More Words, Deeper Hole

"Cheryl is straight-up lying"

If that refers to this exchange, and this apparent reference to it, I think you're unfairly characterizing what Cheryl Morgan wrote. "Crooked game" necessarily implies dishonesty (if not necessarily legal wrongdoing). In fact, it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

From:

cofax7

You know, I don't know if it's better than Cryoburn, but I certainly enjoyed it more. Feed has flaws that Bujold is too experienced to fall prey to, but it's got an energy that "Miles Solves a Case, yawn" doesn't.

Which is pretty much what you said, I guess.

From:

As pointed out in the conversation itself, metaphors exist. Ditto, the discussion of US elections, etc. I'm not unfairly characterizing anything. She entered the conversation, what was actually said was explained to her by three different people, and she ignored all that and went on her flounce anyway, using a term that nobody actually used to refer to the Hugos process. (Indeed, the process wasn't even under discussion; the results were.)

That is straight-up lying, complete with weasel wording like "can be taken to imply"—nice plausible deniability there.

From:

People weren't voting for Feed so much as they were voting for its author, like with Blackout. (Blackout was quite a bit worse, however, and it friggin' won.)

From:

"Game" is the metaphor; "crooked" is the characterization of dishonesty that the metaphor is meant to communicate. Crookedness in this sense is corruption. (Synonyms exist, as well as metaphors, and not every paraphrase is a mischaracterization.)

"the process wasn't even under discussion; the results were"

The game has to be the process, not the results, if the metaphor carries any meaning at all.

From:

kevin-standlee.livejournal.com

What

jamesenge said.

Any sensible person realizes that there's no such thing as an objective "best" since "best" is subjective when evaluating matters of taste. It doesn't matter whether the award is popularly voted by the members of a large club (which is effectively what WSFS is since you merely have to pay the membership dues to vote), by "anyone with a web connection" (which is what a lot of people really mean when they say, "Nobody should have to pay to vote," or if it's juried by a small, select group. "Best" is a term of art. There are periodically calls to change the title to "Most Popular," one of which actually was introduced before the WSFS Business Meeting (it was killed immediately without debate; the question is an obvious non-starter).

The Hugo Awards more or less average out the opinions of what is "best," although that will always make some people unhappy. Indeed the voting system is geared to select the works that are "least disliked" rather than "most liked." That's why it's not unusual for a work to have the lead in first-ballot preferences but not win the award; it means that the work is popular with a plurality of the voters but is actively disliked by a majority of them.

Calling a system "crooked" when you really mean "The things I like don't win," seems disingenuous to me.

I remain convinced that those people who are convinced that they know better should go set up their own awards and see how much attention anyone pays to them. Just don't call them "Hugo Awards" or use a rocket-ship design for the trophy.

From:

Having not read any of the other Vorsorkian books and giving up on Cryoburn about 25 pages in because, frankly, it's not really my kinda book anyway I can't say.

I was a little annoyed to see that Feed is part of a series, which it really doesn't need to be.

From:

"Game" is the metaphor; "crooked" is the characterization of dishonesty that the metaphor is meant to communicate.

Wow, you actually write novels and teach school and make such basic, basic errors of reading comprehension? "Playing" and specifically deciding against playing the crooked game is the metaphor for complaining about Hugo results without participating in the Hugo vote, as Farah insisted that Lavie must do before being allowed to bitch.

Even if this were somehow actually confusing, the "crooked game" remark followed a discussion on whether a UK resident could complain about the results of US elections, and whether an anti-war voter most vote for one of two pro-war candidates in order to complain about war.

From:

carbonel

Consider the price of oatmeal; I'm in my 50s and liked Feed enough to buy the sequel, despite normally detesting anything zombie-related. It has its flaws, but then, so did everything else on the ballot.

From:

james-nicoll.livejournal.com

I can put the problem with Cryoburn into universal terms: it's to the Vorkosigan books what Game of Empire was to the Flandry books.

From:

And here is another classic example is ridiculous hectoring and strawman arguments that make the Hugos not worth taking all that seriously.

Any sensible person realizes that there's no such thing as an objective "best" since "best" is subjective when evaluating matters of taste.

Well, no, actually. No on several grounds. One, a retreat into subjectivity is an argument against having the awards voted on—the winners can be selected via random lottery if evaluation is truly subjective. There is an embedded assumption that the fans can choose the best—this is intersubjective verification. Indeed, the fact that "Most Popular" is a "non-starter" is evidence that Hugo partisans really do think they are voting for the best. (Though I do wonder if "Fan Choice" would have more traction.)

If you really think the end result of any award is subjective, Kevin, then you wouldn't spend so much time defending the Hugos. You clearly do think that there is something there.

Two, it's not just a matter of taste. On this thread, someone mentioned voting for several categories randomly. I know that some people voted for me not because they read and enjoyed the books I edited, but because they read and enjoyed the book I wrote a few years ago, or my LJ. People do vote for books they've not read, people whose names they kind of heard of, strategically in an attempt to keep someone they don't like from winning regardless of who they vote for, or vote for someone because it's "time" for them to win, etc. And, of course, the rules for the Hugos themselves change due to faction fights, campaigns, etc. All rather aside from issues of taste.

You can't legitimately retreat behind subjectivity and support awards, and you can't legitimately claim that the only critique of the Hugos are based on differing tastes. You do, of course, for personal reasons.

Calling a system "crooked" when you really mean "The things I like don't win," seems disingenuous to me.

Insisting that I really mean something I don't really mean is a straight-up lie in defense of another straight-up lie.

I remain convinced that those people who are convinced that they know better should go set up their own awards and see how much attention anyone pays to them.

I was an early part of the formation Shirley Jackson awards and still regularly make reading suggestions to the jury. It's only been around for a few years, but the awards have had some good media coverage, call-outs on nominated books, successful fundraising, etc. Oh, and the fans who follow it are somewhat less likely to laugh at the results.

From:

montoya.livejournal.com

Well, they must have been voting for its author, because (comments here notwithstanding), they couldn't possibly have been voting for the book. But my point is, the people who voted for that author are a younger, blog-savvy crowd.

Also, I didn't love the Willis, but it wasn't even in the same league of badness as Feed. Blackout was just a bloated novel where characters jumped to conclusions and avoided talking to each other to drag the plot out, but if you strip out 600 pages or so, there's a pretty good story left. Feed is a stupid novel with a stupid plot featuring stupid characters in a ridiculously stupid world and is poorly written to boot. If you wanted to turn it into a good book, you'd first have to hand it to a good writer, who would have to change the story, the setting, a myriad supporting details, and in general write a new novel.

From:

I'll skip past your childish and perfectly in-character ad hominem abuse and go to the odd pulsating heart of your argument:

"deciding against playing the crooked game is the metaphor for complaining"

Deciding is the metaphor for complaining? Abstract = abstract is a poor pattern for a metaphor. But there's still the question of what "crooked game" means in this context. There's no way it can't refer to the Hugo-award process if the Hugo awards are actually what's under discussion. The fact that US elections were used as a comparison really underscores this. That's a process, well worth complaining about.

A metaphor isn't a "get out of responsibility free" card. Metaphors have meanings; otherwise no one would use them. One may legitimately object to a meaning conveyed by a metaphor.

Edited Date: 2011-09-01 06:25 pm (UTC)

From:

dd-b.livejournal.com

To my ear, this is one of those clear-cut cases of spin in action.

You can honestly deny that you said the Hugos were crooked. But when you use the "crooked game" metaphor specifically in reference to the Hugos, you are either intentionally establishing the association "Hugos => Crooked game"...or else you are doing it accidentally due to not thinking through how what you wrote will be read.

When you then deny strenuously and at length that that's a likely interpretation of what you wrote, you're clearly engaging in intentional spin, leading me to conclude that you intended the original association. If it were an accident, you would say "Oops" and back down from that bit -- a step I can't help noticing you are studiously avoiding.

From:

I'll skip past your childish and perfectly in-character ad hominem abuse

Hmm, clearly you *won't* do any such thing. At any rate, when you call someone dishonest in defense of another person's dishonesty, expect to be chastised for it. Or was my mistake in concluding some difficulty with reading instead of outright malevolence?

Deciding is the metaphor for complaining?

For complaining without first participating. I did use a little shorthand there, I suppose because I assumed you actually looked at the Twitter conversation you linked to. Sorry to make the mistake of assuming even the slightest bit of readerly integrity on your part. Won't happen again.

The fact that US elections were used as a comparison really underscores this. That's a process, well worth complaining about.

To you think the US political process is "crooked" or "corrupt"? I don't. However, it has something in common with crooked games—participating in the process as a voter (or player) has no real effect on the outcome. If you do think the US process is crooked or corrupt—what are the corrupting influences? If it's stuff like pressure groups, factionalization, voters who are often unclear on who or what they are voting for, and occasional rewriting of the rules to influence outcomes...well then, have you heard of this award called the Hugos?

From:

I'll stick my hand up again and say I liked Feed. It's been a long time since I had such an emotional reaction to a book. I didn't see the end coming and was shocked by what she did. That alone got it high up my preferences list.

From:

How are Hugos like a crooked game, or for that matter a political election between two pro-war candidates from the POV of an anti-war voter?

Simple: there's something for someone who doesn't like the results to complain about, and individual participation won't change the results. It's a leap of logic to then conclude that the Hugo process is either criminal or corrupt.

In other news, "Your eyes are like jewels" shouldn't lead you to conclude that your eyes are made of minerals. Well, unless, you have a specific interest in spreading nonsense.

From:

I'll clarify my position. Historically I'd always try to make an effort to have read the Best Novels - but Short Fiction I'd typically either vote for the one I'd read, or no award, or vote based on what I'd heard or thought of the list.

But you are correct, some voting does go with, I like X and I read Y, and therefore I will vote for them.

For the Fan Hugo's I'm not sure that that is necessarily as much of a problem as some people seem to think it is. Jame's aside, I was quite pleased with the Fan Writer Hugo as I think Claire richly deserved the award.

From:

And to further clarify, I think this is why the advent of the Voter's Packet makes this MUCH better.

From:

Blackout's plot was stupider, its characters stupider (including someone from 2060 not knowing what a revolving door was), its world stupider (Willis doesn't know what historians do; there are no cell phones or email or even Post-It Notes in the future) and as it was a book in two volumes, wasn't just 600 pages too long but about 1500 pages too long.

Feed was pretty meh—I thought it was a much better horror novel than an SF novel—but it wasn't nearly so bad as Blackout. Blackout was probably one of the worst novels I ever read, and I only finished it because I was reviewing it.

From:

And just to add to the Brit chorus about Blackout/All Clear - bloat be damned - a book that badly researched, but claiming to have been researched shouldn't be allowed on the list. An expert in WW2 not knowing about Bletchly Park? Give me a break!

Not to mention a bunch of geographic and historical snafus which could have been solved by the simple expedient of asking a British fan, or using Google.

From:

You can vote however you like, of course. It's fun to click buttons, as the many polls this blog's host provides shows.

My only objection is the conflation of all possible critique of Hugo results with differing matters of taste, since taste isn't the only motivator of voting behavior.

From:

I too am in favor of voter packets. I'm in favor of increased distribution of cultural artifacts generally. Whether this will alter outcomes remains to be seen.

From: