George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe

On Apr 28, 2015 8:31 AM, "Nick Lee" <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote: http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Apr 28, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: Some of the puppies justly venerate Wolfe.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote: http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote: They 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?

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern at gwern.net> wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

They 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? I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a New Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It doesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos and associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious cyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally) only really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s. R.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until his unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene has still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a hard time making the case that any of The Wizard Knight, Pirate Freedom, An Evil Guest, The Sorcerer's House or Home Fires really deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare the level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of, say, Peace or even some of the short stories - having read through all of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there has been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of "Suzanne Delage" than of the entirety of Pirate Freedom.) The Long Sun was good and did manage to get some nominations, but also finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now. Hence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative since they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see minimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the relevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern at gwern.net> wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

They 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? I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a New Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It doesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos and associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious cyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally) only really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s. R.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until his unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene has still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a hard time making the case that any of The Wizard Knight, Pirate Freedom, An Evil Guest, The Sorcerer's House or Home Fires really deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare the level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of, say, Peace or even some of the short stories - having read through all of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there has been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of "Suzanne Delage" than of the entirety of Pirate Freedom.) The Long Sun was good and did manage to get some nominations, but also finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now. Hence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative since they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see minimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the relevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote: They 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?

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, marcaramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: Home 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 ... Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Alpha?, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern at gwern.net> Date: 04/28/2015 9:31 AM (GMT-07:00) To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Cc: urth <urth at urth.net> Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

They 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? I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a New Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It doesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos and associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious cyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally) only really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s. R.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until his unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene has still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a hard time making the case that any of The Wizard Knight, Pirate Freedom, An Evil Guest, The Sorcerer's House or Home Fires really deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare the level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of, say, Peace or even some of the short stories - having read through all of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there has been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of "Suzanne Delage" than of the entirety of Pirate Freedom.) The Long Sun was good and did manage to get some nominations, but also finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now. Hence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative since they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see minimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the relevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Robin B. Smith <robinbsmith at gmail.com> wrote: since Pirate Freedom was brought up here, before I go off and start a new email chain, I've been wondering: has it been discussed that Chris may be Blackbeard? (I did some cursory searching previously, but found no discussion of that point expressly) On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, marcaramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

Home 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 ... Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Alpha?, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern at gwern.net> Date: 04/28/2015 9:31 AM (GMT-07:00) To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Cc: urth <urth at urth.net> Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

They 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? I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a New Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It doesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos and associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious cyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally) only really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s. R.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until his unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene has still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a hard time making the case that any of The Wizard Knight, Pirate Freedom, An Evil Guest, The Sorcerer's House or Home Fires really deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare the level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of, say, Peace or even some of the short stories - having read through all of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there has been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of "Suzanne Delage" than of the entirety of Pirate Freedom.) The Long Sun was good and did manage to get some nominations, but also finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now. Hence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative since they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see minimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the relevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Charles Gillingham < charlesgillingham at gmail.com> wrote: This "controversy" bores me. The Hugo's are a popularity contest, nothing more. Even though I don't think GRRM is that great of a writer, Storm of Swords lost to a Harry Potter book! Again, too bored to look into this on my own. I would like to know when the Puppies say the awards became rigged. Vernor Vinge has own three times, and he's a super right wing stateless capitalist! But its fair to say there might be collusion going on. I don't want to drag us down into unproductive ideological "debates", but there is a culture war going on right now. Both sides band together to raid polls or websites and what not all the time. And this stupid meme of "don't real straight white male authors for a year" might be evidence that there was prior collusion the Hugo's. So collusion counters collusion, more people pay attention to sci fi, everyone and no one wins. _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Seems unlikely - Blackbeard would have been 12 at the time of the Port Royal earthquake, which appears to have happened after the main action of Pirate Freedom. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Robin B. Smith <robinbsmith at gmail.com> wrote:

since Pirate Freedom was brought up here, before I go off and start a new email chain, I've been wondering: has it been discussed that Chris may be Blackbeard? (I did some cursory searching previously, but found no discussion of that point expressly) On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, marcaramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

Home 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 ... Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Alpha?, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern at gwern.net> Date: 04/28/2015 9:31 AM (GMT-07:00) To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Cc: urth <urth at urth.net> Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

They 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? I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a New Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It doesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos and associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious cyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally) only really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s. R.A. Lafferty wasn't even writing at that point, having given up until his unpublished stuff sold and then went to meet his maker, and Gene has still been writing but as much as I love his books, I would have a hard time making the case that any of The Wizard Knight, Pirate Freedom, An Evil Guest, The Sorcerer's House or Home Fires really deserved to take home a Hugo for Best Novel. (Just compare the level of discussion on urth.net of any of those novels to that of, say, Peace or even some of the short stories - having read through all of the hits for both, I think it's entirely possible that there has been more discussion here of the scant few paragraphs of "Suzanne Delage" than of the entirety of Pirate Freedom.) The Long Sun was good and did manage to get some nominations, but also finished in '96 - or 19+ years ago now. Hence, Lafferty's and Wolfe's nominations and awards are uninformative since they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see minimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the relevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________

On Apr 28, 2015 10:21 AM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Of course the Hugos are a popularity contest; they are a fan-based award. Nonetheless, they have a history of picking pretty good (though not necessarily the "best") book on a year-by-year basis. Yep, a Harry Potter book won, and beat a second-rate GRRM book. So? The HP books are actually damn fine books. (Actually, Vinge has won five times.) On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Charles Gillingham < charlesgillingham at gmail.com> wrote:

This "controversy" bores me. The Hugo's are a popularity contest, nothing more. Even though I don't think GRRM is that great of a writer, Storm of Swords lost to a Harry Potter book! Again, too bored to look into this on my own. I would like to know when the Puppies say the awards became rigged. Vernor Vinge has own three times, and he's a super right wing stateless capitalist! But its fair to say there might be collusion going on. I don't want to drag us down into unproductive ideological "debates", but there is a culture war going on right now. Both sides band together to raid polls or websites and what not all the time. And this stupid meme of "don't real straight white male authors for a year" might be evidence that there was prior collusion the Hugo's. So collusion counters collusion, more people pay attention to sci fi, everyone and no one wins. _______________________________________________

I saw this anti-Puppy argument previously brought up in, I think, a New Republic blog; they added on as another example R.A. Lafferty. It doesn't work because of the timing: the politicization of the Hugos and associated sites like Tor.com (still publishing a notorious cyberstalker because her politics & gender are correct, incidentally) only really starts hitting in force in the '90s and '00s.

since they either were in time periods where the Sad Puppies see minimal problems, or they are drawn from a time period where the relevant works did not exist / weren't clearly deserving of awards.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Charles Gillingham < charlesgillingham at gmail.com> wrote: I've never read any of the Harry Potter, so I shouldn't have commented on that. (I have watched all the movies (in a single day!) and really disliked them all individually and overall) But I have read Storm of Swords and American Gods. That there are so many Harry Potter books they should have waited a year to beat out American Gods instead. But again, its just a popularity context. I was just looking at Best Novel. Vinge deserves every award he gets. He's not of the same writing caliber as Wolfe, but any fan of Wolfe is a fan of intelligent sci fi. Vinge is probably the most right wing of anyone that's won a Hugo. With the number that he's won so relatively recently, I think that shatters the Puppies theory. _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Robin B. Smith <robinbsmith at gmail.com> wrote: Only the Campbell Award carries much weight for me. Aren't they all popularity contests, more or less? On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Charles Gillingham < charlesgillingham at gmail.com> wrote:

I've never read any of the Harry Potter, so I shouldn't have commented on that. (I have watched all the movies (in a single day!) and really disliked them all individually and overall) But I have read Storm of Swords and American Gods. That there are so many Harry Potter books they should have waited a year to beat out American Gods instead. But again, its just a popularity context. I was just looking at Best Novel. Vinge deserves every award he gets. He's not of the same writing caliber as Wolfe, but any fan of Wolfe is a fan of intelligent sci fi. Vinge is probably the most right wing of anyone that's won a Hugo. With the number that he's won so relatively recently, I think that shatters the Puppies theory. _______________________________________________

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com <mailto:marcaramini at gmail.com>> wrote: One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com <mailto:starwaterstrain at gmail.com>> wrote: http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com> wrote: Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: I'm very bad with names. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com> wrote:

Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Long Sun/Short Sun at least has some of my favourite female characters in all fiction: Nettle, Marble, Mucor, Olivine. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danldo at gmail.com');>> wrote:

I'm very bad with names. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aaronsingleton at gmail.com');>> wrote:

Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danldo at gmail.com');>> wrote:

Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marcaramini at gmail.com');>> wrote:

One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','starwaterstrain at gmail.com');>> wrote:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: No love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs? That description scarred me as a child, to be fair. On Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Long Sun/Short Sun at least has some of my favourite female characters in all fiction: Nettle, Marble, Mucor, Olivine. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm very bad with names. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com> wrote:

Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________

On Tue, April 28, 2015 13:52, Marc Aramini wrote: No love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs? That description scarred me as a child, to be fair.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: On Tue, April 28, 2015 13:52, Marc Aramini wrote:

No love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs? That description scarred me as a child, to be fair.

I was about to say that BOTNS has numerous non-foil female characters with various degrees of agency. And Sev doesn't even bang all of 'em! -- Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > _______________________________________________

On Tue, April 28, 2015 11:41, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: 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.

On Tue, April 28, 2015 16:21, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: OK, the word "foil" was wrong. But they all tend to the goddess/bitch/whore trichotomy into which female characters are too often written by men. (Really, from reading some of his fiction you'd get the impression that he'd heard of women but never actually met one.)

On Apr 28, 2015 5:40 PM, "Jeff Wilson" <jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: On Tue, April 28, 2015 16:21, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

OK, the word "foil" was wrong. But they all tend to the goddess/bitch/whore trichotomy into which female characters are too often written by men. (Really, from reading some of his fiction you'd get the impression that he'd heard of women but never actually met one.)

Casdoe, Dorcas, Jader's sister, Thecla, and Valeria don't particularly strike me as falling neatly into that taxonomy. How would you categorize them? -- Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > _______________________________________________

On 4/28/2015 5:43 PM, Antonin Scriabin wrote: Neither does Maytera Mint, or Holly. And frankly, quite a few of Wolfe's male protagonists could be easily categorized as whores. On Apr 28, 2015 5:40 PM, "Jeff Wilson" <jwilson at clueland.com <mailto:jwilson at clueland.com>> wrote: On Tue, April 28, 2015 16:21, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > OK, the word "foil" was wrong. But they all tend to the > goddess/bitch/whore > trichotomy into which female characters are too often written by men. > (Really, from reading some of his fiction you'd get the impression that > he'd heard of women but never actually met one.) Casdoe, Dorcas, Jader's sister, Thecla, and Valeria don't particularly strike me as falling neatly into that taxonomy. How would you categorize them? -- Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com <mailto:jwilson at clueland.com> > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Nicholas <nickjost at yahoo.com> wrote: Hey Other Nick, long time reader not often writer (and a bit behind on email): Stick 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). Can 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. _______________________________________________

On Apr 28, 2015, at 11:36 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: "Stick it up your rear." Typical Puppy reasoning... On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Nicholas <nickjost at yahoo.com> wrote: Hey Other Nick, long time reader not often writer (and a bit behind on email): Stick 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). Can 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. _______________________________________________

At 00:49 29/04/2015, Nick wrote: (I believe he came third with top to Pournelle

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com <mailto:marcaramini at gmail.com>> wrote: One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com <mailto:starwaterstrain at gmail.com>> wrote: http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote: They 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?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:26:21 -0700 From: Charles Gillingham <charlesgillingham at gmail.com> To: urth at lists.urth.net Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe Message-ID: ??? <CAMoqiH7RzhETqqNy_LakEeV=EnkWMMeDa0+N=Wn9cUAvXQKWgg at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "Stick it up your rear." Yea... lets stop short of actual name calling. Dan'l has said nothing to warrant insult. I'm not a fan of moderation, but, it could be useful to boot out outside provocateurs who clearly just want to start trouble, mod and mod hard!

Though I strongly disagree with Puppies both Rabid and Sad, I do think that Nick Jost was justified in being a bit miffed by Nick Lee's uncharacteristically broad brush stroke regarding what all Puppies may or may not understand. One thing that is clear based upon the volumes in this very mailing list is that few of us truly "understand" Wolfe, though we are striving to do so. Focusing on the merits of arguments is a strength of this list and its members and should not be abandoned in the heat of this contentious topic. _______________________________________________

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.

On 29/04/2015 00:17, David Stockhoff wrote: That'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.

On 29/04/2015 00:17, David Stockhoff wrote: That'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.

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:46 PM To: urth at lists.urth.net Subject: Re: (urth) Puppies 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.

On 29/04/2015 00:17, David Stockhoff wrote: That'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.

There's a lot more tribadism than the other thing,,, - Gerry Quinn --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: No love for the freshly hatched chick twixt Jolenta's chafing thighs? That description scarred me as a child, to be fair. On Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Long Sun/Short Sun at least has some of my favourite female characters in all fiction: Nettle, Marble, Mucor, Olivine. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm very bad with names. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com> wrote:

Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there is a problem with Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged me as a person (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in The Land Across. You know, her. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one. There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty is reason enough, I think. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin 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. They 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? 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. 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. And 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. The 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. Wolfe 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." _______________________________________________