I was away for a few days without internet access and discovered when I returned that my novella "Slow Bullets" has been included on the "SP4" Sad Puppies list for Hugo nominators.
At this point it's of no concern to me whether this is a slate or a set of recommendations. Given the taint left by last year's antics, I don't care for any work of mine to be associated with any list curated by the Sad Puppies.
The list was announced at Kate Paulk's website Madgeniusclub.com. Late last night I left a comment asking - politely, I hope - for the story to be removed, but after I checked the site in the morning I couldn't find my comment and the story was still listed. I've tried to leave another comment to the same effect.
Thanks for writing this!ReplyDelete
So, will you post on your book pages on Amazon this:ReplyDelete
"I hate conservatives so much I would rather you not buy my books"?
Cause that's what you're saying here.
I'm a conservative who isn't part of the Puppies' campaign and disagrees with their tactics. I don't see your interpretation as accurately representing what's happened here. I see an individual using his right to freedom of association to decide he wants no part of a particular movementDelete
No, because that's transparently not the case.ReplyDelete
Apparently "Slow Bullets" also made it to the Rabid Puppies list: http://tinyurl.com/junzye4. However, having been intrigued with your work for quite some time now, I am looking forward to reading your novella regardless.ReplyDelete
I've never voted for the Hugo Awards and never will. I regarded the Sad Puppies list as a list of works that I might want to buy and read. I am happy to remove you from my personal copy of the list. You need not fear that I will buy any of your works!ReplyDelete
That's fine, I understand. Safe travels.Delete
Al, it is alright for us to nominate/vote for Slow Bullets, correct? This is based, for me, ONLY on the strength of the story - not my feelings for/against Puppies in particular or as a class. Thanks for the stories......ReplyDelete
They're so sore from last year's debacle (which they tried to present as a success) that they need to resort to these kind of tactics. I'm sorry they have set their aims on staining your name, because you don't deserve that, but they won't succeed in it no matter what.ReplyDelete
DeDannan, if you'd looked at the internals, you would see that trolling is not a very plausible explanation for that result. This Reynolds fellow got four votes, which is larger than most clusters that can be explained as trolling.ReplyDelete
Reynolds, you are probably caught in the spam filter. It may be a while before that gets cleared out.
Actually, trolling is the ONLY valid explanation. But you're useless at that too.Delete
Really? That's the ONLY valid explanation? Did you even READ the recommendations?Delete
"This is a brilliant piece of fast-paced hard SF. Despite being action-packed pulp, it doesn’t skimp on the ideas – touching upon religion, the construction of identity, collective memory, and the rise and fall of civilisations. He’s a bit weak on character, but – otherwise – beautifully executed."
Only a troll would say that, am I right? Or how about,
"Second for Slow Bullets. I finished it a couple of days ago. Fantastic SF!"
Yeah. No fan of this Reynolds fellow would EVER say that honestly. Or how about,
"Third for Slow Bullets. Awesome twist on an old sci-fi theme."
Clearly just another troll having fun. And finally,
"Fourth for Slow Bullets. Excellent SF."
So, you know, if actual fans had recommended his work because they wanted other fans to know how great it was, what would they have said differently?
Seriously, you're not deceiving anyone but yourselves. You're just trying to gain legitimacy for your slate by adding acclaimed, more or less left-leaning authors to it without their permission. Some of them you have constantly insulted publicly, and all of a sudden you "love" their writing. Catheryne M Valente is being harrassed by your fellow "puppies" in Twitter just because she's asked you to remove her from your slate.Delete
Yeah. You're clearly just trolls of the worst kind, there's no need even to mention that. You're the cancer of the SF community. Whether or not you're actually having fun is not my concern. I just hope you'll return to #gamergate or wherever the fuck you actually belong soon enough, cause most of you haven't even opened a single book in your sorry lives.
Your response does not anger me, but it does make me very sad.Delete
You believe in collective guilt, obviously: "You're just trying to gain legitimacy for your slate"-- every single person who reads the Sad Puppies recommendations list is personally responsible for it; "you have constantly insulted publicly" -- every single person who reads the Sad Puppies recommendations list personally insulted left-leaning authors.
And then it is inconceivable to you that anyone could have recommended "Slow Bullets" to Sad Puppies readers in good faith; I suppose that is because you cannot conceive of the possibility that people might disagree with you politically and yet like the same works.
And then, "most of you haven't even opened a single book in your sorry lives" -- of course, you have no possible way of knowing that; it's just general abuse on your part.
Yep, just general abuse (not really, but I don't care). Same treatment you dispense to Alastair Reynolds or Catheryn M Valente, to name only a few, the difference being you call yourselves "fans" of them both. Just reading the comments your pathetic "leader", who calls himself "the voice of God" (inferiority complex much?), left in Valente's Twitter TL should be enough for you to realize the masquerade is not working. You're a disgrace for the SF community, but fortunately your repugnant political agenda is destined to fail over and over again because, you know, genre literature is not about white males only anymore, no matter how hard you keep crying. I'm sorry but I can't see myself having a respectful conversation with a Sad/Rabid Puppy. This is what you get from me.Delete
Don't expect people to stop believing in "collective guilt" until you stop behaving like a mob.
Because it's righteous to be rude, intolerant and hateful - to anyone who doesn't think like you. You don't even have to know or understand them, because they are BAD. Good to know.Delete
Nope. You're saying that. I might be rude to the Sad/Rabid Puppies (not just "anyone"), but that's because they've been HATEFUL and INTOLERANT to authors and fans who just happened to like a more inclusive, tolerant and interesting literature. I enjoy conversations with people who don't "think like me" on a daily basis. And I have enjoyed, still enjoy and will keep enjoying the literature from the likes of Heinlein, Brin, Niven, Wolfe, Bulgakov, Hamilton, Silverberg, and many more conservative or libertarian SF and fantasy authors.Delete
You are truly confused. You're good with "general abuse" because "I don't care" but you have REASONS to be rude to someone you've never met because you think they might be a Sad Puppy. Because you can't see yourself having a respectful conversation with them. But you think you're enjoying conversations with people who do think like you. Right.Delete
The recommendation pages for SP4 were open to ANYONE. I neither know or care who put up Valente's or Reynold's work. It might well have been one of the regular visitors from File 770. YOU are the one who imagines some overwrought conspiracy. No one's names will be withdrawn. Maybe you could hold your breath until you get your way? What the SP4 admins might do is give all the outraged ones a nice assterisk. Should make you happy.
I'm not a Sad Puppy, I'm the wrong color to be a Rabid Puppy, fail the paper bag test, Born in the U.S. not America, the village in Italy their Dear Leader currently resides in,& several ancestors & immediate family members were conceived/engaged in conception with the lights on,&don't feel guilty or ashamed. I may be an Atomic Dog, but I am no Puppy, but when we've become so politically divided that people saying You Are Great is controversial, & to be Rejected on Principle, your principles are not rooted in decency, not in magnanimity, no trace of conciliation, or even diplomacy, nor any wisdom, or even strategy, because if you believe the "Other Side" recommended you to make you look bad, it's unwise to do a better job through ingratitude then they could through subterfuge & poor strategy to think being smaller & more petty than the smallness & pettiness you feel your opponents are engaged in will impress anyone but sycophants, though perhaps that's your goal. If you reject conservatives like the majority of Sad Puppies because you feel they stand with, or even too near racists, you are right, though, if you stand with Liberals, you standing with, & too near, racists; just racists with the shame to hide it, or skill to convince themselves they aren't, or camouflage it by saying the right things while doing the wrong ones. I've been disappointed in the racism of Liberals far more often than I've been pleasantly surprised by the lack of racism in Conservatives, & I've been pleasantly surprised by a LOT of Conservatives. Yes, while I do HOPE to be pleasantly surprised when dealing with Conservatives, I also DREAD being disappointed with Liberals. In fact, I no longer am. I'm pleasantly surprised when I find someone, Left, Right or Center, who's truly an open-minded & non-racist. I wish I were pleasantly surprised more often. I also wish I could only deal with non-racist, non-sexist, non-bigots in all aspects of my daily life, but as any member of the group's targeted by the above mentioned folks, that's not a Privilege we're afforded, but I'm so glad you're enjoying yours, while making yourself SEEM selfless while only helping yourself...Delete
"You're just trying to gain legitimacy for your slate by adding acclaimed, more or less left-leaning authors to it without their permission. Some of them you have constantly insulted publicly, and all of a sudden you "love" their writing."Delete
Are you aware that the SP4 list is the output of a voting process which gathered votes from all kinds and stripes of people, including both "right-leaning" and "left-leaning" fans?
By "you", do you mean these four people who had the gall to go to that evil sadpuppies4.org website and taint themselves by leaving comments on it, writing insidious, diabolical libel about how "Slow Bullets" is "excellent SF" and how it deserves the prestigious Hugo award?
Or are you addressing Kate Paulk, who had the gall to acknowledge that this number "four" is, in fact, larger than three and two and one, and thus "Slow Bullets" belongs on "The List Of Works Who Had At Least Two People Say They Like It" (also known as the "Sad Puppies IV List" for short)? What should she have done? Declare that all votes for left-leaning authors don't count? Somehow I don't think it would make you more charitable towards her.
Now, I acknowledge that I *would* get upset if, say, I wrote a harmless book, only to learn that a Neo-Nazi organization somewhere decided that my book contains obvious pro-Nazi subtext and so they begin using it to promote their Neo-Nazi cause. Except this isn't the case in the case of SP4. There's no ideological considerations regarding the items on the list; all that counts is that someone, doesn't matter who, devoted the effort to type out a comment containing the work's name.
There's no deliberate effort to "legitimize" the evil right-wing list by peppering it with the good left-wing authors, either; unless you seriously believe that every single person who voted for a left-wing author on sadpuppies4.org was secretly a fifth-columnist out to further Kate Paulk's insidious agenda (as we know, sadpuppies4.org was protected by a magical mind-reading Java script, preventing access for any person who legitimately enjoyed a work by a left-leaning author). Apparently, declaring your liking for left-leaning works means that you're "cancer" and a "troll" who "haven't opened a single book in their sorry lives". Huh.
To summarize, the entire brouhaha is: someone out on the internet declared that they really liked work X, except, they did it on the wrong website instead of one of the right ones. How DARE they!
As an aside, you (I'm assuming the Anonymouses above are the same person) mention "your pathetic "leader", who calls himself the voice of God" -- I'm assuming you mean Vox Day. Who has nothing to do with SP4, as is plainly written in English on the very SP4 website itself (http://sadpuppies4.org/faq/). Try to understand that Vox Day isn't secretly behind every single evil plot in existence.
You're right, it's just our imagination. Vox Day and the Puppies (both Sad and Rabid) have nothing in common. That's why he got so infuriated with Catherynne M Valente when she asked the SPs to remove her from their SLATE. So infuriated, in fact, that he literally asked her to "suck it, doll". At least you recognize it's an evil (although pretty useless) plot.Delete
Sorry, I only read the last paragraph of your awesomely long replies. I'm pretty sure it's full of sentences like "I'm not a Puppy, but..." and so on. I have no more time for you. Richard K Morgan's literature sounds much more appealing to me than your pitiable ersatz right now, so if you will excuse me... ;)
Wow, so many Sad Puppies angry for people thinking they're Sad Puppies...Delete
Fascinatingly enough, those of us non-puppies who went ahead and recommended things for SP4 have absolutely no problem with Reynolds requesting removal from the list. Speaking only for myself, I rather wish SP4 hadn't been such jerks about it. It seems obvious that given what a catastrophically bad brand Sad Puppies is, people wouldn't want to be associated with it. If somehow this File770 regular had been placed in charge of SP4, he'd be removing Mr. Reynolds's novella without delay, and without throwing a goddamn temper tantrum.Delete
(Side note for Anonymous: Non-trolling is a strong possibility. This year's a little weird, as there were at least 3 non-puppy regulars who recommended sci fi on the SP4 blog. I know several of my recs made it to the finals precisely because there were not very many recommenders... which leads me to believe that non-pups may just enjoy recommending sci-fi a lot more than pups.
I didn't need your permission to buy Slow Bullets.ReplyDelete
I didn't need your permission to like or hate what you wrote.
I liked it. I think it's something people who share some of the same interests I have may like as well. Thats why I recommended it to them. I suppose I should have checked the "Alastair Reynolds Guide for whom my work can be Read By and Recommended For" but I haven't seen that post.
Honestly, did 2016 the American Library Association, the Guardian, Buzzfeed or Locus ask for and receive your permission before they put it on their awards lists?
If they didn't, why do any of the readers who nominated it?
What did you like about Slow Bullets?Delete
Hi Ben. I'd have had equally strong objections to being on a list curated by the ALA, Guardian, Buzzfeed or Locus if they'd also spent the last three years trying to stuff the Hugo nominations. However, since they haven't, I don't.Delete
The LOCUS list was started over forty years ago "specifically to provide recommendations and suggestions to Hugo Awards voters."Delete
So that you're OK with.
American Library Association, the Guardian, and Buzzfeed do not have toxic brands and are widely known for thinking seriously about critical materials. They have not falsely accused the Hugos of "affirmative action" or babbled nonsense about book covers.Delete
And, remember, I also participated in the Sad Puppy 4 recs and have no problem with Mr. Reynolds requesting removal from the rec list. I think removing his name without throwing a fuss is the right thing to do. You've got to be insanely thin-skinned to take that personally. IN 1989, after the Exxon-Valdez disaster, would I have wanted my photo reproduced in a "Hey, this guy still likes Exxon" glossy just because I happened to stop at an Exxon gas station? No. No I would not have wanted that. And Exxon would've been plain stupid to publish a photo of me without my permission, because that would've made their brand EVEN MORE TOXIC.
I am, yeah, because it's different in character to SP1, SP2, and SP3 which were self-described slates, designed to coordinate block voting, which is exactly what happened - and very visibly so last year. A recommendation list is something else, and in that respect SP4 is qualitatively different from the previous efforts, and in and of itself is not objectionable. However, as I said at the outset, this is still a list curated by Sad Puppies and I can't ignore the context or intent of the previous lists.ReplyDelete
You've obviously never actually read the Sad Puppies sites, and are simply regurgitating what you've read on anti-SP sites. Interesting that you can allow yourself to be manipulated in such a way without doing the least bit of research. Your loss.Delete
It is very, very, very obvious that he has read the Sad Puppies sites.Delete
They know they're toxic, don't they?ReplyDelete
Clamps! You know you're not supposed to be on the Internet. If your guardians find out, you'll get in trouble again.Delete
Mr. Reynolds, if your career were starting today, you wouldn't have a career, and it's as simple as that. The reason for that would be the massive open collusion to discriminate against you based on your race and sex that is now the norm. There are increasing calls by SFF authors for help to "de-white" libraries and not read stories by white men for one year, a thing unprecedented in the 100 year history of SFF as a recognizable genre. The Hugos and Nebulas today look more like a reversed out KKK than genre for the sake of genre; art for art's sake, fun for fun.ReplyDelete
If an author like A.E. Van Vogt were starting today and was stupid enough to not start running in the other direction, who would his audience be? Where would be his place? He would have none, unless he was ready to turn Empire of the Atom into a intersectional feminist pie-chart, thereby destroying the story. In fact you could scratch the entire Golden Age of SF out of history. There is not the slightest chance of such a thing in today's climate.
Ironically, the only way A.E. Van Vogt would have a chance at an award is if he were part of a mischievous prank of a slate, and that's really the point, isn't it?
That does not align with my view of the contemporary SF scene.ReplyDelete
Views are dependent on what one knows. The SFWA is self-evidently pleased both before and after the fact when fewer men or "whites" are nominated for a Nebula. Hugo favorite Lightspeed Magazine has a reviewer who has stated right out he will not review white men. Lightspeed's segregated "...Destroy" anthologies studiously never include white straight males. That is all based on the lie that mid-century American SF magazines purposefully excluded women and other "disadvantaged groups," an example of "male elitism," as U. Le Guin put in in 1975. However the top 12 American magazines by circulation in 1955 had 6 aimed at women, none at men.Delete
The other new factor is that due to the digital age, just as happened in photography, amateur SFF writers are now giving their short work away, leaving pros in the cold. The difference is that in photography it wasn't ideological. The Hugos and Nebulas are seeing unprecedented numbers of free work nominated. The reason for that is obvious: subsidized affirmative action/ideologically motivated fiction is both terrible and wanted. Last year a short story nominated for the Nebula and only just pushed out of the Hugos was written in a Clarion workshop, but because it was a "rape culture" revenge fantasy written by a gay Asian woman it had traction. It's only a matter of time before novels follow the same path, and indeed self-published novels are almost entirely a shot in the dark without any guarantee of a return of a paying wage of only $15 an hour. When that goes ideological an entry-author today such as yourself or Peter Hamilton are doomed just for waking up in the morning in the wrong historic skin and sex.
You have for a fact been pulled into something you didn't ask for but it isn't SP. You, Jack McDevitt, O.S. Card, David Brin and P. Hamilton should say a prayer you're not starting out now. The reason I mentioned an average work by '40s standards like Empire of the Atom is that there is hardly a single paragraph not necessary and that means it is exploding with ideas. Try finding that among award nominees today. Van Vogt comes off as a Pulitzer winner in comparison.
Well, I must say this is a rather unfortunate turn of events. Amongst only a handfull of British writers that are writing today, which I find to be writing the kind of SF I am interested in, and which I tend to follow and buy books ( late Banks, McAuley, MacLeod and Hamilton are the rest of that small list ), I was kind of hoping you will not comment at your mention by the Puppies. This way, you lost a fan today. Thankfully, the third book of Poseidon's Children seem to be standalone, so I will not have to read it ( was actually waiting for US edition because of the inane decision by British publisher to change your book covers to that atrocity ). Good luck, sans a fanReplyDelete
Good luck indeed, and enjoy your reading - there's plenty more SF out there.ReplyDelete
I don't know jack about any of this. I don't know what sad puppies is and I never pay attention to what awards a book has won. I see good reads list a new book by Alastair Reynolds and I buy it, because I know I will like it. Simple as that.ReplyDelete
The amount of flak you've received, for what I consider to be an admirable and principled position, is as disturbing as it is unsurprising.ReplyDelete
There's a world of difference, imo, between what you write and so much of what the SP's support (simplistic writing wherein everything can be solved by libertarian-ism and guns).
Keep doing what your doing sir and we'll keep buying your books as fast as you can write them. Bravo!!
Just the view of a passionated SF-reader:ReplyDelete
There is the freedom of any individual to create a list of works which were seen to be worth to be noted and recommended for tribute.
There is also the freedome of the owner of the intellectual property of this work to declare his/her wish to be removed from/put on such a list.
There should be the mutual respect beteen each other.
And if such a list is used to manipulate a voting and the owner of a work declares his will to be not part of such a list this shall be in any way respected by the persons responsibel for this list.
I have to agree that the last sentence might not even be SF but fantasy...;)
Greetings from Germany ! I enjoy reading your works and looking forward to the new one.
There is the freedom of anyone to creat a list of his/her favorite works to be promoted.ReplyDelete
There is the freedom of any owner of intellectual property of such a work to refuse having his/her work listed.
Thers should be mutual respect between these parties.
But if such a list is used to actively influence (not saying manipulate) a vote and the work owner does not want to be part of such an act, this shall be respected by the creator for such a list. Obviously, I' writing actually rather SF, not saying fantasy than reality...
Greetings from Germany.
I enjoy reading your works and looking forward for the new one !
>There is the freedom of any owner of intellectual property of such a work to refuse having his/her work listed.Delete
Alis free to say he doesn't want his name and work to be listed by them but he has no "freedom" to make them take it off. Wither it's "rude" or not for them to not take it off I will let others judge.
Peace to you German dude.
I can't get over the amount of criticism you've got over this Al. I'm appalled that the sad puppies have put you on this list against your wishes and tbh I would've thought anyone who has actually read your books would share your position on the sad puppies and the list. Your books seem to espouse and champion the values of those who abhor what these idiots are trying to do with their slates.ReplyDelete
Looking foreword to the Medusa Chronicles and Revenger mate.
I am the "anonymous" who most recently in that other "Sad puppies" blog post titled "On the present Hugo mess and why I still want one" on March 16 informed you Vox day put your work on his rabid puppies list.
Just call me Jim Scott or Son of Yachov (or whatever my handle is on google. i forget I am getting old).
So what are you saying guy? Politically right leaning people can't recommend your work? Or read it and think it is good? Because I'm an American Conservative who has been turned on too your books and I would hardily recommend your work to any SF fan. I could care less about your personal politics BTW if they don't match up with mine.
You shouldn't shoot your fan base just because they aren't the "right sort of Romans" to you.
I doubt Charlton Heston or John Wayne would tell someone just because they lean left they can't see their movies. Hippie types and leftwing persons back in the day read all sorts of left leaning political and social messages in THE LORD OF THE RINGS series. But as you likely know Tolken was a right wing Monarchist and Traditionalist Catholic conservative. I don't recall him telling
the Hippies they couldn't like his work and read it according to their own world view (if he had any objections it was weird fans calling him from American at ungoly hours waking him up).
BTW. You have a right to ask for them to remove you from their lists but I doubt they think they need your permission to recommend you.
I don't think they are recommending you to fulfill some secret right wing agenda. I think they just think your work is good. How is that a crime?
Think about guy. Peace too you.
Yakov - no need to worry, he's already explained why he doesn't want to be on the list, and it has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal politics:Delete
"Given the taint left by last year's antics, I don't care for any work of mine to be associated with any list curated by the Sad Puppies."
"I'd have had equally strong objections to being on a list curated by the ALA, Guardian, Buzzfeed or Locus if they'd also spent the last three years trying to stuff the Hugo nominations. However, since they haven't, I don't."
You can find those quotes upstream on this thread - the first is in the initial post, and the second is a bit later.
Thanks for the info Kathodus & I send you and Dr Reynolds my affectionate regards.Delete
>"I'd have had equally strong objections to being on a list curated by the ALA, Guardian, Buzzfeed or Locus if they'd also spent the last three years trying to stuff the Hugo nominations. However, since they haven't, I don't."
OTOH if we believe the puppies there is a cabal of leftist SJW types who themselves stuff the ballet box only with works they deem politically acceptable and the Puppies claim that politics should be taken out of it and works should be viewed purely on the level of artistic merit.
When they give me the example of "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" winning a Hugo I might think they are on to something.
That story is about a woman fantasizing about her murdered inter-racial boy friend turning into a dinosaur to kill a bunch of racist red neck types who attacked and murdered him. It is a lovely piece of writing but it has nothing to do with science fiction or speculative fiction. I mean it's not like it's about this lady's boyfriend morphing into a real dinosaur?
It's like if Alastair Reynolds got a RONA(romantic fiction) award for Grafenwalder's Bestiary.
I mean why? I think PC politics is at work here but it is not all the Puppies fault.
PS I have never voted in the Hugo slates and thought I hope Alastair wins something it won't be because of me because well...I am too cheap to shell out the $40 bucks for the right to vote there.
Also I have another event to attend soon that requires my funds & I need some scratch to buy more of Reynolds novels.
Cheers and good luck to you.
When they give me the example of "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" winning a Hugo I might think they are on to something.Delete
If You Were A Dinosaur My Love DID NOT WIN A HUGO. When they give you examples to parrot, check them before you repeat them or you'll look like a fool.
"When they give me the example of "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" winning a Hugo I might think they are on to something. "Delete
Yeah, on to drugs - it didn't win a Hugo. It came third.
"If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love" didn't win a Hugo. It was nominated for a Hugo. It won a Nebula.Delete
That aside - and your rather biased description of the story aside (nothing in the story refers to the attackers as being "rednecks," and Swirsky has said that in her mind they were preppy frat types) - not everyone has to agree with your narrow interpretation of what is and isn't SFF. By your standards, many classics of SFF - from Alice in Wonderland to The Princess Bride - wouldn't count as SFF. Not to mention some past Hugo winners, like "The Girl Who Was Plugged In."
The "story within a story" literary device is a very old one. Just because you don't think a story-within-a-story literary device is properly SFF, doesn't mean that other SFF fans can't legitimately disagree with you; and it doesn't mean that it takes a conspiracy to explain why people voted for it.
Not everyone agrees with your tastes. That's not proof of ballot-stuffing.
"Dinosaur" didn't win. It was nominated. It's a good story. Short. Packs a punch. There was no "cabal" in short fiction. It's just that, before the great Puppying, short fiction votes tended to be really, really spread out. There was, and is, a lot of it. Write something unusual, nail the technical stuff, and if a few people felt passionately about it (as few as 63, in the case of 'dinosaur'), it would make the ballot.Delete
"If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" did not win a Hugo. Also, no "red necks" are ever mentioned in the story.Delete
Thanks for making your position clear on this, Alastair. Please keep writing great science fiction, I will keep buying and reading it.ReplyDelete
If I were to put up a recommendation list and you would ask me to remove you from it, I would simply and politely do so. After all, if I respect you and your work enough to put you on such a list, I should be equally respectful of you enough to remove you from such a list.
Dear Mr Reynolds,ReplyDelete
I respect you for your actions. This merely confirms my impression that you are a genuinely decent bloke.
Incidentally my thought as I finished Slow Bullets was that this was top quality work and should win the Hugo. So whatever happens you've won my private Hugo Award anyway :-)
Thanks for providing us all with top quality, mind spinning adventures over the years!
Sorry you got dragged into this, Al. It looks like there were some non-puppies nominating in good faith, but no puppies bothered, so you ended up on the list.ReplyDelete
They should really take you off the list, but for some reason they've decided slinging vitriol is the best response.
Keep on writing, I'll keep on reading - really looking forward to the two shorter stories you've mentioned above, and I've realized I've got the Merlin series to read, as I've not heard of them until now.
I've been meaning to read Slow Bullets for a while, but I think I'll make a greater effort to do so now. Thanks for being a class act in the face of very poor behavior Mr. Reynolds.ReplyDelete
Mr. Reynolds, thank you for your patience and class in the face of this trollish onslaught.ReplyDelete
Also, feel free to ignore Fail Burton (AKA James May) completely. He is a Men's Rights crank who flocks to almost any post about the Puppy controversy and spouts complete nonsense, as you can see.
(After all, you have plenty of people in this very comment thread complimenting you and saying they'll pick up your work. You already know you have a thriving career despite being a white man, contrary to Mr. Burton/May's silly assertion.)
I actually have no use for MRAs and have never said I was one. The magazine statistic is not nonsense but taken from Theodore Peterson's book Magazines in the 20th Century. Of the top 40 magazines by circulation in 1955, 15 were aimed at women, 7 at men. The rest were general interest. The mid-century reading tastes of American women did that. That puts the lie to the idea SF magazines of the time discriminated against women. Sales figures and ad dollars were their goal, along with all the rest of America's commercial magazines. Therefore the entire edifice of today's diversity/affirmative action movement in SFF is a lie, as is the motivation for Lightspeed to review censor white men and publish segregated anthologies. Me opposing your feminism doesn't make me an MRA but you a Third Wave Feminist who promotes books by radical feminists like Roxanne Gay on your site. I have never done the equivalent anywhere.Delete
I also never claimed Mr. Reynolds didn't have a thriving career. What I said that unless he were a white guy like Charles Stross or John Scalzi who actively supports intersectional feminism and he were starting today, his artistically neutral SF and internet presence would be ignored by the new core SF community which has replaced the one which supported his work in the early '90s. They're even asking people not to read white men. That's a simple fact.
In the 2 years deep research I did into this social justice cult, I saw names like Aliette de Bodard, N.K. Jemisin and Elizabeth Bear mentioned hundreds of times compared to virtually nothing about Reynolds, or Peter Hamilton or Jack McDevitt for that matter. How does that happen in an artistically neutral SF culture? The answer is it can only happen in a highly politicized culture where the non-fiction race/gender rhetoric and social standing of an SF author trumps the genre and literature itself. I see nothing silly or nonsensical about that assertion. It is self-evidently true. Call me when you find even one social justice author in the last 5 years who's written a novel like The Prefect, or Infinity Beach, or Night's Dawn. Frankly, it's beyond the capabilities of an affirmative action initiative to do, since merit, artistry and talent has been thrown into a ditch. There are literally hundreds of Tweets by editors, publishers, bloggers and authors recommending SFF literature in the last 5 years without even mentioning a title or author, just a race and sexual expression. That is an unprecedented act in the 100 year history SFF and a cold-blooded fact, and those Tweets show no love for Reynolds, Hamilton or McDevitt. It's a culture, not a union, and so not an absolute control of the Hugos and Nebulas, so you'll see Reynolds and McDevitt slip in here and there, but I'd guess it's around 80-85%, and getting worse. And that has only really kicked in in the last 3 years or so. But if Reynolds, McDevitt and Hamilton started out today as neutral artists, their careers would be severely curtailed in my opinion. Even George Martin's lucky he got in under the wire.
As a counterpoint to this, although I won't drag their name into the debate, I've just read a debut novel by a new young writer which is not only a kind of military SF space opera, but is crammed with an almost Van Vogtian excess of invention and imagination. I confidently predict that this book will start picking up major attention as the year goes on, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it start appearing on the shortlists next year. Certainly, it's the kind of book I would be very proud to have written now or at any point in my career.Delete
Give us a hint. Would Lightspeed review it? That would eliminate a certain percentage of the world's population. LOLDelete
Alastair, I'm a big fan and I appreciate the transparency here. I am a conservative and feel like I'm constantly under attack from people in the arts. They feel that in addition to the things they have created that they should also ram their political views down my throat any chance they get. I don't feel that has occurred here and I appreciate your neutrality.ReplyDelete
Please keep this attitude! I don't know what the sad puppy controversy is but it would have been really disappointing if you'd let things get overly political and tainted my perception of your books.
"You don't agree with me, so I'm not buying your books!!!" tells me exactly how juvenile these (Sad) people are.ReplyDelete
Good for you Al, for standing your ground.
Since the official response from Sad Puppies 4 is:ReplyDelete
"I can’t tell which is which: whether you’re dumb or conniving. I’ll leave that for you to decide in front of your mirror every morning of the rest of your life.
"I’ll only note you’re worse than the Soviets who condemned the Kulaks during holodomor, worse than the people on the street who mouthed the Nazi lies about Jews during WWII. Why worse? Because those people lived in fear of their lives. They had to say what they did because they feared being next on the kill list."
So among other things she is saying that those who object to being associated with SP4 are worse than Stalinist and Nazi collaborators.
Perhaps it becomes more understandable why people would object to being associated with the Sad Puppies.
Oh dear. It seems this comments section has been somewhat hi jacked!ReplyDelete
I am just an avid reader of your books and don't frequent places where such lists might float around.
Personally I think it is entirely reasonable for someone with a known famous reputation tm choose which, or none, political body to be associated with. I am also thinking here of singers who have found their songs used at political rallies. Such associations can impact how some people view your/their work and so is entirely reasonable to ask to not be included when the situation arises. Just see the comments here from sp trolls to see how political association can impact some people's opinion of a body of work
it is a shame that you have been targeted when you largely tried to ignore their shenanigans in the past.
If I was you I would just hit the delete button on their comments, but then me course you are a better person that they are!
Still have a mumber of your books to get amd read for my collection.. For as long as you keep writing, I will keep buying.
I agree with Chris here.ReplyDelete
Mr R I've actually read everything published by you so far, and I love it all. Waiting eagerly for more! You are one of my absolute favourites!
Keep up the good work!
I'd suggest that all that's useful has been said here, so I'll be closing comments on this thread.ReplyDelete
I'd suggest that all that's useful has been said here, so I'll be closing comments on this thread.ReplyDelete
I just (accidentally) deleted two comments that came in, for which apologies, but please note, no more comments on this thread - we're good, I think.ReplyDelete
What's your dispute with the Sad Puppies -- other than "this will get some other people mad at me" ...?ReplyDelete