Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘fandom’

Fear and Loathing: Geeks and Social Justice Warriors (Pt. 2) by Jacob Lloyd

(This is the second part of Jacob Lloyd’s series on geeks and social justice warriors. You can find the first here.

So … social justice warriors.

I’m not going to get into an argument about what a social justice warrior actually is, because the very concept is a slippery one – and, in any case, it’s better to see them as social justice bullies.  What I will say is that geeks are triggered by social justice bullies.

The core problem with SJWs is not that they are evil.  They have good intentions.  But they see people as groups, rather than individuals.  There is no attempt to draw a line between two different people, not when they’re in the same group.  SJWs see Sheldon Cooper and Warren Mears as being identical, even though they’re very different people.  People who happen to be in the favored groups get better treatment than the unfavored.  Worse, they are unable or unwilling to understand how their words scan to everyone outside their bubble.  A reasonable argument (to them) may not seem quite so reasonable to everyone else. Read more

Fear and Loathing: Geeks and Social Justice Warriors by Jacob Lloyd

(This is the first part of a two-part series by guest blogger Jacob Lloyd — ASG)

“Give them an inch and before you know it they’ve got a foot; much more than that and you don’t have a leg to stand on.”
-General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth

I am a geek. My time at school wasn’t happy, so – like so many others – I took refuge in science-fiction and fantasy. For this I was mocked dreadfully. Having nowhere else to go, I persisted. It was a wonderful thing to discover that there was a place for people like me, that there were conventions and suchlike where I could meet people who shared my interests. I am a geek and proud of it. Read more

In Defense of Fandom By Kacey Ezell

So I read Cedar Sanderson’s lovely piece entitled “To Thine Own Self Be True”, and I found that I agreed with much of what she had to say. I, too, have zero tolerance for those who would sexually abuse others, particularly children. Actions like that are intolerable, and have no place in society, any society.

Furthermore, I join her in rejecting the idea that you have to be part of some clique or club in order to be successful in science fiction and/or fantasy.  I think success is largely a matter for self-definition.  Success for one author may mean winning a Hugo.  For another it may mean buying a mountain.  For a third, it may mean finally publishing the story they’ve had rattling around in their head for twenty years.  Success is personal, and it’s honestly none of my business.  But I do know that unless you decide that being feted at WorldCon or any other con is your definition of success… it’s not. Read more

To Thine Own Self Be True

In light of yesterday’s post by Jason about the whole WorldCon thing, and conversations I’ve had with friends recently, in addition to learning more about the history of Fandom: Breendoggle, the rampant child molestation at cons, Kramer of DragonCon… I have not seen the seedy underbelly of the big, old cons myself. My con experiences have been few, and fun, and that’s when it hit me.

I’m not a Fan. 

Furthermore, I don’t want to be a Fan. I shudder at the idea of meeting a SMOF – those jerks attacked my friends, and when I joined the fight, came after me and my family. I stepped back to protect my children, and in doing so, gained some perspective. Not only do I not want to be a part of their club – never did, when it comes down to it – but I object to the notion that authors have to join with these despicable types in order to succeed. No. A thousand times no. I reject that utterly. Read more

Who are you to tell me I am not a fan?

I had sworn I wasn’t going to go off on a tirade this morning. I had sworn I was going to go at least one week without pointing out the depths of hypocrisy coming from those who attack the Sad Puppies because, gasp, those of us supporting it aren’t supporting the “right” sort of books. But there was no way I could let this latest showcase of idiocy go unchallenged.

A little background. Yesterday at The New Otherwhere Gazette, Patrick Richardson penned a post entitled “Not a real fan”. The basic gist of the post boils down to this. Someone had posited that you can’t be a real fan unless you go to a lot of cons and belief science fiction is “all about teaching us lessons” and not about making it fun. Since I know what Pat was responding to, he framed the other side’s position quite well and his post showed just how foolish their position happens to be.

Needless to say, it didn’t take long for File 770 to come back and claim that Pat was full of hot air and that, no, he wasn’t a fan. It doesn’t matter how many science fiction books he’s read. It doesn’t matter that he has seen and loved a ton of science fiction movies and television series. He can’t call himself a real fan because, well, I’ll let the denouncer’s own words say it. (Now, for those of you who don’t know File 770, it is Mike Glyer’s site where he does whatever he sees fit to advance cons, clubs and other such things.)

Glyer said that he turned to “File 770’s consultants on fannish purity” to decide if Pat’s failure to attend cons was enough to disqualify him from calling himself a fan. Now, it is possible Glyer was trying to be cute by calling using the term “consultants on fannish purity” but as I read the post, I got the feeling he really meant it. That, in and of itself, is enough to call into question anything he has to say from that point on. After all, who is he — and who are his so-called consultants — to determine who a fan is and who a fan is not? What’s next, they start putting limitations on who can attend cons because they aren’t “fan” enough to cross over the threshold into the wonderful world of local cons?

Still trying to be cute about his answer (yes, I’m giving him the shadow of a doubt but my patience with him is already wearing thin), Glyer posts that his consultants say Pat doesn’t qualify as a fan because he doesn’t belong to a club, he doesn’t read fanzines, he doesn’t collect science fiction action figures, etc., etc., etc.

Now, I get what Glyer is trying to do here. He is trying to show how foolish and ridiculous Pat’s comments were when he said that someone might not think he was a fan because he didn’t go to enough cons. The problem is, this approach has already undermined Glyer, especially considering the fact that someone has been saying just that. It seems Glyer would much rather poke fun at Pat than address the real issue and that, kind readers, is part of the problem. If you won’t even admit that such beliefs and behaviors exist, you allow them to continue and to pick up steam until fandom — the real fandom and not that artificial definition the SMOS want us to follow — rises up and revolts. Then things will get nasty and I, for one, am at the point where I will welcome the battle.

But Glyer wasn’t satisfied with just poking fun at Pat’s statement about cons. He had to go there. Yes, THERE. Instead of addressing an issue that is there for all to see, the issue that there is a camp that has publicly said it will try to ruin careers and lives of those writers who don’t fall in line with the cause du jour, that there are those who believe it is science fiction’s role to raise the social consciousness of readers whether they entertain the readers or not, he says Pat is simply afraid of not belonging.

WTF?!?

So, what does Glyer say needs to be done?

You are a fan in proportion to the effort you make to attach yourself to fandom.

Wait, what? What the hell does that mean? His example is of a friend who attended every Worldcon meeting, speaking up and basically driving everyone crazy. Oookay. Without going into how they felt about his friend until the friend died, let’s look at this from one of Pat’s initial comments. He hasn’t done a lot of cons for financial reasons. Well, attending a lot of meetings for a con you can’t afford is how you make yourself part of fandom? Nope, that not only doesn’t make sense, it is ridiculous. For one thing, that example doesn’t take into account the financial hit — or the personal one — Pat or any other fan would take to attend such meetings. People work, have family obligations and, frankly, there are folks who simply aren’t meeting people. Hell, if you made going to meetings a requirement, you would instantly disqualify most con goers because they aren’t people persons and don’t do well in small groups. In larger groups they can thrive because they can blend into the background when needed.

You don’t need someone’s permission to be here.

Funny, that seems to fly in the face of the previous comment. You need to be involved but you don’t need permission to be there, assuming “there” is fandom. Am I the only one who sees the conflict here?

Then we get to the comments which quickly devolved from who is or is not a fan to attacking Sad Puppies and any proposed change to the Hugo voting rules. After all, why go with majority vote when things can be manipulated through Australian rules voting combined with the fact that the committee can throw out votes without reporting those votes or why they were thrown out? And folks wonder why there is a growing group of folks who are not happy with how the Hugos are decided.

But here is the comment that sent me over the edge:

(From Glyer)

Hugo voters read text sf, unlike the vast majority of those “SF consumers” who are following genre movies, videos and TV. So there’s that.

I don’t think Mr. Torgersen (and you could at least learn how to spell his name) really believes that if he surveyed 50,000 random people who saw the last Star Trek movie that more than a few could name any sf writer who’s had short fiction published in the past year. So his argument about Hugo voters being an irrelevant minority of the vast consumership is ultimately disingenuous.

I’m sorry, but this is complete and total BS. I doubt you could find 50,000 readers of SF novels who could name a sf writer who had published short fiction that year. Let’s face it, short fiction is not the big seller Glyer apparently would like it to be. And then there is the fact that there are a number of Hugo voters already announcing, with glee in fact, that they are not going to read any of the titles recommended by the Sad Puppies because those books must be evil and bad because, well, Sad Puppies. Does the fact that they may be able to say that someone penned short fiction make them a better fan than the consumer who goes to the movies and who reads but who can’t say if someone wrote a fracking short story?

And I do so love how Glyer’s followers were so quick to attack Pat, not because of what he said initially about how there are those who feel non-con goers are not far but because he is critical of the current manner in which Hugo winners are determined. You could put it down to thread drift but for one thing, Glyer never tried to pull it back to the initial issue nor did they try to address it when Pat tried to get it back. Instead, they were much happier showing their superiority, in their minds at least, over their knowledge of the Hugo winners and their own place in fandom.

Here is how I look at it. You are a fan if you like science fiction. Period. There is no requirement that you read a certain number of books or short stories. There is no requirement that you be able to name a certain number of authors who have published x-type or length of science fiction related works. It doesn’t matter if you like sf movies AND love sf books. What matters is that you are reading and enjoying. Heck, it doesn’t even matter what type of science fiction you like. What matters is that it is important to you and you are passionate about it in your own way.

The time has come that we quit having this false border between fans and fandom. The science fiction fan community is made up of many more folks who love science fiction but who have never been to more than a handful of cons. With the decline in the number of science fiction magazines, both pro and semi-pro over the years, you aren’t disqualified because you haven’t ever read Asimov’s or something else. Not everyone likes short fiction. Not everyone can afford to subscribe to such things and libraries don’t stock them like they used to.

Frankly, those who are so smug and hold their noses in the air when it comes to gaming and movies need to look down a bit and ask themselves why they think we are losing fans to those aspects of the genre. Part of it is because, guess what, games and movies are entertaining for the most part. There is still that sense of adventure, of man pulling himself up by the bootstraps and overcoming the obstacles. Yes, there are the dystopian, man is the root of all evil, but those are the exceptions and not the rule. Even the zombie movies and games have man struggling to overcome and to hold onto his humanity, something we are seeing all too infrequently right now from the traditional publishers (Baen excluded).

Am I a fan? Absolutely. But I have only been to a handful of cons. I don’t subscribe to any magazines because I am not a fan of short fiction. I don’t belong to clubs because I have other things to do with my time, like write and have a life. I read, on the average, at least half a dozen books or more a month, most of them sf. I game, not only because it relaxes me but because I enjoy the storylines on many of them. Something I get less and less from most trad published books. But I have been reading and watching science fiction for more than 50 years. I have watched, captivated, my imagination soaring, as the Gemini missions left the Earth. I took my little portable TV to school so we could watch the splashdowns. I gathered around the TV with my family to watch the first Moon landing and held my breath as I waited to see that first step out of the lunar landing module. But, by those who continue to cling to the leadership of “fandom” by the tips of their fingernails, I am not a fan because I’m not at every meeting and going to every con and not supporting the right sorts of books.

To them, I thumb my nose. To the rest of you, I say yes, we are fans. Now it is time to let the others know that they are not alone and we are not going to sit back and be quiet like good little children while our “betters” tell us what we should read and watch, because they know better than we do.

Social Cues in the Decoding of Current Events

Earlier in the week, I noticed, in a sort of vague, “oh, that’s what’s going on?” kind of way that there’s some truly epic foolishness being perpetrated. (I was a little bit distracted, as I assisted Mrs. Dave in bringing Working Title Pascoe into the world. Mommy and baby are doing fine, and everybody is tired. I may have said this before. That’s happening a lot, lately.) Jason brought it up first, that I saw. Amanda mentioned it, a bit. Kate hasn’t touched it, that I’ve seen. Probably safest for all involved. And Sarah is actively avoiding the subject, as she has books to finish. And if she goes anywhere near this one, progs will be feeling the impact sometime in the next decade or so. Weaponized wouldn’t even begin to describe it. The Int’l Lord of Hate and MadMike have both touched on this. Specifically. Incandescently.

Tim Bolgeo – Uncle Timmy to pretty much everybody – (and one of the biggest names in southern fandom) was stripped of an invitation to a particular convention because an as yet anonymous individual dug through archives of Tim’s e-zine, the Revenge of Humpday(I thought it was a newsletter. It’s not? But I find his ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe. Ah, well.) for something “offensive.” Great furor was raised, the Legion of the Perpetually Offended was marshaled and wailing and gnashing of teeth was brought before the concom. Consequently, Uncle Timmy’s invitation was rescinded. All this took about a day.

Look, this is right out of Larry’s Internet Arguing Checklist, arguably (hehe) the single most important guide to understanding how people are wrong on the interwebs. Right away, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Then, the cowardly troll skipped 6 and 7 and jumped directly to 8. Since the claim of racism is more or less meaningless these days – as it’s applied by one faction to more or less everything any out-group person says or does – I almost wonder at why it’s even still used, let alone so thoroughly overused.

For this isn’t about racism, per se.

It’s about social cues, and how they’re utilized to separate sheep from goats. Tribalism is human nature. From the early early days when we likely did it as much by smell as by any other sense, we’ve worked pretty darn hard to figure out who is part of Us and who is part of Them. Race is an easy (and, frankly, illusory) cue, and – in the States, at least – becoming less and less useful as a means of discrimination. This is great, and doesn’t get celebrated nearly enough. Location has, historically, been a much bigger deal. Those folks from the next valley over are weird and do things differently than we do. Steely Dan, those great analysts of popular culture, got it exactly right in the lyrics of Barrytown:

And don’t think that I’m out of line
For speaking out for what is mine
I’d like to see you do just fine
But look at what you wear
And the way you cut your hair

It’s certain that the object of the song “ain’t from ’round here,” and that while the speaker is, well, liberal enough to tolerate their presence, he’s not going to go out of his way to actually interact with the object in a meaningful way. After all, he can “see by what you carry that you come from Barrytown.” You’re Them. Enemy, at least potentially, or historically.

The coward-in-fan’s-clothing who outted Uncle Timmy is doing the same thing, only far less honorably. This is a method the GHH Brigade and the LotPO have utilized again and again. Demonstrate that someone is Other. Make lots of noise about how evil this is (not dangerous, not bad, but evil) and then call up the specter of shunning to encourage the behavior they want. Mike Resnick is evil. OSC is evil. Tom Kratman is evil. Vox is evil. Larry is evil. Now, Uncle Timmy is evil. None of these have – so far as I know – killed anybody. The ones I know personally don’t torture small animals or children for fun. They haven’t actually advocated for genocide, outside of fiction or satire (and if you choose not to make those distinctions, think shame on yourself). And yet, a multitude have, on little to no evidence, called for violence to be done against them. At least have them ejected from “polite society.”
Odd, coming from people stridently advocating for greater diversity in fandom.

One thing we can learn from this is how societies work. As I said, and then left unsupported, this is about social cues. Progs, and their Marxist forebears, use certain shibboleths as cues of in-group-ness. Every group does that. Each tribe develops a jargon, and rituals, and we can use this to our advantage. In your writing, ensure your societies have certain pieces that distinguish them from everyone else around them. Part of this phenomenon is organic, and accretes over time. Sun-worshippers may demonstrate a penchant for gold jewelry and stone in fiery colors. A loose-knit community of asteroid miners may have a marked preference for certain brands, or a specific sublight drive technology. And always, a way of speaking that tells them that they’re part of the group.
Those are easily visible examples. More important, are demonstrated ways of thinking, and the behaviors that follow from them. Unquestioned (and often unquestionable) assumptions. “We do it this way because we’ve always done it this way.” The aqueduct brings water; why ever would we want to go to the trouble of building a windmill over the well? The beastmen swarm right after the harvest. Who knows why; the gods’ ways are inscrutable. We use the plasma torch to slag salvage; who wants to learn a different way of doing things? And when a stranger – or a home-grown Odd; often treated as more or less the same thing – suggests something different, or novel, the gates close.

In writing, this is ripe for conflict, which is what we want to keep the story moving along. Is the marshall going to try to strong-arm our protagonist out of town? Will the underdog faction of the local political scene enlist our hero as their champion? It’s the drive down the main drag of town and all eyes turn to follow, and all faces are closed to analysis.
Ultimately, this kind of behavior ossifies, and a community follows tradition for its own sake, which far outweighs other concerns. This appears time and again throughout history, often right before a particular polity enters a period of upheaval. Think about the Reformation, or of Western Rome’s crumble. We’re seeing a bit of that in our own time (it’s possible this process is more or less constant) as certain groups hold ways of thinking more sacred than ways of life.

What’s the upshot? For scifi fandom, it means self-identifying factions are going to grow more and more insular as time goes on. We’re seeing this, as they justify abominable treatment of individuals who have done nothing to deserve it (in fact, who have often done a great deal for fandom, both directly and indirectly) using in-group shibboleths and the thinnest of “evidence.” On an individual level, we can continue to make choices where we’ll spend our money and energy. I plan to have nothing to do with Archon, as they’ve demonstrated a distinct lack of honor and credibility.

For writing, we can continue to learn from history. Read broadly, and glean situations ripe for plot twists. Learn to understand human nature. Who, if not the author, knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Then twist the plot. Hard. Turn a portion of society against your hero. Make their road just that much harder: drop them into a situation in which they become the Other, the “ain’t from ’round here” fella. Set the social cues against them. What happens when a sun-god’s paladin follows an evildoer into a town full of earth-goddess devotees, and blends in? What does a star marshall do in the clannish society of asteroid miners several AU from the system primary? When she publicly insulted the first-among-equals kind of leader, who also happens to be her father/uncle/whatever.

And maybe, just maybe, apply that understanding of social cues and fraught situations to the less-logical-than-fiction “real” world. Inject some logic into the rampant foolishness.

In Which A Wall Of Text Is Wall of Texted

Apparently people don’t like being told they’re destructive assholes because Toni Weisskopf’s wonderful post on the way SF fandom is tearing itself apart because the precious little darlings can’t stand to have someone disagree with them has attracted some really special, special trolls.

So since I wasn’t going to give Mz Great Wall Of Text Link Whore the satisfaction of linking to her tripe, and the detailed deconstruction of said tripe took a long time and did its own Great Wall Of Text thingy, the entire critiquey-fisky-snark is here.

My comments are normal (as normal as I ever get, anyway). Hers are italicized. Oh, yeah, and I use a fair amount of emphasis snark.
Oh dear. And from a Sara too… It must be that ‘h’ at the end of the name that confers the awesome, because on the strength of this little ramble you really don’t rate a waft past the (non-existent) door of the Scary Sarah Club.

Now, onto your so-precious little ranty-poos.
This is nonsensical, ahistorical, and misleading. There WAS NEVER a point when SF did not engage with world politics. If you think that, you are simply ignorant.

Sweetie, there’s a difference between exploring the implications of current world politics and claiming someone else doesn’t have a place in your club because they disagree with you. Ripping a comment out of the context of… oh, what was that now? Oh yes, fighting over politics tearing what had been a reasonably close community (possibly an ersatz dysfunctional family, but let’s not quibble over that) apart. Now, SF fandom ends up having interesting effects on world politics, but they don’t happen because the fans are having political debates at their get-togethers. Every fan I know is there to get away from the real-world shit and just be him, her, or itself without any pressures.

To quote a post I wrote another time someone got their feathers all a-ruffle about being told they were behaving like an ass (because that’s really where this always starts…I’ve come to assume that any time someone uses the phrase “politically correct” what they are really doing is asserting their God-given right to act like a jerk):

Dear lord almighty. Projecting much? You clearly don’t understand that political correctness in every incarnation I’ve seen is nothing more than lipstick on the Newspeak pig. PC has never – and can’t engage the root cause it purports to be about. Banning “racist” words does not magically make a bigot less bigoted. The bigot just uses other words in public and more than that, starts to figure that the folks he’s bigoted against must be a bunch of useless wimps because they can’t handle a bit of mockery. If it gets really ridiculous, guess what? The bigot gets more bigoted. I’ve seen it happen. As soon as the bigot figures that nothing he, she, or it can do will be good enough for the authorities, he, she, or it (oh, hell with this. I’m portmanteauing it to s.h.it) figures whoever s.h.it’s bigoted against is in with the authorities to beat s.h.it down. Once we get there, a backlash is guaranteed.

“anyone who thinks that science fiction = escapist adventure stories, and (by implication) it’s just these modern blacks and wimmenfolk and gays who want to muck up your perfect Boy’s Life nostalgia genre…hasn’t really been paying attention.

I’d suggest you try making that statement to McCaffrey, Delaney, LeGuin, Zimmer Bradley… Only necromancy is an ugly habit and they’d probably all laugh at you anyway. Not only that, to characterize this debate as being about “modern blacks and wimmenfolk and gays who want to muck up your perfect Boy’s Life nostalgia genre” is misguided at best and salesman-speak (you know, lies) at worst. Nobody here is against blacks, wimminfolk, gays or anyone else of any color, orientation, religious persuasion or anything else writing SF or loving it or being involved in the fandom.

Nobody

What we don’t like is attempts to say we can’t have our Boy’s Own Adventures as well as the fancy-schmanzy stuff. There’s room for both, and we’re fine with that. We’ll mock what we don’t like – or I will because I’m a sarcastic bitch – but I’m never going to say it shouldn’t be written or published, or even that people can’t like it. I – like most of the folks here – just happen to prefer there to be a story with interesting characters (and I don’t give a flying fuck what skin color they have or what they choose to screw). Who wrote it doesn’t matter. They’ll still get my money whether they’re black, white, or sparkling vampires (I will however express doubts on the ability of sparkling vampires to write a story with interesting characters. However if one does and I like it, it gets my money).

Anyways, onwards and… er… not upwards.

The ‘Golden Age’ of science fiction was dominated by people who came of age during and shortly after World War II, many of whom grappled seriously with the implications of nuclear weapons, imperialism, racism, sexism, environmental destruction, political paranoia, and perpetual war. Heinlein (whose issues in other areas I could write a dissertation about, but won’t) wrote a story about sexual harassment on the job called ‘Delilah and the Space Rigger.’ It was published in 1948…when the propaganda push to get women out of the factory and back in the home was in full swing, and hardly anyone else had even heard of the concept. One of the stories in Science Fact/Fiction [a textbook published in the 70s], ‘Disappearing Act’ by Alfred Bester,was a ferocious indictment of militarism which began, ‘This one wasn’t the last war or a war to end war. They called it the War For the American Dream.’ That one was originally published in 1953. Judith Merril’s short story ‘That Only a Mother, ‘ published in 1948, has similar themes and was voted one of the best science fiction short stories of all time.

I’ve read these (a long time ago, I’ll admit). Shorter pieces can sometimes – particularly when written by the likes of Heinlein – get away with hammering readers with their Message. Novels can’t. And shorter pieces do better when they quietly slide the message in between your ribs while you’re caught up with the characters and plot. I’ve read more books than I can count and I own more books than I can count, but the fiction I’ve read that I keep coming back to does not hammer me with a Message. If I wanted that I’d read a bloody sermon. If you want to convince me of something, get me inside the head of someone who believes it.

I grant you that women, people of color, and sexual minorities are often culpable for the promulgation of such notions. However, we have been doing it for at least sixty years. That ship has already blasted off.”

Go home, paragraph. You’re drunk. Seriously, not only does this not make sense, there is no conceivable universe in which this makes sense. It’s a grab-bag of buzz-words designed for the feels not the meaning. If that’s what floats your boat, so be it, but don’t try to tell me it’s informative or educational. I’ll just laugh at you.

Note that I name-checked Heinlein. I’ve read quite a bit of Heinlein…but don’t worship him. Does that mean I “share your values” or not? But my main point here is that anyone who claims to know and revere classic SF authors and assert in the same breath that they didn’t engage with politics is not credible. And, as I wrote in the same post, the issue isn’t actually that Those People insist on being political and spoiling your pretty pristine optimistic visions of the future. It’s that they have political opinions which *differ from yours* and which make you uncomfortable, and have this terrible habit of making cogent arguments to which you are expected to respond, and also acting like they have as much right to read and write and comment on the genre as anybody.

So much fail, so little time… First, this is not the Reformed Church of Heinlein, Western Division. I am not, alas, a deaconess able to advocate that virginity of all sorts is a curable condition. Not yet, anyway.

Second and probably most important, you appear to have missed the entire point of the whole post. You know, the one about fandom tearing itself apart because politics? It doesn’t matter whether author X engaged with politics or not (personally I hope not, because politics is a dirty business at the best of times. I don’t like it. I sure as hell don’t want to get engaged to it). It matters whether readers can enjoy it whether they share those political views or not.

Third, apparently you’ve missed all the places where people here have commented about books they enjoyed and how they enjoyed said books despite disagreeing with the political opinions that leaked through said books. So, you’re not merely wrong, you’re gratuitously, childishly, and offensively wrong and the people who hang at According to Hoyt (and Mad Genius Club) are going to spank you for it – not because they disagree with you but because you went off half-cocked and didn’t do your research. Bad Sara. No cookies for you (yes, this is the Dark Side, and yes, we do have cookies. The cake is a lie, though).

I also think that for someone from Baen…which publishes people like Lois McMaster Bujold…to claim that they are somehow outsiders in the realm of SF publishing industry awards is so disingenuous as to be laughable. Tell me another one.

Oh, tut. I’d love to know where you get your alleged facts from, because I’ve heard them from the demon’s mouth, as it were. I have sat at conventions and heard editors from other houses talking about Baen as though the place was something you’d scrape off your shoe. I’ve heard the same editors discussion how they’re so very, very traumatized because they had to unfriend someone they knew from college because (the horror!) they discovered their old friend was (gasp!) conservative. I’ve also heard these same folks state how they drove a very high selling author from mainstream publishing because they didn’t like his themes or politics (I will name the author in question in the comments if asked – and I’ll also say for the record I find a fair chunk of said author’s work pretty nauseating myself. But he was selling and selling well. He still is, and he’s now getting a lot more than a measly 6% of his cover price, being independent (at least, the last time I looked). Oops.

Oh, yes. These are the people who claim Baen is all about right-wing lunatics (I’m sure Eric Flint would find that a fascinating description of him) and white supremacists (Presumably Larry Correia and of course Sarah Hoyt turned in their Wise Latino/Latina cards when they started with Baen) and racists (er… Just go to a Barfly range day some time. If it doesn’t scare the living crap out of you that these people are there. With – horrors! – guns… Including black, white, polka-dotted (accident with the paintbrush there), male, female, who the hell knows, straight, gay and everything in between in every combination imaginable (and some that shouldn’t be). Not that anyone cares because they’re having too much fun with the hardware.). If you’re going to go spouting the kool-aid, dear, at least check it for rat poison first.

I’m not going to bother with the troll-tastic link you added at the bottom of the Great Wall Of Text to boost your hit count, sweetie. Anyone who reads this far can scootch back to According to Hoyt and find it if they really want to give the poor widdle lonely twollie-wollie attention.