Masculine in general means direct in speech, confident in action, coolheaded in combat, lethal in war, honorable in tourney or melee, cunning in wit, unerring in deduction, glib in speech, and confident and bold in all things.
He continues:
Feminine in general means being more delicate in speech, either when delivering a coy insult or when buoying up drooping spirits. Femininity requires not the sudden and angry bravery of war and combat, but the slow and loving and patient bravery of rearing children and dealing with childish menfolk. … The female spirit is wise rather than cunning, deep in understanding rather than adroit in deductive logic, gentle and supportive rather than boastful and self-aggrandizing.
I hope Sad Puppies kick your asses (because the idea of the status quo being changed shouldn't be taken as "hacking", but as a sign of your awards reflecting the culture).
I don't understand what you mean. You're hoping the Sad Puppies succeed in overtaking the Hugos because you would see this as a reflection of the culture?
I'm seeing a bunch of conservative old men who are resisting change because it takes them out of the top spot. I would call it "hacking" specifically because it's changing the awards to reflect a minority position, not the general culture.
Yep. Campaigning and networking to get your side picked is as old as dirt. It's not like anyone calls the presidential campaigns cheating. With some new players on the field, it's about time that the people in the top spot have to fight to keep their position.
That's voting culture for just about anything people care about. It's time it came to the Hugo awards.
I would call it "hacking" specifically because it's changing the awards to reflect a minority position, not the general culture.
A minority position in what? People who vote for the Hugo awards or people who like science fiction? I don't think the Hugo awards are actually indicative of what the SF fans across the board enjoys and any upcoming "minority" position is only a minority in sway and power, not actual numbers.
If you can rally and network and actually win, then I see it as SF fans realizing they have voices in their community that matter.
I'd agree with you, except the Sad Puppies thing is a clear attempt at manipulating the vote in an effort to conduct what I'd consider a culture war. You might say it's just gaming the system and thus acceptable, but I find the goal to be despicable. Partly because it's an attempt at stifling diversity, and partly because people doing it are voting in terms of furthering an agenda instead of recognizing absolute quality.
To be clear, I don't really care for Sad Puppies. Their very name says they want to flaunt themselves as the pitiful underdogs to gather votes, and I don't really buy into that.
But I cannot refute the need to fight against the complacency around the voting for one of the biggest SF awards. It'll be hard to make this some sort of two-party system like US politics, but once it's shown that the award winners aren't all old white men conservatives, it will open up the awards to any writer with a large enough and dedicated fan base.
Sometimes a ~war~ is what's needed to overthrow an ~outdated tyrant~.
I think the idea that an award being currupt because the wrong sort of people win is stupid. I don't care if you're a giant sandworm if your stuff is great you deserve to win.
Who said anything about wrong sort? I'm just tired of the same sort. If the same old people win, then it's not about deserving, it's homogenous culture voting for the same type of stuff.
It depends, are the same people winning because of collusion or because they turn out good scifi. I think there's a bias in the other argument as well, the bias that assumes that because white males win the awards, that it's collusion.
It's the target audience for the genre, just like romance is consumed by women or poetry is consumed by hipsters. Hit your target and your one of the top writers for the genre. I don't see it as a problem that a genre loved by white male twenty something's is rewarding the writing that appeals to white male twenty something's.
But it's not the Same Old People. Ann Leckie won for her debut novel last year, and the Puppies HATE her. "The Wind-up Girl" won in 2009, and "Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell" in 2009. Both Brad and Larry were Campbell Nominees.
The bullshit that just assaulted my eyeballs:
He continues:
I hope Sad Puppies kick your asses (because the idea of the status quo being changed shouldn't be taken as "hacking", but as a sign of your awards reflecting the culture).
I don't understand what you mean. You're hoping the Sad Puppies succeed in overtaking the Hugos because you would see this as a reflection of the culture?
I'm seeing a bunch of conservative old men who are resisting change because it takes them out of the top spot. I would call it "hacking" specifically because it's changing the awards to reflect a minority position, not the general culture.
Yep. Campaigning and networking to get your side picked is as old as dirt. It's not like anyone calls the presidential campaigns cheating. With some new players on the field, it's about time that the people in the top spot have to fight to keep their position.
That's voting culture for just about anything people care about. It's time it came to the Hugo awards.
A minority position in what? People who vote for the Hugo awards or people who like science fiction? I don't think the Hugo awards are actually indicative of what the SF fans across the board enjoys and any upcoming "minority" position is only a minority in sway and power, not actual numbers.
If you can rally and network and actually win, then I see it as SF fans realizing they have voices in their community that matter.
I'd agree with you, except the Sad Puppies thing is a clear attempt at manipulating the vote in an effort to conduct what I'd consider a culture war. You might say it's just gaming the system and thus acceptable, but I find the goal to be despicable. Partly because it's an attempt at stifling diversity, and partly because people doing it are voting in terms of furthering an agenda instead of recognizing absolute quality.
To be clear, I don't really care for Sad Puppies. Their very name says they want to flaunt themselves as the pitiful underdogs to gather votes, and I don't really buy into that.
But I cannot refute the need to fight against the complacency around the voting for one of the biggest SF awards. It'll be hard to make this some sort of two-party system like US politics, but once it's shown that the award winners aren't all old white men conservatives, it will open up the awards to any writer with a large enough and dedicated fan base.
Sometimes a ~war~ is what's needed to overthrow an ~outdated tyrant~.
I think the idea that an award being currupt because the wrong sort of people win is stupid. I don't care if you're a giant sandworm if your stuff is great you deserve to win.
Who said anything about wrong sort? I'm just tired of the same sort. If the same old people win, then it's not about deserving, it's homogenous culture voting for the same type of stuff.
It depends, are the same people winning because of collusion or because they turn out good scifi. I think there's a bias in the other argument as well, the bias that assumes that because white males win the awards, that it's collusion.
It's the target audience for the genre, just like romance is consumed by women or poetry is consumed by hipsters. Hit your target and your one of the top writers for the genre. I don't see it as a problem that a genre loved by white male twenty something's is rewarding the writing that appeals to white male twenty something's.
But it's not the Same Old People. Ann Leckie won for her debut novel last year, and the Puppies HATE her. "The Wind-up Girl" won in 2009, and "Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell" in 2009. Both Brad and Larry were Campbell Nominees.