My Point in a Nutshell, by Larry Correia

Since my medium length and clearly worded article was apparently too long and insufficiently clear (what do I know, I guess), I’ll let Larry Correia take it away:

All I can really say to the CHORFs is that they had a chance to deal with people like me or Brad, but instead they decided to be a bunch of pricks and hand out wooden assholes while block voting No Award. In the process they insulted disgruntled fans, and proved that they were a bunch of cliquish elitists just like I’d said they were to begin with.

That’s how you end up with Space Raptor Butt Invasion. Have fun with that.

As for Superversive SF’s nomination: We were picked because we caught people’s attention, people who are becoming bigger and bigger players. This will get us more exposure. And we get to be a part of the effort taking on SJW’s. Win-Win-Win.

  • ksterlingh

    Hi Anthony, I definitely read your original article, twice before replying and now a third time before this reply. Based on your reply to me there–and the contents of this article here–it seems more likely you did not understood my clearly worded reply 🙂

    Whether I agree or not, I understood your point that the RPs were “exposing” the Hugo award system as allowing for select group domination and so “proving” them irrelevant as a meaningful community award… as opposed to “destroying” the award.

    For now we can set aside the obvious questions of why this particular method–swamping categories during an actual nomination process–would be needed to “expose” this weakness if it were intended as a service to the SF community, and why it was required a second year if that point was already made last year, where such methods ended in the–agreeably ridiculous–“No Award” reaction.

    One point I tried to make is that there is an obvious inconsistency between parts of your essay. It starts by congratulating people for making the Hugo finalist list, a thing normally reserved for achievements that are meaningful. Yet you go on to argue how meaningless such an accomplishment is–both in how it was achieved and the worthlessness of the Hugo brand itself–beyond of course getting some public notice. While you did claim that at least SSF wasn’t RP’s ‘joke nominee’, being an admitted ‘tool nominee’ is hardly an improvement.

    The other point I made is that I don’t see how any of this fits with what I thought the spirit of SuperversiveSF was supposed to be. You did not address this rather important issue at all.

    In this latest post, you say…

    “As for Superversive SF’s nomination: We were picked because we caught people’s attention, people who are becoming bigger and bigger players. This will get us more exposure. And we get to be a part of the effort taking on SJW’s. Win-Win-Win.”

    The only way a Hugo nomination would have been meaningful is if we caught the attention of–and so were picked by–the SF community at large, and not an individual person–or some mysterioso sounding group of ‘big players’–who put us on a slate that forced us onto the list.

    I mean that is the very point you seem to be making against your enemies, so why would it not hold for ‘us’?

    Sure, getting a nomination nets us more exposure. However, getting it by hook or crook also gets us labeled “dishonorable” not to mention “hypocrites” for the SPs among us. That’s not the kind of exposure I would think we would want.

    I’m sort of surprised I am the only one from SSF making this point.

    Finally, I thought SSF was a literary movement intended to foster works of art that were inspirational, character building, and fun. Raising our sights and expanding our horizons. I was not aware it had an additional purpose–or aspiration–of becoming embroiled in the political machinations of some big shots, getting as dirty and nasty as needs be, to fight some ideological foe.

    Someone say it ain’t so.

    • spacefaringkitten

      You nailed it. I’ve been thinking about the same thing: Whatever happened to Sad Puppies who were supposed to be (according to themselves, at least) about improving the Hugo Awards, not trolling and destroying them?

      • ksterlingh

        Hi Spacefaringkitten, thanks! Nice name by the way.

    • Hi Kieran. I’ve always enjoyed our vigorous debates, and hope you’ll approach this one with the same spirit as the others.

      I’m going to keep this short, because a thorough analysis of this topic would require a very long essay and probably nobody would read it. (At least, nobody sensible would read it.) But I did want to observe that I see nothing dishonorable in being recommended by somebody else, no matter who makes the recommendation or why. Even if VD was the devil incarnate, why should anyone feel shame at being recommended by him? That’s the kind of idiocy witnessed when people refuse to listen to Wagner because the Nazis liked his music. The merit of the work is not altered by the opinion of an admirer. Only weak-minded people allow such opinions to influence their judgement.

      I also take issue with your reference to the “SF community at large”. Firstly, there is no such thing. And even if there was, many Hugo voters have made it clear that they don’t represent it. Instead of seeking praise from an existing community, with its existing values and prejudices, it is perfectly rational to want to reorganize communities to make them more hospitable.

      Having made these points, I suspect I’m guilty of nitpicking. You would probably express yourself differently if you gave a more elongated exposition of your arguments. And that might reveal we have no significant difference of opinion. I imagine a suitably long and earnest analysis of network effects and market dynamics would lead everybody to a rather more realistic and less emotional understanding of how people sell books and why some books sell better than others, irrespective of the quality of the stories within. But that’s not what people want. They come to SF&F for entertainment, and the reading and writing of books is not the only way to generate that entertainment. I suspect most of the ‘no award’ clique are enjoying this mess just as much as VD, because they all get to feel very self-righteous as a consequence. They write about the mess, and they read about the mess, and get more page views and hits and retweets and comments because of the mess. Or they could just ignore the mess completely, and go back to reading stories, but obviously they find this mess to be more entertaining than those stories.

      I’m reminded of the Comedian in Watchmen. A lot of people engaging in this scrap don’t care whether various stories are good or bad. They just find it profitable and amusing to fight. The joke is on anyone who fails to appreciate that fact.

      • ksterlingh

        Hi Ray, nice to read from you again.

        My argument is definitely not that it is bad to be voted for by [fill in blank]. This is all about methodology employed in voting. I was critical of the methods of both SP3 and RP campaigns last year. This year SP4 looked fine so kudos to them, but RP maintained the slate method which is unfair to other participants… which gets my criticism, again.

        I’m not clear what the problem is with using the term SF community at large? I am simply suggesting that an award given by a community–and that is what the Hugos are–should come about through a method which accurately represents the desires of that community. Slating is a method which circumvents that process by artificially amplifying one subgroup’s desires, over other subgroups or individuals who do not engage in slating.

        I think the last part of your analysis is correct for many players involved and is an issue whose implications I have been pondering.

        • Hi Kieran, to deal with the specific point about the SF community-at-large, the most important word is “the”, which implies the community is a single entity. Progressives normally wouldn’t dispute that talk about “the” community may be used to suppress minority/dissenting voices; by implication anyone who does not follow the community’s rules is excluded from the community and so the singular nature of the community (as opposed to a potentially diverse nature) lends itself to suppressing choice and alternatives.

          In your last comment you refer to “a” community, even though you talked about “the” community in your first comment. I don’t want to nitpick, but this illustrates how easy it is to use the word “community” without being clear about what, exactly, we are talking about.

          As I pointed out elsewhere ( people who are in a position of authority (and authority tends to flow from the acceptance of authority by a community) may like to talk about how inclusive they are, whilst still laying down rules for who is excluded from a community. For example: “we will tolerate anything but intolerance” is still a rule that is designed to exclude some behaviours, and so excludes some people. So it is worth asking how inclusive a community is, and what defines its boundaries.

          The community you refer to here – the one which hands out the Hugos – is guilty of repeatedly misrepresenting themselves. They like to talk about inclusivity, and oftentimes suggest their taste is definitive of SF (hence why they claim to give the ‘premier’ SF award). But many people have presented compelling arguments that conclude this community is not as representative as they claim to be. These arguments vary; some argue passionately that the community balks at the tastes of people who consider themselves SF fans but have no interaction with so-called ‘fandom’. Others point out the views expressed by the community don’t conform to a typical spread of views in the society from which this smaller community is drawn, suggesting the likelihood of a filtering process. This filtering may be akin to discrimination. These arguments can be resisted because they are necessarily somewhat subjective, so I put forward an argument that was simple and backed by straightforward objective data: the World-con doesn’t come close to being representative of tastes all around the world, and doesn’t even have any meaningful aspiration to be that inclusive of people in most nations.

          My arguments, like the other arguments, were greeted with profound hostility by various people in ‘the’ community. I took this to be good evidence that this community is so absorbed by their own prejudices and mythology that they are no longer capable of recognizing valid criticism, never mind entering into a constructive dialogue with ‘outsiders’. So much for being inclusive! Every community is ‘inclusive’ if inclusivity only means ‘accepting everyone who follows the rules we laid down’.

          So that is why I object to you referring to ‘the’ SF community at large. Per normal English usage I belong to that community because of my affinity for SF. However, I clearly don’t belong to ‘the’ community you were talking about. Furthermore, I can’t see how any reasonable person could conclude that the fault is with me. I make no claims other than to like SF. In contrast the ‘inclusive’ World-con community is so insular and divisive that Neil Gaiman couldn’t even ask his friend Jonathan Ross (a very popular mainstream entertainer and serial host of award ceremonies) to host the Hugos without that causing a shit-storm about safe spaces and outsiders.

          • ksterlingh

            Hi Ray, sorry about the delayed reply. I certainly can’t criticize someone for being pedantic without bringing my own house down.

            You are right that I should have been more careful with my language. It would have been more accurate to say something like “the community of Hugo voters at large”. That is certainly a small subset of the sf community at large.