Reminder: The Audio For “John Scalzi is Not a Popular Author” is Up!

I said I would post the audiobook version today, but we got to our stretch goal of $10,000 so fast I posted it over the weekend to thank people. So for those of you who don’t loiter on the Internet during the weekends, the complete audio, including the downloadable version, is here. Go get it!

I’m also super-pleased to say that as of 7:45 this morning, we raised $10,987.59 for Con or Bust, which funds conventions memberships for people of color. That’s a lot of convention memberships, and I’m really proud that of that accomplishment.

(Also, for those worried about it, an update on Con or Bust’s tax-deduction status; the short version is that it’s pretty likely you’ll be able to take that charitable deduction come tax time. So yay!)

My thanks to Alexandra Erin, who (as Theo Pratt) wrote something that it was a joy to narrate, and to Kate Nepveu, who as the administrator of Con or Bust kept track of incoming donations. I had the easy part; I just had to speak into a microphone. They did all the work.

And thank you, if you were one of the folks who donated to Con or Bust. It’s good to do good. And also, it’s not too late — you can still donate if you like.

24 thoughts on “Reminder: The Audio For “John Scalzi is Not a Popular Author” is Up!

  1. Thereby proving that you are among the most abject of social justice warriors. *G* Which, to be clear, I consider to be a good thing. I can already hear the gnashing of puppy teeth… Virtue is its own reward, but schadenfreude sometimes makes it a more piquant reward.

  2. At last, I know the correct pronunciation of “Scalzi”* – though I shall now forever hear it in my mind with that hilarious accent.

    *I had wondered if “Scal” rhymed with “Al”.

  3. I read Vox Day’s book “SJWs always lie.” The section where he talks about your lying about page views seems petty (although probably mostly true) and I don’t think he should have included that chapter as it is the weakest part of the book.

    That said, the fact that he got such a time-consuming response from you John is proof that he really rustled your jimmies.

    @Geoff, SJW is nothing good. Real justice warriors fight for real justice. Torgersen fighting ISIS is a good example. SJWs fight rhetorical battles to try to present a narrative that is false at every turn. At least Torgersen has a change at winning against ISIS. SJWs can never win because really can never be properly suppressed.

    John if you really want to help WorldCon to be more diversified, make a scholarship for folks under age 50.

  4. “What SCALZI… you… you… How DARE you raise money for a good cause

    All things considered, I’m glad my few bucks can help someone have a good time… and cause someone else to apoplex all over himself.

  5. @Dan – I’m not so sure I’d want to take tips about what reality is from someone who can say, “That said, the fact that he got such a time-consuming response from you John is proof that he really rustled your jimmies.”

  6. @ “Dan” As wonderful as JSINAVPAAIMAQP is, it might be a bit early for a sequel. Churn them out too fast and the joke will get stale. Wait until VD publishes something new so you’ll have some new material or you’ll just be repeating yourself like VD’s minions of a later season of The Big Bang Theory.

    Also, best to stick with the Pratt pseudonym. Brand identification is important. Theophilus is a recognizable name. “Dan” could be any old random copy-paste of a VD blog post rather than a genuine Pratt.

  7. Dan:

    “That said, the fact that he got such a time-consuming response from you John is proof that he really rustled your jimmies.”

    It wasn’t that time-consuming, to be honest. All the reads were done in one take and uploading and posting them took almost no time at all.

    So, production and publication, all told: About an hour of my time. And in exchange for that hour of time, I raised $11,000 dollars for a charity that helps to make science fiction and fantasy more diverse. $11,000 for an hour of work is a nice rate, and I think most people would agree.

    In any event, you misattribute why I made the recording. I didn’t make the recording because a sad little racist shitheel “rustled my jimmies.” I hardly notice his man-crush these days. I did it because people asked for a recording, and I thought, well, here’s another opportunity to do something useful for my community with a charity drive. Had there been no interest from others, I wouldn’t have bothered. From the perspective of why I did it, the sad little racist shitheel hardly enters into it at all.

    I do understand that he would love to “rustle my jimmies.” That’s been evident for years. But I’m afraid he will have to continue to yearn unfulfilled, the poor dear.

  8. Who the hell says “rustled your jimmies” except ironically nowadays, anyway? I never hear it from average folk, and only from hipsters speaking in very ironic/sarcastic tones.

    John’s jimmies don’t rustle easy, in any case. He’s not the one calling the phone company for stats, devoting many Chapter 5’s to one other person, etc. unlike RSHD and his silly little man-crush.

    To be fair, John probably did spend more time recording this than RSHD spent writing his.

    Reality has a liberal bias.

    @Mister Dalliard: did you mean “or” instead of “of” in 1st para, last sentence?

    $11K and a bunch of laughs for an hour’s work is quite good, indeed. It’ll be great to see more people without a surfeit of melanin at cons.

    Well done to Alexandra, John, and the donors.

  9. “Torgersen fighting ISIS is a good example. … At least Torgersen has a change at winning against ISIS.”

    I love how often this is getting thrown around by the Puppies. It’s technically true, of course, but it makes it sound like he’s an army of one. I see Jason Statham playing him in the movie with an M4 rifle in one hand and a dog-eared copy of The Golden Age of Science Fiction in the other.

  10. Lurkertype: It’ll be great to see more people without a surfeit of melanin at cons.

    Er–don’t you mean “with”? (Or am I seriously misunderstanding what melanin is?)

  11. @ Lurkertype – Yes, I meant ‘or’. Damn my sloppy typing and less than awesome proofreading. I’m going to call that a Chapter 5 error.

  12. @Mary Frances: ack! You are correct. Inevitable since I corrected Mister D on a much lesser error.

    I meant “deficit”, of course. Or “with”. Make one change or the other, as it suits.

    I have three Chapter 5’s!

  13. “I do understand that he would love to “rustle my jimmies.” That’s been evident for years. But I’m afraid he will have to continue to yearn unfulfilled, the poor dear. ”

    Lol! Based on your communications with Amazon to censor a bit of non-defamation by one of Vox’s minions, something very bad must have happened to your jimmies.

    Left-leaning legal expert Popehat said it wasn’t even close to defamation.
    http://popehat.com/2015/09/02/satire-vs-potentially-defamatory-factual-statements-an-illustration/

    Vox says ‘SJWs always lie’, and we have two right here:
    (1) Your fibs to Amazon calling the satire about you defamation, in order to get it removed. Legally untrue by a mile and a half.
    (2) That your jimmies remain in good form. If you can give but not receive satire then I fear your jimmies are not only rustled, but also rumpled, and very possibly despoiled.
    Don’t go proving Vox right!

  14. Sell it on audible, proceeds to charity. That should be fun to watch.

    At cons do fundraisers, with various celebrity folks reading it. In character. IE: Keith David reading as The Arbiter from Halo.

  15. @ Dan:

    Based on your communications with Amazon to censor a bit of non-defamation by one of Vox’s minions

    1) You of course have proof that the complaint came from Scalzi? That there even was a complaint, as opposed to quality control / liability avoidance activity internal to Amazon?
    2) Also: you have proof that the defamatory publication was released by “one of Vox’s minions”? How are we defining “minions” here? Is it your assertion that the defamation was ordered by that minon’s master? Are you defaming Vox here?

    Left-leaning legal expert Popehat

    Um, no. First of all, “Popehat” is a blog, not a person. It has multiple authors. The one your refer to is named “Ken White”. Popehat in general and White in particular are not remotely regarded as “left-leaning”. It is my impression that they are considered generally to be a blend of libertarian and conservative.

    said it wasn’t even close to defamation

    Yes, one person said this, referring to the law in one venue. The book is available in multiple countries, many of which would take a libel or slander claim more seriously, and some of which might hold the publisher liable. And even this claim is a bit absurd: the title is practically the definition of “defamation”, and the notion that it’s a satire rather than a statement of fact is a contention that would be difficult to prove, even in venues where this counts as a defense.

    I will leave alone all your statements about “jimmies”.

  16. 1) You of course have proof that the complaint came from Scalzi?

    Yes, Scalzi admitted as much.

    [The rest of this comment deleted because it’s mostly about insulting another commenter – JS]

  17. Dan:

    Re: “Jimmy Rustling”:

    Inasmuch as the racist shitheel in question denies having anything to do with the deleted piece, unless you can show that he did, conflating the two events into a single “rustling” experience is poor logic. They were two separate events, and unrelated. And as it happens, taking care of the second one took even less time than the first. Barely a rustle of the jimmies at all!

    Beyond that, of course, I’m aware of several people reporting the piece. There is no evidence that any one of the reports was the one Amazon worked off of to pull it.

    In any event, it was Amazon’s decision, not anyone else’s; I suppose they must have decided the work contravened its publishing agreement and shouldn’t have been published there at all. I suggest you take up any complaints you might have with them.

    As regards censorship: don’t be silly. Amazon is not the government and the author in question, whomever they are, can post it on their own website, where Amazon’s perfidious rules and ability to enforce them do not reach.

    In any event, inasmuch as the second bit is allegedly entirely unrelated to the piece under discussion, let’s go ahead and close discussion of it here. It’s off topic.

    And Dan, be more polite to others here, please.

Comments are closed.