I try to forgive. I would count myself among the\nliberal arts crowd and it has occasionally made me cringe, but his other\nvirtues are so redeeming.\n\nThere is also Holly Hollander fwiw." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\nFair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with\nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged\nme _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...\nand I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part\nin my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly\n- though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason\nenough, I think.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker piece.\nHe also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some irony in\nthat, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that conservative,\nreligious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because they've been\n\"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree.\nSee arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit.\nHe's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think\nhe'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably\ncouldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's\nsome truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more\ntraditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards\nanymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\nwizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He\ndoesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to\nthe classics of the genre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards;\nhe's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview\nfrom some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while\nacknowledging a difference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his\nideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer.\nThe fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most\nof which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit\ninto their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern at gwern.net" }, "date": "2015-04-28T16:31:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee wrote:\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's the\nperfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree. See\narguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's\nnever won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be\ntheir most damning evidence. So what gives?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.\n\nR.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until\nhis unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene\nhas still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a\nhard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate\nFreedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_\n*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare\nthe level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,\nsay, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through\nall of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there\nhas been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of \"Suzanne\nDelage\" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)\n_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but\nalso finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative\nsince they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robin B. Smith", "address": "robinbsmith at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T16:37:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll go to bat for Pirate Freedom :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe\nperfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "See\narguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's\nnever won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd\nbe\ntheir most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.\n\nR.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until\nhis unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene\nhas still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a\nhard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate\nFreedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_\n*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare\nthe level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,\nsay, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through\nall of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there\nhas been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of \"Suzanne\nDelage\" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)\n_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but\nalso finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative\nsince they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards.\n\n--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T16:41:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To call the Hugos \"politicized\" is to miss the point: it is the Puppies who\nhave truly politicized them, who have put up a slate with a political\nagenda. To say that they were slanted liberal before is not exactly untrue,\nbut ignores the fact that fandom tends to slant liberal (as is likely when\ndealing with people who look toward the future rather than the past), and\nignores, among other things, the nomination of Correia's own book just last\nyear. Likewise to say that \"good ol' space opera\" isn't being nominated\nignores the space opera of people like Ann Leckie, Lois McMaster Bujold,\nand so on - the Puppies probably *do* ignore them because they're gurlz in\nthe boiz klubhouse.\n\nThe Hugos have a long history of nominating a wide variety of --\nadmittedly, English language -- sf/f, and *that* is what the Puppies have\nattacked.\n\n/rant I now return you to your previously scheduled discussion of Gene\nWolfe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe\nperfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "See\narguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's\nnever won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd\nbe\ntheir most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.\n\nR.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until\nhis unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene\nhas still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a\nhard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate\nFreedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_\n*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare\nthe level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,\nsay, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through\nall of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there\nhas been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of \"Suzanne\nDelage\" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)\n_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but\nalso finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative\nsince they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards.\n\n--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6djf9jkwrt92yn9eqo7qflcv.1430240286518@email.android.com>", "from": { "name": "marcaramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T16:58:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHome Fires is good once you realize Skip kills Zygment and is actually the person trying to sabotage everything, but it is too subtextual and subtle, and the voodoo section (in which the guns represent the people around chelle) way too unclear ... people cant follow what Wolfe is doing in that one on the surface level. ... seven american nights had more compelling overt action even though nobody knew what was going on for like 30 years... Home Fires has more ironic cross examination that for some reason is not as satisfying to our modern audience ...\n\nSent via the Samsung Galaxy Alpha?, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone\n\n-------- Original message --------\nFrom: Gwern Branwen \nDate: 04/28/2015 9:31 AM (GMT-07:00) \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nCc: urth \nSubject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee wrote:\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's the\nperfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree. See\narguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's\nnever won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be\ntheir most damning evidence. So what gives?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.\n\nR.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until\nhis unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene\nhas still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a\nhard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate\nFreedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_\n*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare\nthe level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,\nsay, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through\nall of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there\nhas been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of \"Suzanne\nDelage\" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)\n_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but\nalso finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative\nsince they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robin B. Smith", "address": "robinbsmith at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:08:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<6djf9jkwrt92yn9eqo7qflcv.1430240286518@email.android.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "since Pirate Freedom was brought up here, before I go off and start a new\nemail chain, I've been wondering: has it been discussed that Chris may be\nBlackbeard? (I did some cursory searching previously, but found no\ndiscussion of that point expressly)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, marcaramini wrote:\nHome Fires is good once you realize Skip kills Zygment and is actually the\nperson trying to sabotage everything, but it is too subtextual and subtle,\nand the voodoo section (in which the guns represent the people around\nchelle) way too unclear ... people cant follow what Wolfe is doing in that\none on the surface level. ... seven american nights had more compelling\novert action even though nobody knew what was going on for like 30 years...\nHome Fires has more ironic cross examination that for some reason is not as\nsatisfying to our modern audience ...\n\n\nSent via the Samsung Galaxy Alpha?, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone\n\n\n-------- Original message --------\nFrom: Gwern Branwen \nDate: 04/28/2015 9:31 AM (GMT-07:00)\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nCc: urth \nSubject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe\nperfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "See\narguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's\nnever won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd\nbe\ntheir most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.\n\nR.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until\nhis unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene\nhas still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a\nhard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate\nFreedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_\n*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare\nthe level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,\nsay, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through\nall of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there\nhas been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of \"Suzanne\nDelage\" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)\n_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but\nalso finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative\nsince they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards.\n\n--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Gillingham", "address": "charlesgillingham at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:14:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This \"controversy\" bores me. The Hugo's are a popularity contest, nothing\nmore. Even though I don't think GRRM is that great of a writer, *Storm of\nSwords* lost to a Harry Potter book!\n\nAgain, too bored to look into this on my own. I would like to know when the\nPuppies say the awards became rigged. Vernor Vinge has own three times, and\nhe's a super right wing stateless capitalist! But its fair to say there\nmight be collusion going on. I don't want to drag us down into unproductive\nideological \"debates\", but there is a culture war going on right now. Both\nsides band together to raid polls or websites and what not all the time.\nAnd this stupid meme of \"don't real straight white male authors for a year\"\nmight be evidence that there was prior collusion the Hugo's. So collusion\ncounters collusion, more people pay attention to sci fi, everyone and no\none wins." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:14:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Seems unlikely - Blackbeard would have been 12 at the time of the Port\nRoyal earthquake, which appears to have happened _after_ the main action of\nPirate Freedom." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Robin B. Smith \nwrote:\nsince Pirate Freedom was brought up here, before I go off and start a new\nemail chain, I've been wondering: has it been discussed that Chris may be\nBlackbeard? (I did some cursory searching previously, but found no\ndiscussion of that point expressly)\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, marcaramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Home Fires is good once you realize Skip kills Zygment and is actually\nthe person trying to sabotage everything, but it is too subtextual and\nsubtle, and the voodoo section (in which the guns represent the people\naround chelle) way too unclear ... people cant follow what Wolfe is doing\nin that one on the surface level. ... seven american nights had more\ncompelling overt action even though nobody knew what was going on for like\n30 years... Home Fires has more ironic cross examination that for some\nreason is not as satisfying to our modern audience ...\n\n\nSent via the Samsung Galaxy Alpha?, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone\n\n\n-------- Original message --------\nFrom: Gwern Branwen \nDate: 04/28/2015 9:31 AM (GMT-07:00)\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nCc: urth \nSubject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think\nhe's the\nperfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "See\narguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit.\nHe's\nnever won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd\nbe\ntheir most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.\n\nR.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until\nhis unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene\nhas still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a\nhard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate\nFreedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_\n*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare\nthe level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,\nsay, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through\nall of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there\nhas been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of \"Suzanne\nDelage\" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)\n_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but\nalso finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative\nsince they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards.\n\n--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Gillingham", "address": "charlesgillingham at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:19:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On a sorta related point, GRRM bringing attention to Wolfe is a good\nopportunity. With the popularity of the Game of Thrones show, HBO is\nworking wtih GRRM to develop more shows. Book of the Long Sun would be the\nprefect HBO show. Its got all the political intrigue, full frontal nudity,\nviolence, and general weirdness that makes GoT awesome. Marc, try to\ncomment again, and tell GRRM to think about a Long Sun show!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:21:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course the Hugos are a popularity contest; they are a fan-based award.\nNonetheless, they have a history of picking pretty good (though not\nnecessarily the \"best\") book on a year-by-year basis.\n\nYep, a Harry Potter book won, and beat a second-rate GRRM book. So? The HP\nbooks are actually damn fine books.\n\n(Actually, Vinge has won *five* times.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Charles Gillingham <\ncharlesgillingham at gmail.com> wrote:\nThis \"controversy\" bores me. The Hugo's are a popularity contest, nothing\nmore. Even though I don't think GRRM is that great of a writer, *Storm of\nSwords* lost to a Harry Potter book!\n\nAgain, too bored to look into this on my own. I would like to know when\nthe Puppies say the awards became rigged. Vernor Vinge has own three times,\nand he's a super right wing stateless capitalist! But its fair to say there\nmight be collusion going on. I don't want to drag us down into unproductive\nideological \"debates\", but there is a culture war going on right now. Both\nsides band together to raid polls or websites and what not all the time.\nAnd this stupid meme of \"don't real straight white male authors for a year\"\nmight be evidence that there was prior collusion the Hugo's. So collusion\ncounters collusion, more people pay attention to sci fi, everyone and no\none wins.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robin B. Smith", "address": "robinbsmith at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:25:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks. I'll check on that point and see if my theory still has any legs,\nand present it anew some time in the future if it's still plausible. At\nbest it's a tenuous, just-for-fun theory. After reading the chronology on\nhere, with a few textual points, and Chris's tactics & methods, combined\nwith some of Wolfe's proclivities, the idea--that Chris is Blackbeard\nwriting before he becomes Blackbeard--has won me over. Hopefully others\nwill find it enjoyable to contemplate, regardless of Truth ;-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\nSeems unlikely - Blackbeard would have been 12 at the time of the Port\nRoyal earthquake, which appears to have happened _after_ the main action of\nPirate Freedom.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Robin B. Smith \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "since Pirate Freedom was brought up here, before I go off and start a new\nemail chain, I've been wondering: has it been discussed that Chris may be\nBlackbeard? (I did some cursory searching previously, but found no\ndiscussion of that point expressly)\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, marcaramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Home Fires is good once you realize Skip kills Zygment and is actually\nthe person trying to sabotage everything, but it is too subtextual and\nsubtle, and the voodoo section (in which the guns represent the people\naround chelle) way too unclear ... people cant follow what Wolfe is doing\nin that one on the surface level. ... seven american nights had more\ncompelling overt action even though nobody knew what was going on for like\n30 years... Home Fires has more ironic cross examination that for some\nreason is not as satisfying to our modern audience ...\n\n\nSent via the Samsung Galaxy Alpha?, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone\n\n\n-------- Original message --------\nFrom: Gwern Branwen \nDate: 04/28/2015 9:31 AM (GMT-07:00)\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nCc: urth \nSubject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think\nhe's the\nperfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a\ndegree. See\narguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "He's\nnever won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think\nhe'd be\ntheir most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.\n\nR.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until\nhis unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene\nhas still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a\nhard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate\nFreedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_\n*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare\nthe level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,\nsay, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through\nall of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there\nhas been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of \"Suzanne\nDelage\" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)\n_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but\nalso finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative\nsince they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards.\n\n--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:25:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One thing that kind of confuses me is the idea of \"action\" and popularity.\nSome really popular writers bore me to tears (King, Vinge bores me a little\n(wheel of time though? Sweet lord ...)) in a way that guys like Faulkner\ndon't bore me because they are doing interesting things with the language.\nI see no correlation between exciting action plots and popularity in\ngeneral ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 28, 2015 10:21 AM, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" wrote:\nOf course the Hugos are a popularity contest; they are a fan-based award.\nNonetheless, they have a history of picking pretty good (though not\nnecessarily the \"best\") book on a year-by-year basis.\n\nYep, a Harry Potter book won, and beat a second-rate GRRM book. So? The HP\nbooks are actually damn fine books.\n\n(Actually, Vinge has won *five* times.)\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Charles Gillingham <\ncharlesgillingham at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This \"controversy\" bores me. The Hugo's are a popularity contest, nothing\nmore. Even though I don't think GRRM is that great of a writer, *Storm of\nSwords* lost to a Harry Potter book!\n\nAgain, too bored to look into this on my own. I would like to know when\nthe Puppies say the awards became rigged. Vernor Vinge has own three times,\nand he's a super right wing stateless capitalist! But its fair to say there\nmight be collusion going on. I don't want to drag us down into unproductive\nideological \"debates\", but there is a culture war going on right now. Both\nsides band together to raid polls or websites and what not all the time.\nAnd this stupid meme of \"don't real straight white male authors for a year\"\nmight be evidence that there was prior collusion the Hugo's. So collusion\ncounters collusion, more people pay attention to sci fi, everyone and no\none wins.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Nick Lee", "address": "starwaterstrain at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:32:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Never read it (re: New Republic blog). Sriduangkaew has been called out\nrather publicly, and by a woman feminist no less.\n\nhttp://laurajmixon.com/2014/11/a-report-on-damage-done-by-one-individual-under-several-names/\n\nI'm not particularly interested in her work myself, and I abhor bullies,\ncyber- or otherwise, but Tor is free to publish it. As Martin explained in\na previous blog post, Tor publishes authors of a variety of ideologies.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "since they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How far can they move those goal posts? Soldier of Sidon won a World\nFantasy Award and came in third for the Locus in 2007. Despite your\nopinions on The Wizard Knight, the first volume was nominated for a nebula\nin 2005. There is a Hugo for short stories too. Wolfe won a Locus for his\nshort \"Golden City Far\" in 2004. And whatever you might think of his work\nin the past fifteen years, there have been plenty of Hugo nominees that\nwere far less deserving. I especially liked The Land Across." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Gillingham", "address": "charlesgillingham at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:37:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've never read any of the Harry Potter, so I shouldn't have commented on\nthat. (I have watched all the movies (in a single day!) and really disliked\nthem all individually and overall) But I have read Storm of Swords and\nAmerican Gods. That there are so many Harry Potter books they should have\nwaited a year to beat out American Gods instead. But again, its just a\npopularity context.\n\nI was just looking at Best Novel. Vinge deserves every award he gets. He's\nnot of the same writing caliber as Wolfe, but any fan of Wolfe is a fan of\nintelligent sci fi. Vinge is probably the most right wing of anyone that's\nwon a Hugo. With the number that he's won so relatively recently, I think\nthat shatters the Puppies theory." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robin B. Smith", "address": "robinbsmith at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T17:41:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Only the Campbell Award carries much weight for me. Aren't they all\npopularity contests, more or less?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Charles Gillingham <\ncharlesgillingham at gmail.com> wrote:\nI've never read any of the Harry Potter, so I shouldn't have commented on\nthat. (I have watched all the movies (in a single day!) and really disliked\nthem all individually and overall) But I have read Storm of Swords and\nAmerican Gods. That there are so many Harry Potter books they should have\nwaited a year to beat out American Gods instead. But again, its just a\npopularity context.\n\nI was just looking at Best Novel. Vinge deserves every award he gets. He's\nnot of the same writing caliber as Wolfe, but any fan of Wolfe is a fan of\nintelligent sci fi. Vinge is probably the most right wing of anyone that's\nwon a Hugo. With the number that he's won so relatively recently, I think\nthat shatters the Puppies theory.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Otto Jack Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T18:06:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Since Lafferty came up, you might be interested in our discussion about\nPuppies on the Lafferty Facebook group:\n\nhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/eastoflaughter/search/?query=sad%20puppies\n\nIt's the second one down, with Martin's photo. (I don't know how to get a\nlink to just that thread.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Robin B. Smith \nwrote:\nOnly the Campbell Award carries much weight for me. Aren't they all\npopularity contests, more or less?\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Charles Gillingham <\ncharlesgillingham at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I've never read any of the Harry Potter, so I shouldn't have commented on\nthat. (I have watched all the movies (in a single day!) and really disliked\nthem all individually and overall) But I have read Storm of Swords and\nAmerican Gods. That there are so many Harry Potter books they should have\nwaited a year to beat out American Gods instead. But again, its just a\npopularity context.\n\nI was just looking at Best Novel. Vinge deserves every award he gets.\nHe's not of the same writing caliber as Wolfe, but any fan of Wolfe is a\nfan of intelligent sci fi. Vinge is probably the most right wing of anyone\nthat's won a Hugo. With the number that he's won so relatively recently, I\nthink that shatters the Puppies theory.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<553FCFBE.9070605@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2015-04-28T18:21:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A remark: it seems to me that Wolfe is trying to be historically \naccurate (in his historical novels, like Latro's cycle),\nand respect the \"spirit\" of the societies he imagines and describes in \nhis SF and Fantasy. This may go absolutely against\nthe \"liberal arts programs\" that often sacrifice \"historically true\" for \n\"politically correct\".\n\nSergei Soloviev" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nFair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with \nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively \nengaged me _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] \nprotagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The \nLand Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini > wrote:\n\n One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in\n part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at\n Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author\n objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them\n c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the\n same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting\n because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the\n girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the man\",\n anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves\n the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For\n whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards\n liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent\n than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an\n extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\n There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most\n certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's\n difficulty is reason enough, I think.\n\n On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee\n > wrote:\n\n http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\n Martin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New\n Yorker piece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies\n again. There's some irony in that, isn't there? The Puppies,\n both breeds, argue that conservative, religious authors don't\n have a chance with the Hugos because they've been \"taken over\"\n by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\n They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would\n think he's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and\n conservative, to a degree. See arguments about this in the\n past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's never won a Hugo\n despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be\n their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\n I could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies\n probably couldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the\n snark I think there's some truth in the idea. A corollary to\n the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF, adventure\n stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one\n hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\n wizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long\n time. He doesn't write simple stories, though, and while he\n pays frequent homage to the classics of the genre does not\n write in their style.\n\n And what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other\n awards; he's a Grand Master; other writers laud him\n frequently. In an interview from some time back, China\n Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a difference\n in political opinion.\n\n The reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with\n his ideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a\n difficult writer. The fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote\n for what they're reading, most of which is more traditional\n and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\n Wolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he\n doesn't fit into their narrative. I don't think he would play\n ball with them either because as Martin notes, he's \"a class\n act.\" \n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "aaron", "address": "aaronsingleton at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T18:35:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\nFair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with\nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged\nme _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...\nand I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part\nin my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly\n- though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason\nenough, I think.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker piece.\nHe also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some irony in\nthat, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that conservative,\nreligious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because they've been\n\"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's\nthe perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree.\nSee arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit.\nHe's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think\nhe'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably\ncouldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's\nsome truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more\ntraditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards\nanymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\nwizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He\ndoesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to\nthe classics of the genre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards;\nhe's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview\nfrom some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while\nacknowledging a difference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his\nideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer.\nThe fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most\nof which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit\ninto their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T18:42:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm very bad with names." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron wrote:\nWow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with\nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged\nme _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...\nand I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part\nin my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most\ncertainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty\nis reason enough, I think.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker\npiece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some\nirony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that\nconservative, religious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because\nthey've been \"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think\nhe's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a\ndegree. See arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on\nReddit. He's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would\nthink he'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably\ncouldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's\nsome truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more\ntraditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards\nanymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\nwizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He\ndoesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to\nthe classics of the genre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards;\nhe's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview\nfrom some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while\nacknowledging a difference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his\nideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer.\nThe fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most\nof which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit\ninto their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Otto Jack Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T18:48:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Long Sun/Short Sun at least has some of my favourite female characters in\nall fiction: Nettle, Marble, Mucor, Olivine." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\nI'm very bad with names.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with\nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged\nme _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...\nand I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part\nin my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most\ncertainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty\nis reason enough, I think.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker\npiece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some\nirony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that\nconservative, religious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because\nthey've been \"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think\nhe's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a\ndegree. See arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on\nReddit. He's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would\nthink he'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably\ncouldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's\nsome truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more\ntraditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards\nanymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\nwizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He\ndoesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to\nthe classics of the genre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards;\nhe's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview\nfrom some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while\nacknowledging a difference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his\nideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer.\nThe fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most\nof which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't\nfit into their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T18:52:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs?\n\nThat description scarred me as a child, to be fair." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nLong Sun/Short Sun at least has some of my favourite female characters in\nall fiction: Nettle, Marble, Mucor, Olivine.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm very bad with names.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with\nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged\nme _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...\nand I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in\npart in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most\ncertainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty\nis reason enough, I think.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker\npiece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some\nirony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that\nconservative, religious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because\nthey've been \"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think\nhe's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a\ndegree. See arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on\nReddit. He's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would\nthink he'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably\ncouldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's\nsome truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more\ntraditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards\nanymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\nwizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He\ndoesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to\nthe classics of the genre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards;\nhe's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview\nfrom some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while\nacknowledging a difference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his\nideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer.\nThe fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most\nof which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't\nfit into their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Otto Jack Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T19:14:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs?\n\nThat description scarred me as a child, to be fair.\n\n\nHa ha! Well, I never said Wolfe hadn't created augmented babes or\nanything." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nNo love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs?\n\nThat description scarred me as a child, to be fair.\n\nOn Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Long Sun/Short Sun at least has some of my favourite female characters in\nall fiction: Nettle, Marble, Mucor, Olivine.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I'm very bad with names.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with\nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged\nme _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...\nand I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in\npart in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most\ncertainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty\nis reason enough, I think.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker\npiece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some\nirony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that\nconservative, religious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because\nthey've been \"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think\nhe's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a\ndegree. See arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on\nReddit. He's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would\nthink he'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably\ncouldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's\nsome truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more\ntraditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards\nanymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\nwizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He\ndoesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to\nthe classics of the genre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards;\nhe's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview\nfrom some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while\nacknowledging a difference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his\nideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer.\nThe fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most\nof which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't\nfit into their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T21:14:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, April 28, 2015 13:52, Marc Aramini wrote:\nNo love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs?\n\nThat description scarred me as a child, to be fair." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was about to say that BOTNS has numerous non-foil female characters with\nvarious degrees of agency. And Sev doesn't even bang all of 'em!" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T21:21:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OK, the word \"foil\" was wrong. But they all tend to the goddess/bitch/whore\ntrichotomy into which female characters are too often written by men.\n(Really, from reading some of his fiction you'd get the impression that\nhe'd heard of women but never actually _met_ one.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\n\nOn Tue, April 28, 2015 13:52, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs?\n\nThat description scarred me as a child, to be fair." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I was about to say that BOTNS has numerous non-foil female characters with\nvarious degrees of agency. And Sev doesn't even bang all of 'em!\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<24aae3edf200c5f4e8b511f7b73149f3.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T21:26:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, April 28, 2015 11:41, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nTo call the Hugos \"politicized\" is to miss the point: it is the Puppies\nwho\nhave truly politicized them, who have put up a slate with a political\nagenda. To say that they were slanted liberal before is not exactly\nuntrue,\nbut ignores the fact that fandom tends to slant liberal (as is likely when\ndealing with people who look toward the future rather than the past), and\nignores, among other things, the nomination of Correia's own book just\nlast\nyear." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is the third year of Sad Puppies log-rolling, so Correia's nomination\nlast year is not an overlooked counter-example.\n\nHowever, there are numerous earlier counter-examples that *were*\noverlooked that GRRM nigh-exhaustively covered 2-3 weeks ago:\n\nhttp://grrm.livejournal.com/418285.html" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T21:40:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) goddess/bitch/whore", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, April 28, 2015 16:21, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOK, the word \"foil\" was wrong. But they all tend to the\ngoddess/bitch/whore\ntrichotomy into which female characters are too often written by men.\n(Really, from reading some of his fiction you'd get the impression that\nhe'd heard of women but never actually _met_ one.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Casdoe, Dorcas, Jader's sister, Thecla, and Valeria don't particularly\nstrike me as falling neatly into that taxonomy. How would you categorize\nthem?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T21:43:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) goddess/bitch/whore", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Neither does Maytera Mint, or Holly. And frankly, quite a few of Wolfe's\nmale protagonists could be easily categorized as whores." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 28, 2015 5:40 PM, \"Jeff Wilson\" wrote:\nOn Tue, April 28, 2015 16:21, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "OK, the word \"foil\" was wrong. But they all tend to the\ngoddess/bitch/whore\ntrichotomy into which female characters are too often written by men.\n(Really, from reading some of his fiction you'd get the impression that\nhe'd heard of women but never actually _met_ one.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Casdoe, Dorcas, Jader's sister, Thecla, and Valeria don't particularly\nstrike me as falling neatly into that taxonomy. How would you categorize\nthem?\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<513B1A7B-82E9-40EC-85AA-E354945CBC4B@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew King", "address": "automatthew at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T22:15:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<24aae3edf200c5f4e8b511f7b73149f3.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Flynn's _Eifelheim_, nominated for the Hugo in 2007, would serve as a better counterargument against the Puppies' claim ... Except that it was published by Tor." } ] }, { "message_id": "<55401514.4020707@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2015-04-28T23:17:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) goddess/bitch/whore", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's true. Wolfe relies on all sorts of genre tropes, and mixes them \nup in the process. I don't think he can really be accused of treating \nfemale characters substantially differently from male ones, though he \nseems more comfortable with males.\n\nOn the other hand, maybe that's WHY his female characters do sometimes \nfeel a bit off---because he doesn't treat them differently." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/28/2015 5:43 PM, Antonin Scriabin wrote:\n\nNeither does Maytera Mint, or Holly. And frankly, quite a few of \nWolfe's male protagonists could be easily categorized as whores.\n\nOn Apr 28, 2015 5:40 PM, \"Jeff Wilson\" > wrote:\n\n On Tue, April 28, 2015 16:21, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n > OK, the word \"foil\" was wrong. But they all tend to the\n > goddess/bitch/whore\n > trichotomy into which female characters are too often written by\n men.\n > (Really, from reading some of his fiction you'd get the\n impression that\n > he'd heard of women but never actually _met_ one.)\n\n Casdoe, Dorcas, Jader's sister, Thecla, and Valeria don't particularly\n strike me as falling neatly into that taxonomy. How would you\n categorize\n them?\n\n --\n Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\n A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n < http://www.tamut.edu/cil >\n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2055CF4C-786A-441E-9100-DA90E16FD3FA@yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nicholas", "address": "nickjost at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2015-04-28T23:49:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<513B1A7B-82E9-40EC-85AA-E354945CBC4B@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hey Other Nick, long time reader not often writer (and a bit behind on email):\n\nStick it up your rear. Puppies, aka me, do indeed read and enjoy Gene Wolfe. In fact he _has_ come up in discussion. Frequently. And yes we “understand” him (what a completely asinine thing to say). He even made it to the top of a recent fan vote on the Man Who Can Not Be Named’s site for best currently living SF writer (I believe he came third with top to Pournelle but my memory is foggy).\n\nCan we do me a favor? Since I _am_ a Puppy Partisan, can we not talk about this here? I talk about it in plenty of other places. And if he writes a work for SP4 I’ll be sure to agitate for him." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T04:36:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<2055CF4C-786A-441E-9100-DA90E16FD3FA@yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Stick it up your rear.\"\n\nTypical Puppy reasoning..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Nicholas wrote:\nHey Other Nick, long time reader not often writer (and a bit behind on\nemail):\n\nStick it up your rear. Puppies, aka me, do indeed read and enjoy Gene\nWolfe. In fact he _has_ come up in discussion. Frequently. And yes we\n“understand” him (what a completely asinine thing to say). He even made it\nto the top of a recent fan vote on the Man Who Can Not Be Named’s site for\nbest currently living SF writer (I believe he came third with top to\nPournelle but my memory is foggy).\n\nCan we do me a favor? Since I _am_ a Puppy Partisan, can we not talk\nabout this here? I talk about it in plenty of other places. And if he\nwrites a work for SP4 I’ll be sure to agitate for him.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew King", "address": "automatthew at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T04:39:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All y'all better settle down, or I will start moderating.\n\nYou in particular, Dan'l, I expect better of." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 28, 2015, at 11:36 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\n\"Stick it up your rear.\"\n\nTypical Puppy reasoning...\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Nicholas wrote:\nHey Other Nick, long time reader not often writer (and a bit behind on email):\n\nStick it up your rear. Puppies, aka me, do indeed read and enjoy Gene Wolfe. In fact he _has_ come up in discussion. Frequently. And yes we “understand” him (what a completely asinine thing to say). He even made it to the top of a recent fan vote on the Man Who Can Not Be Named’s site for best currently living SF writer (I believe he came third with top to Pournelle but my memory is foggy).\n\nCan we do me a favor? Since I _am_ a Puppy Partisan, can we not talk about this here? I talk about it in plenty of other places. And if he writes a work for SP4 I’ll be sure to agitate for him.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Gillingham", "address": "charlesgillingham at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T05:26:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Stick it up your rear.\"\n\nYea... lets stop short of actual name calling. Dan'l has said nothing to\nwarrant insult. I'm not a fan of moderation, but, it could be useful to\nboot out outside provocateurs who clearly just want to start trouble, mod\nand mod hard!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5536A5AF00E9277F@rgout02.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk>", "from": { "name": "Mo Holkar", "address": "mo at holkar.net" }, "date": "2015-04-29T07:40:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<2055CF4C-786A-441E-9100-DA90E16FD3FA@yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 00:49 29/04/2015, Nick wrote:\n(I believe he came third with top to Pournelle" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "High praise indeed, to be deemed worthy of ranking alongside such a \ntitan. I struggle to imagine who the two authors might have been who \nwere thought superior to both of them.\n\nMo" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D02E0D1@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2015-04-29T11:57:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The article in the link is reasonable and fair, does not try to push an agenda. It seems much more likely that Wolfe hasn’t won a Hugo because some people see him as “difficult”.\n\nRick\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Nick Lee\nSent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:31 AM\nTo: urth\nSubject: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe\n\nhttp://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker piece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some irony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that conservative, religious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because they've been \"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree. See arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably couldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's some truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights, wizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He doesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to the classics of the genre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards; he's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview from some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a difference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his ideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer. The fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most of which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit into their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either because as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D02E10E@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2015-04-29T12:08:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<553FCFBE.9070605@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Enough with the sorting people into easy categories already! \"Liberal arts majors\"! \n\nRick\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Sergei SOLOVIEV\nSent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 2:22 PM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe\n\nA remark: it seems to me that Wolfe is trying to be historically accurate (in his historical novels, like Latro's cycle), and respect the \"spirit\" of the societies he imagines and describes in his SF and Fantasy. This may go absolutely against the \"liberal arts programs\" that often sacrifice \"historically true\" for \"politically correct\".\n\nSergei Soloviev" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nFair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with \nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively \nengaged me _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male]\nprotagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The \nLand Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini > wrote:\n\n One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in\n part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at\n Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author\n objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them\n c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the\n same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting\n because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the\n girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the man\",\n anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves\n the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For\n whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards\n liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent\n than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an\n extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\n There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most\n certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's\n difficulty is reason enough, I think.\n\n On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee\n > wrote:\n\n http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\n Martin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New\n Yorker piece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies\n again. There's some irony in that, isn't there? The Puppies,\n both breeds, argue that conservative, religious authors don't\n have a chance with the Hugos because they've been \"taken over\"\n by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\n They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would\n think he's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and\n conservative, to a degree. See arguments about this in the\n past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's never won a Hugo\n despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be\n their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\n I could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies\n probably couldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the\n snark I think there's some truth in the idea. A corollary to\n the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF, adventure\n stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one\n hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\n wizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long\n time. He doesn't write simple stories, though, and while he\n pays frequent homage to the classics of the genre does not\n write in their style.\n\n And what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other\n awards; he's a Grand Master; other writers laud him\n frequently. In an interview from some time back, China\n Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a difference\n in political opinion.\n\n The reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with\n his ideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a\n difficult writer. The fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote\n for what they're reading, most of which is more traditional\n and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\n Wolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he\n doesn't fit into their narrative. I don't think he would play\n ball with them either because as Martin notes, he's \"a class\n act.\" \n\n _______________________________________________\n Urth Mailing List\n To post, write urth at urth.net \n Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n\n\n\n _______________________________________________\n Urth Mailing List\n To post, write urth at urth.net \n Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n\n\n\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n--\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1878249172.474368.1430317202301.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2015-04-29T14:20:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This discussion reminds me of conversations I've had about various kinds of market intervention: in markets, in politics, in culture, etc.\nThe \"liberals\" of SF fandom seem to me to represent a free-ish market, in that fans who feel more strongly are more likely to vote than people who feel less strongly, but it's still one-person, one-vote. It's a more ideological, less sales-marketing-oriented \"market\" than the sales market itself. (Oddly, women like reading about great female characters, and so do men, and so on.)\nWhat the Puppies are doing, despite their supposed conservatism, is intervening in this marketplace, because they believe it has been distorted and manipulated. So their response is to distort and manipulate it. Naturally. And naturally they don't see it that way. \n\n\n On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:41 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n \n \n\n To call the Hugos \"politicized\" is to miss the point: it is the Puppies who have truly politicized them, who have put up a slate with a political agenda. To say that they were slanted liberal before is not exactly untrue, but ignores the fact that fandom tends to slant liberal (as is likely when dealing with people who look toward the future rather than the past), and ignores, among other things, the nomination of Correia's own book just last year. Likewise to say that \"good ol' space opera\" isn't being nominated ignores the space opera of people like Ann Leckie, Lois McMaster Bujold, and so on - the Puppies probably *do* ignore them because they're gurlz in the boiz klubhouse.\nThe Hugos have a long history of nominating a wide variety of -- admittedly, English language -- sf/f, and *that* is what the Puppies have attacked.\n/rant I now return you to your previously scheduled discussion of Gene Wolfe.\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee wrote:\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's the\nperfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree. See\narguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's\nnever won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be\ntheir most damning evidence. So what gives?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a\nNew Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It\ndoesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos\nand associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious\ncyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally)\nonly really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.\n\nR.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until\nhis unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene\nhas still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a\nhard time making the case that any of _The Wizard Knight_, _Pirate\nFreedom_, _An Evil Guest_, _The Sorcerer's House_ or _Home Fires_\n*really* deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare\nthe level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of,\nsay, _Peace_ or even some of the short stories - having read through\nall of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there\nhas been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of \"Suzanne\nDelage\" than of the entirety of _Pirate Freedom_.)\n_The Long Sun_ was good and did manage to get some nominations, but\nalso finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now.\n\nHence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative\nsince they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see\nminimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the\nrelevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n\n\n\n\n-- \nDan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<690696901.594460.1430317815745.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nicholas Jost", "address": "nickjost at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T14:30:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<1878249172.474368.1430317202301.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Yea... lets stop short of actual name calling. Dan'l has said nothing towarrant insult. I'm not a fan of moderation, but, it could be useful to\nboot out outside provocateurs who clearly just want to start trouble, mod\nand mod hard!\"\nFirst, \"outside provocateurs\". ?While I do not comment here often I've been reading here for what I believe has been about five years. ?The moderator can feel free to check. ?If that is \"outsider\" than so be it. ?I comment infrequently because I am not as knowledgeable as many here. ?I am however a Puppy and I don't expect to come in and be treated with:\n\"I could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably couldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's some truth in the idea.\"\nThat _is_ snark just passively-aggressively suggested. ?And that was Nick (not me but Nick Lee). ?Dan then responded and was equally snarky but my reply was not to him but to Nick though Dan did pile on.\nTo Mo the vote was (RP's mostly voting): \n - Larry Niven, 222 votes, 21 percent\n - Neal Stephenson, 193 votes, 18 percent\n - Jerry Pournelle, 172 votes, 16 percent\n - Orson Scott Card, 167 votes, 16 percent\n - Gene Wolfe, 92 votes, 9 percent\n - John C. Wright, 63 votes, 6 percent\n - Robert Silverberg, 61 votes, 6 percent\n - Lois McMaster Bujold, 60 votes, 6 percent\n - China Mieville, 32 votes, 3 percent\n - Michael Flynn, 12 votes, 1 percent\nI thought Wolfe had taken 3rd he actually took 5th. ?My personal belief is that Stephenson and Niven need to move down at least a rank with?Stephenson down several (probably 3-4) and Wolfe up enough to take first. ?That is hardly, \"[not] understand[ing] Wolfe\". ?It also reveals a tilt in the audience towards MilSF (which likely is why Card gets such a high ranking).\nSo yes. ?Let's not claim that some people are dumb (puppies) or that they are outside provocateurs. ?I'd rather not catch up on my email to discover that I have overnight transformed into a mad bomber of mailing lists from a rather quiet participant. ?Most of which likely comes from the assumption that Puppies don't actually read SF. ?We do.\nNicholas Jost From: \"urth-request at lists.urth.net\" \n To: urth at lists.urth.net \n Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:25 AM\n Subject: Urth Digest, Vol 128, Issue 50\n \nSend Urth mailing list submissions to\n??? urth at lists.urth.net\n\nTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n??? http://lists.urth.net/listinfo.cgi/urth-urth.net\nor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n??? urth-request at lists.urth.net\n\nYou can reach the person managing the list at\n??? urth-owner at lists.urth.net\n\nWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\nthan \"Re: Contents of Urth digest...\"\n\n\nToday's Topics:\n\n? 1. Re: George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe (Charles Gillingham)\n— 2. Re: George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe (Mo Holkar)\n— 3. Re: George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe (Norwood, Frederick Hudson)\n— 4. Re: George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe (Norwood, Frederick Hudson)\n— 5. Adaptations? (Andreas Johansson)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:26:21 -0700\nFrom: Charles Gillingham \nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe\nMessage-ID:\n??? \nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"utf-8\"\n\n\"Stick it up your rear.\"\n\nYea... lets stop short of actual name calling. Dan'l has said nothing to\nwarrant insult. I'm not a fan of moderation, but, it could be useful to\nboot out outside provocateurs who clearly just want to start trouble, mod\nand mod hard!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Pirkola", "address": "rpirkola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T15:03:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<690696901.594460.1430317815745.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Though I strongly disagree with Puppies both Rabid and Sad, I do think that Nick Jost was justified in being a bit\nmiffed by Nick Lee's uncharacteristically broad brush stroke regarding what all Puppies may or may not understand.\nOne thing that is clear based upon the volumes in this very mailing list is that few of us truly \"understand\" Wolfe, though\nwe are striving to do so. “Focusing on the merits of arguments is a strength of this list and its members and should not be”\nabandoned in the heat of this contentious topic. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<5A7C4A97-09EC-4EA5-BFBA-C3D034D65A2C@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T15:29:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Puppies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "'Conservatism' being an unfashionable thing, many people who end up there are of the kind that think for themselves, and more often than not have come to abhor what they see as herd mentality. In that regard, they are eager to put a gulf between themselves and 'conservative' 'movements'. That may explain the derision shown here, but does not justify it, nor, actually, make it correct in its analysis. Once you get from the anti-fashion to the post-fashion state, you no longer feel the automatic urge to dissociate from stances that the public may attribute to such groups.\n\nAnd I think people have a right to call the bluff on covert aggression, so I won't condemn Mr Jost so far.\n\nNo dia 29/04/2015, ?s 16:03, Robert Pirkola escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Though I strongly disagree with Puppies both Rabid and Sad, I do think that Nick Jost was justified in being a bit\nmiffed by Nick Lee's uncharacteristically broad brush stroke regarding what all Puppies may or may not understand.\nOne thing that is clear based upon the volumes in this very mailing list is that few of us truly \"understand\" Wolfe, though\nwe are striving to do so. Focusing on the merits of arguments is a strength of this list and its members and should not be \nabandoned in the heat of this contentious topic. \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D02E212@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2015-04-29T15:50:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Puppies", "in_reply_to": "<5A7C4A97-09EC-4EA5-BFBA-C3D034D65A2C@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You live in a place where conservatism is unfashionable. I am a liberal who lives in a place where liberalism is unfashionable (Tennessee). But when it comes to, for example, Wolfe and Pournelle, I think those words are misleading. Wolfe is a religious conservative, and has a very dim view of government in general. If Pournelle is religious, he hasn't mentioned it, and he has often worked for the government. If this discussion is going to make any sense at all, we need to distinguish between social conservatives (anti-gay, anti-abortion, War on Christmas conservatives) and libertarians such as Pournelle, who have allied with the Republican Party in the US but must find themselves in bed with some really strange bedfellows.\n\nMore important is the question to what extent politics influences their fiction. Pournelle's fiction is, of course, all about politics, but I enjoy it anyway. I enjoy Wolfe less when he puts too much politics into his fiction, as I think he did in The Land Across. I've read all of Vinge, enjoyed it all, and didn't even know he was right-wing. I still don’t know what tail of the Right he is on.\n\nBut I don't like the idea of people voting for the Hugo based on politics (or gender or race) instead of on how good the story is. And I have noticed people complaining that they didn't win because of their politics (Spider Robinson is a good example) when really the problem was that the particular story wasn't good enough.\n\nRick " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Nick Lee", "address": "starwaterstrain at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T16:30:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To be clear, I was NOT suggesting that Puppies couldn't understand Wolfe. I\nwas pointing out, tongue-in-cheek, that they talk more about \"fun\" writers\nlike Butcher, who I'm actually a fan of, and that Wolfe didn't fit into\nthat category. He's a different kind of fun.\n\nMy intent was levity, but I guess the debate has gotten too contentious for\nthat. Tone and the Internet and all that. Try to lighten up, everyone. This\nis a safe space for level-headed discussion.\n\nFWIW, I do think there is a little substance to the Sad Puppy argument.\nThere has been a push in recent years for more diversification in genre\nfiction and to award those who contribute to it. I just don't think that\nconstitutes a left-wing conspiracy or warrants brigading. I also think that\nmost people tend to vote for whatever stories they enjoy the most, for\nwhatever reasons, and it's the Puppies who are disrupting that.\n\nFurther insults directed at my person should be sent to me privately." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Gillingham", "address": "charlesgillingham at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T17:45:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Puppies", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D02E212@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've read all of Vinge, enjoyed it all, and didn't even know he was\nright-wing. I still don’t know\nwhat tail of the Right he is on." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Vinge is anarcho capitalist: the state will dissolve when private companies\nprovide the same services cheaper. Almost all his novels include some sort\nof private security or private military. A Deepness in the Sky is, in my\nopinion, the single best libertarian novel ever." } ] }, { "message_id": "<5541212F.6070408@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T18:21:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) goddess/bitch/whore", "in_reply_to": "<55401514.4020707@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 29/04/2015 00:17, David Stockhoff wrote:\nThat's true. Wolfe relies on all sorts of genre tropes, and mixes them \nup in the process. I don't think he can really be accused of treating \nfemale characters substantially differently from male ones, though he \nseems more comfortable with males." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's a lot more tribadism than the other thing,,,\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<606589137.727406.1430334793476.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2015-04-29T19:13:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) goddess/bitch/whore", "in_reply_to": "<5541212F.6070408@bindweed.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good point. \n\n\n On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:21 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n \n \n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 29/04/2015 00:17, David Stockhoff wrote:\nThat's true. Wolfe relies on all sorts of genre tropes, and mixes them \nup in the process. I don't think he can really be accused of treating \nfemale characters substantially differently from male ones, though he \nseems more comfortable with males." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's a lot more tribadism than the other thing,,,\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D02E290@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2015-04-29T19:18:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Puppies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks for the info, but I loved A Deepness in the Sky for the images and characters, and didn’t even notice the politics. In any case, Vinge Is not right-wing in the sense of wanting the government to require prayer in the public schools.\n\nRick\n\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Charles Gillingham" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:46 PM\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Puppies\nI've read all of Vinge, enjoyed it all, and didn't even know he was right-wing. I still don’t know\nwhat tail of the Right he is on." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Vinge is anarcho capitalist: the state will dissolve when private companies provide the same services cheaper. Almost all his novels include some sort of private security or private military. A Deepness in the Sky is, in my opinion, the single best libertarian novel ever." } ] }, { "message_id": "<007EC7BF-1464-483A-9546-E37B0D969485@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T19:48:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) goddess/bitch/whore", "in_reply_to": "<5541212F.6070408@bindweed.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Gerry, if *that* isn't a male thing, what is? ;)\n\n\nNo dia 29/04/2015, ?s 19:21, Gerry Quinn escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 29/04/2015 00:17, David Stockhoff wrote:\nThat's true. Wolfe relies on all sorts of genre tropes, and mixes them up in the process. I don't think he can really be accused of treating female characters substantially differently from male ones, though he seems more comfortable with males." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There's a lot more tribadism than the other thing,,,\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n---\nThis email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "aaron", "address": "aaronsingleton at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T20:19:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I too was traumatized by that description-- as an adult!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nNo love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs?\n\nThat description scarred me as a child, to be fair.\n\n\nOn Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Long Sun/Short Sun at least has some of my favourite female characters in\nall fiction: Nettle, Marble, Mucor, Olivine.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I'm very bad with names.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with\nWolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged\nme _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...\nand I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in\npart in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is\nideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I\nthink of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them\npurely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the\nfloor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER\nhe is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against \"the\nman\", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the\nrampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the\nsophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to\nbe of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a\ntraditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.\n\nThere is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most\ncertainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty\nis reason enough, I think.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html\n\nMartin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker\npiece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some\nirony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that\nconservative, religious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because\nthey've been \"taken over\" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.\n\nThey never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think\nhe's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a\ndegree. See arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on\nReddit. He's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would\nthink he'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?\n\nI could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably\ncouldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's\nsome truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more\ntraditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards\nanymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,\nwizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He\ndoesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to\nthe classics of the genre does not write in their style.\n\nAnd what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards;\nhe's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview\nfrom some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while\nacknowledging a difference in political opinion.\n\nThe reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his\nideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer.\nThe fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most\nof which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.\n\nWolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't\nfit into their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either\nbecause as Martin notes, he's \"a class act.\"\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] } ] }