I got it as a freebie ARC at BEA. I adored it (still do). I book talk it to teenage girls (and boys). It’s funny and fun and thoughtful and such a great ride. If you’ve read Diary of Anne Frank, Persepolis and wassname, the Zlata diary about the girl surviving Sarajevo you percieve Scalzi nailed the girl-in-the-warzone-experience.

Had I been a Worldcon member (I was an attendee only once) I’d have nominated Zoe’s Tale in a heartbeat.

I have since read every Scalzi (Okay, but not Zoe’s Tale) and found “Whatever” (okay, but I don’t have it bookmarked) and only ended up here via My Elves are Different.

So there you are.

Given the idiocies of all sorts that people appear to believe, Robert’s comment is of course capable of being believed. Being believed, however, is no great trick, nor is it the same thing as being notably credible.

The rest of your comment is just silly, low-grade snark.

I don’t feel incensed to the degree that people seem to, though. I can understand that if I had been nominated I wouldn’t want my work being called mediocre, that’s a little offensive, but as a fan, and in a lot of cases a slavish, drooling, and uncritical fan, I don’t feel offended by someone wanting the Hugo to go to something more challenging. I think he misses the point of the award and is wishing an apple to be an orange, but ‘whatever’, his opinion is valid – the Nebulas are generally not awarded to ‘challenging’ fiction. So. What.

It probably speaks of the times we live in that thirty or forty years ago opinions like his were more common and recieved a much different reaction. The fire that he is trying to stoke is barely an ember. Though I applaud your political restraint, John, the fire that you are stoking here is already a raging beast, and all of it unnecessary.

Man makes credible comment on fandom.

Fandom treats comment as if it were incredible.

Man reveals his low opinion of certain books.

Fandom reveals its low opinion of certain folks.

Raise your game, fandom.

Author@Google:Neal Stephenson.

“I’m skeptical of readings as a book tour reading event because I think bookish people are a little bit different [. . .] Someone who never goes out in public is going to walk into a room and read out loud from a book.”

“Chewing on a deep-fried Coke and sipping from a half-gallon Slurpee, a Hugo voter thinks. “Hmm, let me think. [chew] Should I vote for the ‘writer,’ [chew] the literary genius who brought Snow Crash and The Diamond Age into the world, [gulp] or those guys who . . . READ well at book tour events. [gulp].””

It’s interesting that because one writer doesn’t believe “bookish people” will be good in public or at a reading that you accept the premise for all people. I guess if you use it as a discriminator instead of a facet of a person, that is, anyone who is a good reader is automatically NOT bookish, then well, it’s self-fulfilling. Anyone who reads their books well, or even is interested in reading their books is not a good author. It’s attitude’s like this that cause readers to point and say, “what an ivory tower duche bag!” I’m not going to attribute to Stephenson the thought that bookish people are superior, or make better authors, but you are clearly reaching that conclusion.

Oh, and way to “help” with the insulting thought that hugo readers are some amorphous lump of humanity, swilling coke zero (sorry john) and slurpees. Suffice to say, your over-generalization is incorrect, as they over-generally are.

I have no problem with Mr. Roberts being a college professor. Many SFF writers have been, college professors are often hardcore SFF fans, and have been important allies in advocating SFF as literature. Mr. Roberts did a book on the history of SF and good for him.

My problem with Mr. Roberts’ tired rant – and it is a rant – is that it does not illuminate anything, merely chastises, offering up opinions under the dubious claim of an educational deficit. Mr. Roberts mythologizes and exaggerates. Prominent, well-known author McAuley becomes obscure and overlooked; Stephenson and Gaiman, viewed as odd, literary, game-changing writers by most of the critical world, become commercial hacks; the hardcore SFF fans who pony up the cash to vote the Hugos – including SFF writers, critics, professors, etc. – are painted as clueless, uncaring bumpkins who seek only simple and familiar stories. He tries to objectify the subjective, to claim that there is an objective standard of good writing and style, and that he knows what it is. And he throws in the teenage rebellion snark of him being the cool guy and those who disagree with him being squares who disappoint him.

You can hear this viewpoint from non-fans and many SFF fans every fifteen minutes as soon as they find out other people don’t share their tastes. As Roberts is a historic SFF scholar, it is rather strange that he doesn’t recognize the erroneous cyclical nature of the complaint – that genres that are constantly moving and evolving at increasing speed in numerous directions with unlimited potential across the globe are instead claimed for nearly a century to be in danger of stagnation and decay, often imminent death; that authors acclaimed for their underappreciated innovation and literary acumen are in the next decade derided as populist pap in favor of someone newer on the scene. (You can tell McAuley to look forward to being called a commercial hack in the future. Meanwhile, the New Media fans no doubt find the notion “quaint” that any print author is considered an original and challenging storyteller.)

As Roberts is a SF fan, it is also strange that he doesn’t get that with fans, discouragement and disapproval, the use of the word “don’t,” will be ignored or snarled at, while encouragement and “do” always receives a listen and often a welcome. As he is a SF writer, it is further strange that Roberts seems so unable in his kvetch to put himself in someone else’s viewpoint, and to consider insights from a different perspective than his own judgment. And as he is a teacher, it’s depressingly strange that he seems to reject opening others’ eyes to possibilities and developing their own assessments, in favor of closing minds according to a rigid set of rules limiting critical thought.

Mr. Roberts’ arguments are old, traditional, unoriginal, fossilized and obsolete. Most of all, they are extremely conformist, advocating a knee-jerk, played-out formula of goodness – the status quo of claiming to be fighting the status quo. I may very well like and think highly of Mr. Roberts as a SF writer – he is intelligent and articulate enough. But I have to agree with Scalzi that as a critical essayist, he is here lacking, offering very little that is new and interesting. Instead, it is saddening, as Roberts wants us to take in and appreciate only one dimension of storytelling, one color of the sunrise. We left such views behind for a wider horizon a long time ago.

And if that was too long to read, let’s just go with this: Been there, heard it before, not interested. I do hope, though, that at some convention among the mindless masses, he and Scalzi can grab a beer and have a proper argument.

And Wax, you should take your own advice. Taking Scalzi to task for taking Roberts to task is the very definition of irony. Worse is that you, willfully or otherwise, completely missed Scalzi’s point, which has been well spelled-out repeatedly on this thread. W., I’m afraid you receive a FAIL. Please pick up your consolation prizes at the door.

What Scalzi was doing was criticizing Roberts’ rant, not the claims about the books in it.

1) ‘Rant’ is a childish term to use for such a metered piece.

2) But so what? You were even less careful in your paraphrase:

Please try to be less fail-tastic in the future, or I will be forced to once again assume that the reason you select the Hugo nominees you do has in fact nothing to do with the fact you actually like the books, because that would just be silly.

You do understand that ‘liking’ isn’t being denigrated here, right? Of course Roberts understands that fannish enthusiasm is the reason the Hugo books get nominated and voted for. The man’s a pretty serious fucking historian and scholar of science fiction after all. My take on his ‘rant’ is: ‘”Fandom is just, y’know, fandom” isn’t actually a sensible justification for lack of literary discernment.’ Combined with, I suppose, ‘We should advertise our field more skillfully.’ And to preempt the obvious criticism: ‘I know the Hugos are a popularity contest, but we’re not in high school anymore, and we’re allowed to stop having those.’

Shiiiit, I’ve had a good deal of wine tonight but even so I can imagine critically responding to Roberts’s post without adolescent condescension or the laughable abjection of ‘Why doesn’t this British cunt just buy a membership and cast his one goddamn vote if he’s so all-fired special?!’

Time to spend time more sensibly,
W.