james_davis_nicoll (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2011-09-01 03:54 pm
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2011-09-01 03:54 pm
Not related to previous post
Who's been saying the Hugo process is corrupt?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
It was still a lot cheaper than buying all of the candidate novels never mind tracking down the short fiction and sourcing copies of the fan writings which in those far-off prehistoric days were printed on clay tablets or whatever they used back then before the Internets were invented by Steve Jobs.
With regards to your last statement, I'm not too sure that's Hugo culture, as much perhaps something generational?
Sure. It definitely seems that "newer" nominees are doing it more frequently than older ones, but Hartwell stood down on Best Editor, for example. So it seems to be a more complete shift; I hope it sticks.
Ok I was on strike earlier in the year and did not have the cash I assume or a computer for that matter.
Funny things that one forgets.
I think we met at ConFrancisco if you were the person who told me about the best transit rides in SF and about the Mt. Clemens MI railroad museum.
Funny things that one forgets.
I think we met at ConFrancisco if you were the person who told me about the best transit rides in SF and about the Mt. Clemens MI railroad museum.
You'd've had a hard time forgetting me — I had so many full-size ribbons that my badge looked like a sandwich-board. (The icon on this message was taken only a year later.) But I don't remember that conversation, and I didn't know that Mt. Clemens MI had a railroad museum. (Lots of transit/train buffs in Fandom, eh?)
because she merely wanted to use Nick's words as an excuse to flounce.
This, of course, is not my claim at all.
You said you "dislike having my comments mischaracterized by Cheryl as fuel for her flounce" here that Cheryl was using your "tweet as part of a protacted claim of Worst! Hugo! Reactions! In Memory! and as fuel for an extended flounce from a wide variety of fannish activities is straight-up lying" here. As far as I can tell, you believe she used the Twitter discussion as a reason (i.e. as "fuel") to flounce.
Why would I simply repeat it was a metaphor if someone else in the convo had already said so?
They were your words, it was entirely up to you to confirm and clarify what you meant. Others could only speculate, which is exactly what they did. Rosefox said she thought it was metaphor, effjayem thought it was a US versus UK definition issue. Neither response is definitive.
FWIW, I thought it was completely obvious that it was a metaphor, and not in any way a suggestion that the Hugos or Hugo-runners are crooked, corrupt, etc. I just felt it would be rude to both Nick ("let me speak on your behalf!") and Cheryl ("you are so totally wrong!") if I phrased it that way.
I would like to give this comment from Seth Ellis a bump, since it's buried on the margins.
Let me just say that, as it seems to me, the Hugo is trying to have it both ways: when we're celebrating the winners, it's fandom speaking to itself; when the process is commented on, it's a club award. It ends up being neither fish nor fowl.
Orthogonal to the original topic, but really worth saying and well said, I think.
Let me just say that, as it seems to me, the Hugo is trying to have it both ways: when we're celebrating the winners, it's fandom speaking to itself; when the process is commented on, it's a club award. It ends up being neither fish nor fowl.
Orthogonal to the original topic, but really worth saying and well said, I think.
Let me just say that, as it seems to me, the Hugo is trying to have it both ways: when we're celebrating the winners, it's fandom speaking to itself; when the process is commented on, it's a club award. It ends up being neither fish nor fowl.
Very well said, and linked from the top of a new thread because otherwise no one's going to see it buried over here in the margins.
Very well said, and linked from the top of a new thread because otherwise no one's going to see it buried over here in the margins.
Fair enough. However, I still believe that the only way Cheryl could have confirmed Nick meant it as a metaphor is if Nick himself had said so.
While at first I thought Cheryl was overreacting to think "crooked, corrupt, etc." when hearing the phrase, I hopped on to Google and looked "crooked game" up. It's used to describe rigged gambling, the 1919 Black Sox scandal, corruption and fraud, describing President Obama as "running a crooked game," etc. In the context of everything else said in that Twitter discussion as well as days' worth of blog posts and comments, I can now see where she was coming from.
While at first I thought Cheryl was overreacting to think "crooked, corrupt, etc." when hearing the phrase, I hopped on to Google and looked "crooked game" up. It's used to describe rigged gambling, the 1919 Black Sox scandal, corruption and fraud, describing President Obama as "running a crooked game," etc. In the context of everything else said in that Twitter discussion as well as days' worth of blog posts and comments, I can now see where she was coming from.
That's certainly the way I would interpret "crooked game." It definitely sounds like allegations of corruption or results-rigging. Given how carefully we try to ring-fence the administrators, it's a very serious allegation.
I said US elections are corrupt because of money, and recommended that you look up Lessig, whose views you have misrepresented here. I explicitly rejected the point of view (regarding the Hugos) that you're trying to foist on me here for your own rhetorical convenience. Dishonesty in the service of dishonesty: the only play in the Mamatas playbook.
Maybe because The Connie swept in with a Best Novel nomination in 2002 and finished third, or because she swept in with a Best Novel nomination in 1996 and finished fifth? I thought Blackout and All Clear were terrible, but the rest of the novel field wasn't all that strong either. I think Nnedi Okorafor's Who Fears Death, which had the sixth highest number of nominations, was better than anything on the ballot, and I don't think it's at all absurd to suggest that Connie Willis might have done worse against stronger competition, and that we might be celebrating Nnedi Okorafor's first Hugo win if just four more people had nominated her.
My objection, of course, and totally obviously, is to your claim that it was "merely" my words as an excuse.
She used a fair amount of bullshit misinformation and disinformation as fuel, including my words. There was certainly other fuel too, as I've mentioned.
As far as what you think is up to me, kindly do yourself the favor of being slightly less ridiculous. I see that Rose, again, already remarked on how friggin' obvious my comments were. I simply don't think someone who looks at my tweet, and wants to intimate that I am falsely accusing someone of a crime, needs much more than two patient explanations and one less-patient denial.
She used a fair amount of bullshit misinformation and disinformation as fuel, including my words. There was certainly other fuel too, as I've mentioned.
As far as what you think is up to me, kindly do yourself the favor of being slightly less ridiculous. I see that Rose, again, already remarked on how friggin' obvious my comments were. I simply don't think someone who looks at my tweet, and wants to intimate that I am falsely accusing someone of a crime, needs much more than two patient explanations and one less-patient denial.
The fact that Connie's lost a few times doesn't mean she wasn't a shoo-in this time, given her victories with the Nebula and the Locus, the nine-year wait, the fifty dollar pricetag, etc.
I thought there was an exceptionally excellent novel on the ballot this year—Nora Jemisin's.
I thought there was an exceptionally excellent novel on the ballot this year—Nora Jemisin's.
Yes, as I pointed out, people who saw the Twitter convo first can tell what a metaphor is. People who saw Cheryl's ridiculous flounce first can't. Mission accomplished for Cheryl.
I said US elections are corrupt because of money, and recommended that you look up Lessig, whose views you have misrepresented here.
And I did look him up: he describes the problem as special interest money, and would prefer public funding. How on Earth is, "He says they are corrupt due to special interests, most specifically corporate interests," at all a misrepresentation of what Lessig said? Don't just declare and fume and hope against hope that acting all upset will sway third parties, actually explain yourself. Go on, do it.
And then tell me, if special interests are also present in Hugo voting, how they are non-corrupting. I'm totally open to the possibility that they are, because, for example, no matter what special interest wins, it's still an SF writer or book winning. But that doesn't say much about the quality of the Hugos, does it?
So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics. As I said before and you now confirm (although you again distort his views). Lessig's opinions in the article you link do not support the naive wail about political processes that you perpetually try to pin on me for your rhetorical convenience. (If they did, I'd disavow Lessig.)
As usual, you are dishonest in the service of your dishonesty.
As usual, you are dishonest in the service of your dishonesty.
So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics.
Wow, you really do have a substantial reading comprehension problem. "Money" as a freestanding concept or social phenomenon or plain ol' physcial object corrupts US politics? Gosh, don't you think it would be difficult to publicly fund political campaigns (Lessig's solution) without money of any sort? Maybe you really think money itself is the problem—which would be strange, since money has been involved since Day 1, while special interests haven't—but clearly Lessig does not. More likely if you acknowledged what Lessig actually says, you'd then have to explain why Hugo special interests aren't corrupting, and you don't want to do that.
The link makes it pretty clear that Lessig thinks special interests, specifically corporate interests (as opposed to say, labor unions, I presume) are the problem. Money is the tool they use to "capture" the government. But no, boiling down the problem to money is itself a mischaracterization of both Lessig and of reality.
Btw, here's another Lessig link, the content of which he wrote himself. The headline? Special Interests Prepare to Derail Obama Agenda
And another, from the "about" page of a group he founded: But with special interests funneling millions of dollars into our elections—and a new Supreme Court ruling giving corporations and unions even more power to control our government—we can never have that confidence. (Whoops, I guess I don't even have to summarize Lessig as being wary of only corporate interests—unions are a problem too!)
An LA Times commentary by Lessig, which includes what he wishes President Obama would have said at his inauguration: "America has spoken. It has demanded fundamental change. I commit to work with Congress to produce it. But if we fail, or more precisely, if Congress allows the special interests that control it to block change, then it will be time to remake Congress. Not by throwing out the Democrats or the Republicans, but by throwing out both. If this Congress fails to deliver change, then we will change Congress." In the same piece, Lessig recommends a seven-year ban on "lobbying" as well as public funding.
And you really want to claim, "So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics" when Lessig is explicit that special interests are the problem...because they have money and the ability to spend it, of course! What gibberish. So we're back to where we are the beginning of the day: you can't read. That's not an ad hominem, not an attack, just a plain and simple conclusion.
I'm not misrepresenting Lessig. You are. Whether stupidly or willfully hardly matters—but that's what you're doing, and what you've been doing all day. The links are here for anyone to read.
"So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics." What a joke.
Wow, you really do have a substantial reading comprehension problem. "Money" as a freestanding concept or social phenomenon or plain ol' physcial object corrupts US politics? Gosh, don't you think it would be difficult to publicly fund political campaigns (Lessig's solution) without money of any sort? Maybe you really think money itself is the problem—which would be strange, since money has been involved since Day 1, while special interests haven't—but clearly Lessig does not. More likely if you acknowledged what Lessig actually says, you'd then have to explain why Hugo special interests aren't corrupting, and you don't want to do that.
The link makes it pretty clear that Lessig thinks special interests, specifically corporate interests (as opposed to say, labor unions, I presume) are the problem. Money is the tool they use to "capture" the government. But no, boiling down the problem to money is itself a mischaracterization of both Lessig and of reality.
Btw, here's another Lessig link, the content of which he wrote himself. The headline? Special Interests Prepare to Derail Obama Agenda
And another, from the "about" page of a group he founded: But with special interests funneling millions of dollars into our elections—and a new Supreme Court ruling giving corporations and unions even more power to control our government—we can never have that confidence. (Whoops, I guess I don't even have to summarize Lessig as being wary of only corporate interests—unions are a problem too!)
An LA Times commentary by Lessig, which includes what he wishes President Obama would have said at his inauguration: "America has spoken. It has demanded fundamental change. I commit to work with Congress to produce it. But if we fail, or more precisely, if Congress allows the special interests that control it to block change, then it will be time to remake Congress. Not by throwing out the Democrats or the Republicans, but by throwing out both. If this Congress fails to deliver change, then we will change Congress." In the same piece, Lessig recommends a seven-year ban on "lobbying" as well as public funding.
And you really want to claim, "So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics" when Lessig is explicit that special interests are the problem...because they have money and the ability to spend it, of course! What gibberish. So we're back to where we are the beginning of the day: you can't read. That's not an ad hominem, not an attack, just a plain and simple conclusion.
I'm not misrepresenting Lessig. You are. Whether stupidly or willfully hardly matters—but that's what you're doing, and what you've been doing all day. The links are here for anyone to read.
"So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics." What a joke.
I never said which I read first. It was the Twitter conversation, simply because it was the first link in jamesenge's comment. Then I read Cheryl's post.
Unfortunately, seeing James's semiliterate comment first is no better.
As a Vorkosigan fan of long standing I quite liked Cryoburn -- but mostly because of how it fits in the arc. Best SF novel of the year; not even close.
It's weird that the innovation of the voting packet, which has served to massively increase the voting membership of the Worldcon, has if anything led to a reduction in the quality of the award.
It's weird that the innovation of the voting packet, which has served to massively increase the voting membership of the Worldcon, has if anything led to a reduction in the quality of the award.
My objection, of course, and totally obviously, is to your claim that it was "merely" my words as an excuse.
She used a fair amount of bullshit misinformation and disinformation as fuel, including my words. There was certainly other fuel too, as I've mentioned.
What I said may not be grammatically correct, but I thought it was clear. Since it wasn't, let me clarify: The phrase I used was "she merely wanted" to use your words, not "she merely used" your words. There was no intended implication that she only used your words. In fact, in that very post you keep quoting, I said, "she has multiple reasons that go far beyond what was said in the brief Twitter exchange with Nick."
So yes, of course, there was other "fuel." Absolutely, and I said so from the beginning. I don't agree that it was bullshit, though.
She used a fair amount of bullshit misinformation and disinformation as fuel, including my words. There was certainly other fuel too, as I've mentioned.
What I said may not be grammatically correct, but I thought it was clear. Since it wasn't, let me clarify: The phrase I used was "she merely wanted" to use your words, not "she merely used" your words. There was no intended implication that she only used your words. In fact, in that very post you keep quoting, I said, "she has multiple reasons that go far beyond what was said in the brief Twitter exchange with Nick."
So yes, of course, there was other "fuel." Absolutely, and I said so from the beginning. I don't agree that it was bullshit, though.
You're contending that fifty-dollar price tags increase an author's chance of winning the Hugo? Really? Are you even trying to make sense?
Connie's 779 to 753 victory over a novel as weak as Feed doesn't scream shoo-in to me. And while I agree that A Hundred Thousand Kingdoms was excellent and the best book on the ballot, I think its 744 to 750 loss against Cryoburn in a head-to-head matchup indicates that its appeal to the Hugo voting public just wasn't as strong as it needed to be. (I don't think its early elimination indicates that; I suspect that if The Dervish House had been eliminated first, it would have picked up a bunch of second-place votes.)
It's possible that Who Fears Death or Kraken wouldn't have fared any better if they'd made the ballot, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they would have lost.
Connie's 779 to 753 victory over a novel as weak as Feed doesn't scream shoo-in to me. And while I agree that A Hundred Thousand Kingdoms was excellent and the best book on the ballot, I think its 744 to 750 loss against Cryoburn in a head-to-head matchup indicates that its appeal to the Hugo voting public just wasn't as strong as it needed to be. (I don't think its early elimination indicates that; I suspect that if The Dervish House had been eliminated first, it would have picked up a bunch of second-place votes.)
It's possible that Who Fears Death or Kraken wouldn't have fared any better if they'd made the ballot, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they would have lost.
So yes, of course, there was other "fuel." Absolutely, and I said so from the beginning.
So did I. But what you had to say was:
Not that I don't think she's flouncing because I genuinely do, but her post makes it clear that she has multiple reasons that go far beyond what was said in the brief Twitter exchange with Nick.
But her post...in contrast to what alternative claim out there? Certainly not anything I claimed. My very first comment mentions the complete exchange with Lavie, whose initial comment kicked off the kerfluffle.
So did I. But what you had to say was:
Not that I don't think she's flouncing because I genuinely do, but her post makes it clear that she has multiple reasons that go far beyond what was said in the brief Twitter exchange with Nick.
But her post...in contrast to what alternative claim out there? Certainly not anything I claimed. My very first comment mentions the complete exchange with Lavie, whose initial comment kicked off the kerfluffle.
Page 5 of 7