|
Patrick Spens posted:The Puppies have generally terrible taste, but they were not wrong that most Hugo voters weight cliquishness and having the right politics heavier than they should. As someone who actually goes to Worldcon and considers themselves at least somewhat involved in Fandom this is such a load of poo poo. Sure there are cliques, but they revolve around who fucks who. Nobody gives a poo poo what your politics are in a scene where grown people play dress-up and routinely fantasize about rayguns and cat-people.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:The Puppies have generally terrible taste, but they were not wrong that most Hugo voters weight cliquishness and having the right politics heavier than they should. You just have to The Hugo's look at lot like a club that pulled up the drawbridge a long time ago. They are only outdone by pure sadness of association by the puppies who really want to join, but aren't the right kind of misogynist. Biomute posted:Fandom Rhymes with condom, makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:yeah uh this is the thing that I was thinking we shouldn't do I'm not trying to start a fight, and I think we can discuss and talk about these things without everything going to poo poo. n4 posted:As someone who's never paid attention to the Hugos, what are some other winners that might be attributed to this? I get it in terms of the Ancillary series. This is the kind of question that might start a fight, so, sorry Miss Bomarc. John Scalzi's Redshirts was the first time I can remember reading a Hugo winner and just being baffled that it won, and I usually like Scalzi. He also got nominated for Zoe's Tale which was ok, but uninspired. Cat Pictures Please by Naomi Kritzer has a cute premise, but is self-satisfied schlock. And If You Were a Dinosaur My Love has been a puppy chew toy for years mostly because whatever your opinion of its merits (I thought it was pretty good) it was not speculative fiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I'm just gonna shamelessly plug my own novel series here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VVU7164 But how will I know what the breasts look like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Rocksicles posted:But how will I know what the breasts look like? The same way Puppies know how breasts feel: imagination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
n4 posted:As someone who's never paid attention to the Hugos, what are some other winners that might be attributed to this? I get it in terms of the Ancillary series.  Sorry, did the 2016 Hugo get changed from "The Fifth Season" to "all of the Ancillary books" when I wasn't looking or something? "The Ancillary series" didn't win a Hugo, Ancillary Justice did. Just because you found Sword and Mercy disappointing doesn't retroactively make Justice worse. You could reasonably argue that the 2014 Hugo should have gone to Neptune's Brood instead, but it's not like the clearly inferior book won here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Started Shadow of Victory. Put it down less than half way through. God, what a boring book. Let's repeat the same scene of people plotting over and over again, mixing in facile commentary about events in other books.  Seriously, gently caress this book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Started Shadow of Victory. Put it down less than half way through. God, what a boring book. Let's repeat the same scene of people plotting over and over again, mixing in facile commentary about events in other books. I think it is literally weber's worst book. Despite rehashing everything else, it cuts out almost all the parts of the other space navies getting clowned on by the heroes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
So the new Expanse novel is out. Can anyone do me a favor and summarize the series so far, particularly the last book? I'm having trouble remembering and I'm baffled by some of the things the characters are saying. So far I'm liking it despite that, the prose is crisp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Thanks to whoever recommended Peter Watts Firefall series in here. Just finished the 1st two books. I guess there is a 1.5 book also? Anyway, neat take on a lot of stuff that was fairly original to me. The author did his homework on neurosciences and cognition studies for sure.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
There is an extended endnote PDF on his web site that covers more of the neuro/cog/psych/etc stuff, which you might enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
That Works posted:Thanks to whoever recommended Peter Watts Firefall series in here. Just finished the 1st two books. I guess there is a 1.5 book also? Anyway, neat take on a lot of stuff that was fairly original to me. The author did his homework on neurosciences and cognition studies for sure. Goddammit  I thought there was something new from him, I didn't realize Blindsight + Echopraxia = Firefall
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I'd strongly recommend you check out Ada Palmer's Too Like the Lightning. In addition to being a really good it plays similar tricks with gender pronouns, but does so thoughtfully and purposefully, rather than lazily and hackishly. I just read Too Like the Lightning and I would recommend the opposite. Auxiliary was good because it took the gender pronouns and subverted expectations which is precisely was good sci fi should do. Lightning takes gender pronouns and uses them to reinforce the old stereotypes in order to adhere to her 18th century patriarchal novel template. It is offensive. Having the narrator say "I'm calling this person a him because they are tough and assertive" just furthers the bad stereotypes that the whole movement to switch up gender pronoun usage was trying to get away from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I just read Too Like the Lightning and I would recommend the opposite. Auxiliary was good because it took the gender pronouns and subverted expectations which is precisely was good sci fi should do. Lightning takes gender pronouns and uses them to reinforce the old stereotypes in order to adhere to her 18th century patriarchal novel template. It is offensive. Having the narrator say "I'm calling this person a him because they are tough and assertive" just furthers the bad stereotypes that the whole movement to switch up gender pronoun usage was trying to get away from. The "bad stereotypes" you refer to occur when someone assumes that someone who is biologically male must be tough and assertive. Too Like the Lightning does more than any book I've read to attack this idea and positions gender as something wholly distinct from biology. I'm not sure I buy it completely but I think it's brilliantly argued. For people who like this kind of thing, it's not as big a part of the story but David Anthony Durham's Acacia trilogy has, if anything, an even more brilliant demonstration of the social construction of race (though you have to read to the third book to see it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Lex Talionis posted:Sorry, but I see the Ancillary books and Too Like the Lightning as doing fundamentally the same thing. They apply gendered pronouns to characters, let you incorporate that information into your sense of the character, then they undercut it by telling you that oh, actually the character's biological gender is different than you've thought. And that forces you as a reader to re-examine your idea of the character. Both authors, I think, want the reader to realize that the pronoun is making them assume certain things about the character, things that may not actually be true. But Too Like the Lightning goes considerably further down this line by explicitly creating gender roles that are socially constructed in complete defiance of biology and constantly foregrounding this fact so the reader can't ignore it. The difference is the narrator in Lightning specifically says "this person is aggressive, therefore it makes sense to assign the male gender." There are no assumptions the reader is making. It is specifically upholding the old stereotypes of what it is to be male and female in the 18th or 19th century and then just assigning those pronouns to the character based on their actions, regardless of gender. It is fundamentally at odds with progressive thinking and deeply conservative and bigoted. If you don't see the difference between that and in Ancillary where the author lets the reader make the assumption and then flips it, well we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:The difference is the narrator in Lightning specifically says "this person is aggressive, therefore it makes sense to assign the male gender." There are no assumptions the reader is making. It is specifically upholding the old stereotypes of what it is to be male and female in the 18th or 19th century and then just assigning those pronouns to the character based on their actions, regardless of gender. It is fundamentally at odds with progressive thinking and deeply conservative and bigoted. Aside from the gender identity issue, this just sounds like it would be gently caress all annoying to read in the first place. Ancillary specifically lets you as the reader try to figure it out and I thought that was clever, having someone just mush it into your face just seems annoying and arbitrary and like the author is pushing an agenda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Washout posted:Aside from the gender identity issue, this just sounds like it would be gently caress all annoying to read in the first place. Ancillary specifically lets you as the reader try to figure it out and I thought that was clever, having someone just mush it into your face just seems annoying and arbitrary and like the author is pushing an agenda. It's ironic, because some have kept saying it was the Imperial Radch series that was pushing the gender identity issue. In my experience, people who read the book pointed out they enjoyed the gender-ambiguity in the storytelling, and then certain other people got a bee in their bonnet over it. The Imperial Radch trilogy is not about gender identity at all. Saying it's about tea would be more accurate, but still wrong. The worldbuilding just had a gender element to it that, of course, informed the characters and the way the reader understood the story. It also lead to interesting conversations with other readers, like "Is Anaander Minai a man or a woman, and does it matter?" Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Washout posted:Aside from the gender identity issue, this just sounds like it would be gently caress all annoying to read in the first place. Ancillary specifically lets you as the reader try to figure it out and I thought that was clever, having someone just mush it into your face just seems annoying and arbitrary and like the author is pushing an agenda. dtkozl posted:It is specifically upholding the old stereotypes of what it is to be male and female in the 18th or 19th century and then just assigning those pronouns to the character based on their actions, regardless of gender. It is fundamentally at odds with progressive thinking and deeply conservative and bigoted. I also don't see how it's bigoted, though, given Mycroft doesn't hate anyone for upending his stereotypes, nor does he try to use them to constrain others' behavior. I guess you're saying he traffics in notions that, in our world, inform the thinking of bigots. That's undoubtably true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Antti posted:It's ironic, because some have kept saying it was the Imperial Radch series that was pushing the gender identity issue. In my experience, people who read the book pointed out they enjoyed the gender-ambiguity in the storytelling, and then certain other people got a bee in their bonnet over it. The Radch books are a shaggy dog story, they alluded to a It's like Leckie had this grand plan and then couldn't be bothered to follow it through. Hmm does she know gurm? Ah I see she got acquainted after the first book.  I look forward to not reading her installment in wildcards.
Collateral fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:
Uh I think you're assuming I'm saying a lot of things I'm not? I was just inquiring about the puppies' thoughts, not making any judgements of my own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I just read Too Like the Lightning and I would recommend the opposite. Auxiliary was good because it took the gender pronouns and subverted expectations which is precisely was good sci fi should do. Lightning takes gender pronouns and uses them to reinforce the old stereotypes in order to adhere to her 18th century patriarchal novel template. It is offensive. Having the narrator say "I'm calling this person a him because they are tough and assertive" just furthers the bad stereotypes that the whole movement to switch up gender pronoun usage was trying to get away from. Jesus, read better. Lex Talionis posted:The "bad stereotypes" you refer to occur when someone assumes that someone who is biologically male must be tough and assertive. Too Like the Lightning does more than any book I've read to attack this idea and positions gender as something wholly distinct from biology. I'm not sure I buy it completely but I think it's brilliantly argued. What really makes it work is when Mycroft's ideas of gender break with our own. Like the outlaw ex-con bodyguard is female, testicles be damned, because she's protective of family. And for Mycroft that's female enough to override everything else. Also I'd disagree that Palmer is treating gender as wholly distinct from biology. The society is gender neutral, but then you've got characters like Dominic and Danae who will uses their gender to manipulate everyone around them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Antti posted:It also lead to interesting conversations with other readers, like "Is Anaander Minai a man or a woman, and does it matter?" Anaander Mianaai is one of the few characters in the book whose gender is revealed, actually. In the first part of the first book, when Breq is on that non-Radch planet where she finds the gun, one of the people on that planet(where the language uses gender pronouns) refers to Anaander as a 'him'. Later in that book his voice is also described as a baritone, which is not evidence he's a male but is certainly suggestive of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
That isn't the original Anander though. Character has bodies with both sets of genitals. Breq says that she could gently caress herself if she wanted to and, if we are honest about it, probably has.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Collateral posted:That isn't the original Anander though. Character has bodies with both sets of genitals. Breq says that she could gently caress herself if she wanted to and, if we are honest about it, probably has. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:
This is the thing. People bitch about novels not deserving Hugos, but you have to look at what was nominated for the year. These were the 2014 ballot options: quote:Best Novel (1595 nominating ballots) My prime vote that year went to Wheel of Time, but I suspect enough people didn't like the "rules lawyering" that allowed the entire series to be nominated to keep it from winning. Of these, I thought Justice was the next best with some interesting concepts. jng2058 posted:Started Shadow of Victory. Put it down less than half way through. God, what a boring book. Let's repeat the same scene of people plotting over and over again, mixing in facile commentary about events in other books. It gets better in the latter half, but yeah, first half is reselling the same story with no overarching plot advancement, more like scenes cut from the older novels found a new home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Collateral posted:That isn't the original Anander though. Character has bodies with both sets of genitals. Breq says that she could gently caress herself if she wanted to and, if we are honest about it, probably has. I am pretty sure that all of Anaander's bodies are clones. That's why it goes so badly when he tries to turn that one Lieutenant into an Anaander-ancillary. All of Anaander's gear for that is very specific to himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Khizan posted:I am pretty sure that all of Anaander's bodies are clones. That's why it goes so badly when he tries to turn that one Lieutenant into an Anaander-ancillary. All of Anaander's gear for that is very specific to himself. Sorry, that is what I meant. Both she-girl clones and she-boy clones. Unless as with my other point she fucks herself and conceives her own new clones with herself and puts the ancillary equipment into the new not clone offspring. I should sent Leckie an email with this important question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
I liked Neptune's Brood quite a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:What really makes it work is when Mycroft's ideas of gender break with our own. Like the outlaw ex-con bodyguard is female, testicles be damned, because she's protective of family. And for Mycroft that's female enough to override everything else. Also I'd disagree that Palmer is treating gender as wholly distinct from biology. The society is gender neutral, but then you've got characters like Dominic and Danae who will uses their gender to manipulate everyone around them. This is my point. A mother being protective does not "break with our own" ideas about gender roles, that one is old as hell. The whole shtick is Mycroft assigns people genders, regardless of their biology, based on his whims which just so happen to match up perfectly with traditional gender, which are based on the cultural patriarchy or europe and the church etc etc. This is why I find it offensive. Had the author used Mycroft to assign gender roles based on something she made up or just randomly I would probably be more confused but there would be no offense there. The whole point, in my mind, is to separate the cultural baggage from the gender. Take a boy wearing a dress. Traditionally weird. To remove the cultural baggage you either make the boy a neutral/ambiguous (a person) or your change the term dress to something gender neutral or just call everything dresses. If you call the boy a girl because girls wear dresses then you are not actually removing the cultural baggage that leads to hate. The assumption is still there that girls are supposed to wear dresses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Radch started off grand and sweeping and then became way more focused and emotional; and ultimately boiled down to trying to protect one system in a civil war. I enjoyed it for that, but yeah it is disappointing not to see the grand fate of the empire stuff that the first book raised. I also feel like the gender pronoun thing was just part of a way more interesting culture the author created, and gets far too much attention. The poor book shouldn't be dominated by controversy over a glorified *award winning book* marketing sticker. For example I liked it in the last book when a bunch of the main characters, Serious Military Officers all, basically had a cry in about all the poo poo they'd been through. Because in this world being a Serious Military Officer doesn't mean stone cold veterans making hard decisions. It means being the maintenance crew, local police force and aristocratic diplomacy service for an AI killing machine. Unrelated - funnily, for the massive sci fi hard on for ancient Rome, the Radch is far closer to Roman society than any Space Legion IV 'Exterminatus' novel I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
I would have been fine with that but she then puts it across that after the blub and a hug session they sigh wistfully and everybody is mentally good again. Anne Leckie, curing the world's ills with this one simple trick...The extinction of the self through mental slavery and tea service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:This is my point. A mother being protective does not "break with our own" ideas about gender roles, that one is old as hell. The whole shtick is Mycroft assigns people genders, regardless of their biology, based on his whims which just so happen to match up perfectly with traditional gender, which are based on the cultural patriarchy or europe and the church etc etc. This is why I find it offensive. Had the author used Mycroft to assign gender roles based on something she made up or just randomly I would probably be more confused but there would be no offense there. That someone with testicles and a Y chromosome can become female by being protective enough absolutely breaks with our ideas of gender. Nobody thinks that Liam Neeson was performing femaleness in Taken but Mycroft would say that he was. If Mycroft assigned genders randomly, then there wouldn't be point to the performance. You wouldn't get lines like Mycroft posted:Certainly you too, reader, like Carlyle, had formed a portrait of Thisbe who existed only in that bedroom, drinking tea and waiting for the active cast to come to her. But let me ask you this: would you have labeled her a stay-at-home so easily had I not been reminding you with every phrase that she is a woman? If the gendering hadn't been purposeful. Leckie purposefully leaves gender blank, and waits to see what (or if) you fill in. Palmer lets you make assumptions about a character based on the gender Mycroft assigns, and then pulls the rug out from under you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:That someone with testicles and a Y chromosome can become female by being protective enough absolutely breaks with our ideas of gender. Nobody thinks that Liam Neeson was performing femaleness in Taken but Mycroft would say that he was. If Mycroft assigned genders randomly, then there wouldn't be point to the performance. You wouldn't get lines like I disagree completely but let's leave it at that and not get into some boring thing over gendered pronouns. Taken was about revenge not protection btw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
If Taken was about revenge and not protection, why did he stop as soon as he got his daughter back, instead of taking apart more of the organization?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:If Taken was about revenge and not protection, why did he stop as soon as he got his daughter back, instead of taking apart more of the organization? I'd say it's more about escalating retaliation in the pursuit of his daughter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:If Taken was about revenge and not protection, why did he stop as soon as he got his daughter back, instead of taking apart more of the organization? Liam Neeson's really more genderfluid than strictly binary female.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:Liam Neeson's really more genderfluid than strictly binary female. The "special skills" speech really drove that home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:If Taken was about revenge and not protection, why did he stop as soon as he got his daughter back, instead of taking apart more of the organization? Because they needed to write in a bunch of sequels? The whole thing is about property and the white male power fantasy punishing those who desecrate it. Here is an easy way to tell: the ex wife dies in one of them and the plot remains exactly the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
Wow, spoilers
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 01:25
|
|