WorldCon Follies

Someday, I want to be able to write a fiction story about something this incredibly jacked up and have someone actually find what I wrote about to be believable. One magical evening I want to look into my crystal ball and pull something out of it that even comes close to the level of stupidity I have recently witnessed. On that fateful day, I'll know that I've reached the pinnacle of the writing world and published something that will sell more copies than The Bible. Today is not that day, but here's hoping, right?

In a recent post about the Dragon Awards, I mentioned the irrelevance of the Hugo Awards. I wrote about how authors were being nominated not for the quality of their work or the size of their following but for the correct politics and for being “diverse.” I lamented the fact that good stories were no longer being featured and pointed out the worthlessness of the awards in a commercial sense. I knew what I was saying was true, but at no point did I expect WorldCon, the Science Fiction convention where the Hugo Awards are given out, to agree with me publicly. And then, Oh God this is good, they did, at least indirectly.

The WorldCon schedule came out this past weekend and people lost their mind. There were professional authors in attendance that weren't being asked to speak on panels. Many of those same authors were members of the LGBTQ+ .(I can't remember the whole acronym and I'm too lazy to look it up and try to determine which one is the most current.) Here's the kicker: Many of those same LGBTQ+ authors were former Hugo nominees. The Convention committee knew they were going to be in attendance and didn't feel that they were relevant enough to be given spots. This at the same convention where the awards they were nominated for was handed out.

Think about that for a minute. The people that give out the award didn't include the nominees in their programming. Why? They weren't relevant and weren't going to attract fans. The business of any con, whether it's WorldCon, or the San Diego Comic Con or a freaking smaller, local con like Penguicon here in the Detroit Area is to entertain and engage the fans. Any guest invited is there to interact with their fans face to face, whether in panels or just in passing in the hallway. Seriously. I once had a conversation with Brandon Sanderson in a stairwell while climbing. (For the record: He's a nice guy and, based on the way he handled the stairs, in better shape than me.)

This is what happens when you nominate people for the wrong reasons. Look, I'm not saying that trans persons (I can call them that, right? Even if they're like otherkin or some shit?) should be locked out of anything. I'm just saying that if you want to win an award that has the prestige that the Hugos claim to have, you should have to write a story that is entertaining and attracts an actual fanbase. Why else would someone (gay, straight, trans, cis, whatever and throw in race, religion and whatever else you like) actually deserve a nomination, let alone an award? Seriously, if the best reason you can come up with to nominate someone for an award is to make yourself feel good about casting a vote for them because of race/class/orientation/etc, they don't deserve it. The only criterion that should count for a writing award is writing and the Hugos are a literary award.

So I'd like to take this time to thank both WorldCon and the Hugos for proving my point for me. I mean, failing to invite your own nominees to your panels does more to show how little you matter more than anything I could ever say or do. I mean that seriously. There is literally (and I mean literally literally not literally figuratively) nothing that any of your detractors, myself included, could have done to show the world why you don't matter. So thank you for your support.

Of course, it doesn't end there. WorldCon also managed to misgender one of its trans guests. Bogi Takacs has taken offense at the fact that e (no, that is not a typo) was referred to as “he” in e's biographical entry in the program and has decided that he is “honestly not sure if I [sic] can safely attend.” Others are withdrawing in support of e's predicament and also of the plight shared by others like Takacs who feel that they have been marginalized because of their gender beliefs. N.K. Jemison has withdrawn from her spot on a couple of panels to make more room for the slighted.

And actually, that's kind of sad. I have no personal opinion of Ms. Jemison's work. I haven't read it. I am aware that she won a Nebula award the year that the Nebula's went to all female persons of color, but that is not really a mark of quality. What I will say about her is this: She's got a following. I've actually seen her on television. Don't get me wrong. I don't claim to be a fan of someone I haven't read. Having said that much, the woman has a following. She is the type of author that fans go to see at cons. Her fans have now been deprived of a chance to see and interact with her on a panel where they may have been able to greet her and ask her question about her work so that Takacs, and other like him who most of the attendees have never heard of, can get onto a panel to show the world their specialness because they insist on having some made up “gender-identity.”

Not only is that wrong all on its own, but hey guess what? N.K. Jemison is both black and female. Takacs is white and appears to have been born with a penis. If you're into intersectionalism (and I personally think it's an evil, hateful philosophy that denigrates some and keeps others from striving to achieve because they think they'll be prevented from success) that's someone at the intersection of being black and female giving up a spot for a person who is not instersectional and is instead merely trans. Even by your standards that's bullshit.

It gets better. WorldCon pulled its schedule and is reworking it to suit the whiners. They've thrown everything out with less than a month left. They're scrambling thinking they've got a chance to this right.

I'm not going to deny a certain amount of schadenfreude here. I haven't seen a meltdown this epic since Chernobyl. Seeing your enemies shoot themselves in the foot is a good feeling. The fact remains that they failed to see this coming and I see that as laughable. Evil eats its own. That's always been a fact.. When you submit to the SJWs in any setting you have to keep submitting to them. When things push past the point where you're willing to submit you become problematic and get purged.

Keep moving in this direction WorldCon. It only gets worse from here. Don't say we didn't tell you it was coming. The rest of us will be off in the corner laughing at you. You're never going to be sufficiently woke to make everyone happy. Seriously. At this point you might as well fold and stop handing out your pointless awards. You should have let the Sad Puppies make your awards relevant again. Instead you've moved further away from the mainstream and out of the lives of the people who love what you claim to. Your time is over, now go away.

Grinning in anticipation

Yes, I am _well_ aware that this is a review blog and I've been badly off topic the last two days. That's unfortunate. However: It's my bloggie and I'll post if I want to. That's just me.  One day I'll learn to focus on only the goal of the blog and ignore everything else. Yah. And monkeys might fly out of my butt. Anyway...

Amanda Green, has noted some of the vitriol by the enemies of the Sad Puppies. It seems that Steve Davidson of Amazing Stories (noted SJW rag and former promoter of SF/F as a genre. That being, of course, before they started to promote SF/F as a progressive social movement) has a problem with people buying memberships to support their favorite authors. He says; "Right now they’re probably anticipating the announcement with a certain amount of glee, since “leaks” (from the nominees most likely) seem to be indicating that a goodly percentage of those on the final ballot were championed by the Sad Puppy recommended voting slate." I hate to admit it, but you're right Steve. No, you're not just right, you're DAMN RIGHT.

See, I do admit to a certain sadistic glee in watching all of you Social Justice types squirm. There is nothing more personally satisfying to me than seeing Special Snowflakes who run around saying things like "Right now, a lot of involved folks are starting to seriously ask how fandom is going to handle this growing problem." because LORD (can I say that, or is it offensive?) and then following it with "The real, long term solution is to create more participation in the voting..." Note an Mr. Davidson: That's what the Sad Puppies are doing. I know of precisely one person who voted for the Hugo Awards prior to the rise of the Sad Puppies that is voting with them this year. She started voting the year before the SP movement began with many of the same goals.

He can't have it both ways, but he's convinced that he can. I've seen this attitude from many SJWs both inside and outside of SF/F fandom. The automatic assumption is that everyone believes as they do and if more people just voted they'd win every election. Word to the Left: It doesn't work like that. There are plenty of us out there that are sick of your crap. Screaming about inclusion doesn't work when your real goal is to lock the people you disagree with out.

The real kicker is that Davidson whines about the SPs making money when he works for a FOR PROFIT SJW RAG err.... SF/F magazine. Writing is a business. This blog was started with the goal of monetization and money for little old me. The professional authors that have headed up the SP movement (along with Evil League of Evil member and Duchess of Snark Kate Paulk, who will be leading the charge next year) realize that. You'd think Davidson would too. Apparently, he's got more important things in mind for the business he works for than making money. I'm not sure how his financial backers feel about that. It's weird. Winning a Hugo used to guarantee sales. A Hugo logo on the cover of a book was a sign that it was worth the money a fan would pay for it. It's not until Davidson and his ilk began to take over the awards that it became a sign of "social relevance" and literary pretensions.

Just once, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a person like this take five minutes to think their position through. Just once I'd like a guy like this to see the holes in his argument at are big enough to drive a truck through. Just once I'd like to see a guy who wants more inclusion NOT try to punish someone who disagrees with his opinion. Just once, I'd like to hit my head hard enough to actually believe that a hypocrite like Davidson is capable of seeing himself for what he really is. Then again, maybe I don't. That might hurt. Oh, and once again, just because I can and because he started the Sad Puppies train moving forward (not forgetting that the first two words in any writer's mission statement should be GET PAID) :




On Sunday: Lizzie Ashworth's Salvation. For real this time, as I will be finished reading it tomorrow.

True Fandom

(First off, a bit of housekeeping. This blog was formerly Sunday/Wednesday/Friday. As of now I am switching it to Sunday/Tuesday/Thursday. It just works better for me that way.)

I would like to come before all of you and make an admission: I am not a real Science Fiction fan. Yes, I hear all of you out there. I run a blog that reviews SF/F books and movies. I am aware that I once owned (freaking divorce) six bookcases full of SF/F literature. I know I've read comics on and off since the early eighties. I've seen the original Star Wars movies approximately four hundred and forty seven million times. I have been spotted at a couple of cons. My nearest and dearest all know that I write in the genre even if I haven't been published. I'm working on it. But apparently I don't count because I don't pay for a membership to a con I can't attend because it's not local to me. For that, I'm not a real fan. Just ask Teresa Neilsen-Hayden, member of the Secret Masters of Fandom. According to her only people who have supported Worldcon for years have a right to have their opinions heard. Even the Sad Puppies are not REAL members of the con and do not deserve to have their opinions heard because they don't support her point of view. Teresa Neilsen-Hayden can shove her opinion up her ass.

I just admitted that I did not support the Sad Puppy slate in the Hugo Awards this year for financial reasons. That much being said, I support their right, or indeed the right of ANY person who wishes to nominate and/or vote in the Hugo Award and PAY THEIR FREAKING MONEY TO DO SO to vote. It's that simple. TNH is, along with her followers, currently campaigning to have the rules of the convention changed to keep people she disagrees with from voting. She, and others like her, quite frankly disgust me.

Give it up folks. I get the fact that your whiny leftist asses are bothered by the fact that people who won't preach your beliefs tells me everything I need to know about your character. I personally have praised the works of Suzanne Collins on this blog even though I disagree with her politics because she's earned it. That woman can tell a DAMN GOOD story. Yes, it supports a leftist worldview. It also involves plenty of action, a believable love story and characters I'd love a chance to hang out with. That's all that matters.

So, you SJW snobs that can't deal with the fact that people are voting for who they want to vote for, or that the organizers of the Sad Puppy movement have promoted sales of the works they have put on their slate (as an effort to get people to read what they want them to vote for and to make some filthy lucre) or that they might dare to write something you disagree with can kiss my ass. They've paid their money, now they'll take their chances. This year's organizer was Brad Torgersen. I already reviewed him here and gave him the highest score I've ever given. Next years organizer will be Kate Paulk. I'll be reviewing one of her books shortly. (Spoiler: I'm a fan. I paid for her books. I will buy the next one if she doesn't send me a copy for review.) Teresa Neilsen-Hayden has one book published. If she wants to send me a copy I'll review it. HONESTLY. If it's good, I'll tell you it's good. If it's not, I'll score it appropriately. I doubt I'll see a copy, but if I'm being honest that's because I doubt she'll hear about this blog post.

So go forth, Sad Puppies (or Wet & Irritated Kittens) and vote for who you like. Vote for the slate. Vote for something that's not on the slate. Vote for your opposition. Do what you do because you want to do it. If you've got your middle finger sticking up while you do it, I won't complain. Then again, I'll be doing the same. Oh, and just because I can:



(That's from Michael Z. Williamson. Apparently the SJW types are up in arms because they heard he got nominated. The only solution to the problem is to support the work whether you can vote or not. Plus, I've met Mad Mike and I like him. He writes like a champ too.)

Tomorrow: Salvation by Lizzie Ashworth if I get done reading it by then. If not, I'll review a movie.