You are viewing johncwright

John C. Wright's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in John C. Wright's LiveJournal:

    [ << Previous 20 ]
    Saturday, April 18th, 2015
    2:46 am
    A Grocery List

    A fan remarks:

    “I would rather read Wright’s grocery list than any of the “literary” stuff in the genre now.”

    How funny you should mention that! I happen to have my grocery list right here.

    Items to pick up:

    • A pound of Apples, despite that this mortal fruit is the one whose taste brought all our woe in paradise;
    • A sack of flour, child of an unworthy grain, those firstfruits offered by the first murderer and his first victim, his brother, which horrid fratricide to this day we repeat;
    • Four heads of Lettuce, which the antediluvians ate, meat being forbidden to them.
    • A pounds of Beef, eaten by humans for the first time under the gracious light of a rainbow, wonder unadored ere then.
    • A rack of Lamb, eaten when the angel of death passed over the chosen seed of Abraham
    • Remember to get some lunchmeat for the kids.
    • A quart of Milk and a jar of Honey — to remind us of a great promise.
    • And, finally, remember to get a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine, to remind us of the one and only time the blood of the divine was shed on this dark and morbid globe we call the earth.
    • Fried fish, as was eaten by the shores of the sea on Easter Sunday, as Peter was asked three times whom he loved.
    • Also, a package of turkey, justly renowned as the humblest meat from the stupidest bird eaten with prayers of thanksgiving by the Pilgrim fathers who bless and planted this nation, whose harvest was the freest and greatest people Earth has ever known: under socialism, you could not nip down to the store and buy these things, or any things, since socialism spends human blood and purchases nothing but misery and want.

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    2:35 am
    Good Thing Popular Science is Fair and Objective!

    Another obscure Internet journal declares their loyalties and hoists the pink flag of Libel for Social Justice.

    http://www.popsci.com/culture-wars-raging-within-science-fiction-fandom

    One would think they would be imaginative enough to invent new libels.

    The hack, a Mr Tim Dawson, writes:

    Recent nominee John C. Wright is a long-time professional writer, but he is perhaps better known for his views on LGBT activists and allies, who he has called “disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth” and other, less-printable slurs (Wright has recently deleted the “sacks of filth” post from his blog, but the Internet never forgets).

    Here is the full text of the letter Mr Dawson fails to quote:

    Dear Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko,

    I admire your creative effort tremendously. I watched your shows, bought your merchandize, and supported and lauded you. I made your work a part of my imagination and a part of my life, and introduced your show to my children.

    And this is how you repay loyalty and affection?

    A children’s show, of all places, is where you decided to place an ad for a sexual aberration; you pervert your story telling skills to the cause of propaganda and political correctness.

    You sold your integrity out to the liberal establishment. In a craven fashion you deflect criticism by slandering and condemning any who object to your treason.

    You were not content to leave the matter ambiguous, no, but had publicly to announce that you hate your audience, our way of life, our virtues, values, and religion.

    From all the fans everywhere worldwide let me say what we are all feeling:

    Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko: You are disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth. You have earned the contempt and hatred of all decent human beings forever, and we will do all we can to smash the filthy phallic idol of sodomy you bow and serve and worship. Contempt, because you struck from behind, cravenly; and hatred, because you serve a cloud of morally-retarded mental smog called Political Correctness, which is another word for hating everything good and bright and decent and sane in life.

    I have no hatred in my heart for any man’s politics, policies, or faith, any more than I have hatred for termites; but once they start undermining my house where I live, it is time to exterminate them.

    Got that? I insulted two men who richly deserved it, two men turned on by fantasies of lesbian oriental teenagers getting it on, but neither man himself a homosexual.

    I insulted them for luring me into trusting them and repaying my trust with a craven, cowardly betrayal, and for the ghastly dishonesty with which they thereafter comported themselves in public.

    I insulted them for insulting me.

    This, in the minds of the honesty-challenged writer Mr Dawson, constitutes me calling all lesbians, gays, bisexuals, whateversexuals, and their heterosexual allies and activists by the same names.

    But none of these people ever betrayed me, targeted my children, or lied about me. Why would I upbraid them?

    The other slurs, as you see, were also strictly printable, containing no swear words nor blasphemies: Unless you think calling someone a termite or an idolater is too shocking for delicate Victorian ears.

    While, technically, one can call two hetero men lusting after teen lesbian characters they introduce without warning into a children’s cartoon and sneaking antinomian, and antichristian messages into wholesome family entertainment  “LGBT activists and allies” one cannot call such a technicality honest.

    Mr Dawson selected his words carefully enough to create the impression exactly opposite the truth, like the man in the old joke who says his dog does not bite, never mentioning the the dog by his heel is not his.

    As for the idea that an author of my standing, working for ten years with the largest and most prestigious publishing house in science fiction, with nomination for a Nebula under my belt, and now a record number of Hugo nominations — that the most famous thing I ever wrote was six words taken out of context in an unpublished letter dated last December to Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko is beyond false and beyond ludicrous.

    I suppose someone, somewhere, is gullible enough to fall for so transparent a lie, but of what value could deceiving such a helpless naif turn out to be?

    Or maybe he means it. Maybe he thinks more people read his column that have ever read my books? If so, that is a delusional thought. Mr Dawson severely overestimates his power of propaganda, if he thinks his lies are more famous than my stories.

    Nor was the post taking Mr Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko to task deleted. I merely redirected the link to put in its place my true feeling about homosexuals, so that voles looking for juicy bits of gossip on which to feed their anger and rage would be taken unawares.

    • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

    • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

    • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    However, those who think it right and just, a holy crusade, and a way of sticking to The Man, to offer a drunk a drink, and hand him the car keys to drive, and urge him to his destruction, knowing he is afflicted — such a vile, pitiless, foolish and ghastly hypocrites as this are guilty of something far worse than pride, and will answer a far sterner judge than I for the crime. The pity and respect I owe and show homosexuals struggling with their perversion I do not owe to those who undermine that struggle, or belittle it.

    I do not hate homosexuals Mr Dawson. I hate you.

    I hate you because I love the truth, and hate the injustice of seeing homosexuals and other innocent people hurt by your lies. It is not a difficult stance to understand, misrepresent it how you will.

    Note that there is no link proffered by Mr Dawson, no attribution, no facts. Nothing about me at all, in fact. He is describing the horrible strawman Mr Wright, the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater.

    Ah, but I am a Little Satan. The Great Satan is Vox Day:

    Big winner Vox Day is an outspoken white supremacist and campaigner against women’s education and suffrage, who is on the record as supporting the Taliban’s attempt to assassinate Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousifazi, finding it “scientifically justifiable.”

    The fact that the Puppies have courted assistance from the anti-feminist GamerGate movement is another strike against their claims of political neutrality. The extent of the collaboration between the two groups is difficult to quantify….

    On it goes in like vein. And they will simply get away with such libels, as have all the others.

    This is your press, ladies and gentlemen. They act this way because the indifferent permit it, while the wicked reward it.

    Mr Dawson, with shocking insouciance, insolence, and tone deafness to the irony, concludes with this paragraph:

    For most of its history, science fiction fandom was sheltered from the worst aspects of the increasingly polarized political climate. Trufans, safe in their bubble, were wholly unprepared for this kind of culture war. Can traditional science fiction fandom repel the invaders and return to the benign, anarchic status quo, or will they have to adopt the tactics of their enemy in order to survive, losing a part of themselves in the process?

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    Thursday, April 16th, 2015
    8:00 pm
    One More

    This one from the Libertarian site:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/04/allan-davis/leftists-attack-libertarian-sci-fi/

    To no one’s surprise, the people who idolize reason and liberty are on the side of the science fiction guys weary, bored and annoyed with the yammering and sneering of the self-anointed thought-police, trying so desperately to police the thoughts of people smarter than they.

    One of the most charming compliments I have received of late came from one I assume to be a libertarian or near-libertarian:

    To paraphrase the sainted Ayn…

    “Laugh at John C. Wright and hold John Scalzi as a great science fiction writer. You’ve destroyed science fiction. Build Rachel Swirsky and you’ve destroyed fantasy. Hail the Toad of Tor and you’ve destroyed book editing. Glorify John C. Hines and you’ve destroyed masculinity. Don’t set out to raze all shrines – you’ll frighten men, Enshrine mediocrity – and the shrines are razed.

    One of the funnier quips I have heard recently also came from someone I suspect is a nonconformist:

    First they came for Vox Day, but I did not say anything, because Vox Day was an asshole, and I was not.

    Then, I didn’t say anything because he was so busy bitch-slapping them and I was laughing so hard that I couldn’t stop. So, that turned out well.

    Allow me to state before the ears of the world that I salute libertarians and see them as allies.

    To be sure, once the Pope and his army of Ape Clones, Ghosts, Vampire Samurai and Jesuit Dacoits takes over the world using the secret, Martian war-machinery buried under the Vatican since the Triassic period (when the Martian invaders exterminated the dinosaurs but were wiped out by smallpox) we Catholics will burn all libertarians at the stake as heretics, and then eat their burnt flesh in a horrific cannibal orgy. And we never read the Bible.

    But until D-Day and H-Hour, the libertarians are kind enough to let all civilized men the heck alone and leave us in peace, and I would be honored to share a foxhole with any of them during these culture wars.

    No libertarian ever donned the condescending mantle of thought policeman in dealing with me, and no leftwing has ever failed to do so.

    The Lefties want to control our minds, destroy our minds, destroy our lives, and die, and the Libertarians want to live and let live, to leave us alone and to be left alone. Life and death. The choice is that stark. I choose life.

    So, to all libertarians wherever you are, let me say this: I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death the right of the Inquisition to torture you into a bogus forced confession for saying it, before turning you over to the secular arm for a slow and barbaric public burning.

    But then again, the Inquisition will let you call women ‘bossy’ and permit you to use the word ‘Black’ rather than ‘People of Color’ and allow you to applaud rather than using ‘jazz hands’ so our sadistic and vicious repression is better than their sadistic and vicious repression. At least we have written rules. And you can keep your money and own businesses under our pitiless iron scepter. Think of us as Lawful Evil rather than Chaotic Evil.

    NOTE TO THE HUMOR IMPAIRED: Just kidding! The foregoing paragraphs are a jest!

    (The Martians were wiped out by the clap, not smallpox, but I thought it inappropriate as a subject matter to put on a family friendly blog.)

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    12:02 pm
    SJWs = Marketing Genius!

    The previous round of false reviews and graffiti led to increased sales for my books previously targeted by these exemplars of courteous inclusiveness and civility whose sole motive is their nonpartisan love of the science fiction genre. I trust my readers will respond again in the same way.

    I see the following notice from my publisher. The words below are his:

    … two more people have responded to Glenn Hauman’s call for posting fake reviews on Amazon. Jeromy Stone has posted a fake review of Mr. Wright’s AWAKE IN THE NIGHT LAND, of all things:

    One Star
    By jeromy stone on April 15, 2015
    Format: Hardcover
    trash

    You know the drill. Report for Abuse and Inappropriate Content. The more strongly we respond to these attacks, the more likely it is that Amazon will eventually step in and do something serious about it.

    Ugggggggh!

    By phangirl on April 15, 2015
    Format: Kindle Edition
    Wow. Call me underwhelmed. If you like purple prose, this is the book for you. Bad writing plus bad editing makes for a bad book. Don’t waste your money on this dog.

    As phangirl is a fan of Jim C. Hines, I ask Mr. Hines to make a statement to his readers concerning his opinion of posting fake one-star reviews of other authors’ works on Amazon. I have no doubt that Mr. Hines opposes the practice, out of sheer common sense if nothing else, and I hope that he will see fit to tell phangirl and his other fans to cease and desist such antics.

    I’m contacting Amazon today to ask them to investigate Glenn Hauman’s call for fake reviews. It is readily apparent that his malicious attempt to harm Castalia House’s business is having real and material effects on our book reviews and I note there is legal precedent in the UK addressing compensation for such activities. My personal opinion is that Amazon should not permit authors who post fake reviews or encourage others to do so to sell their books on Amazon. It will be interesting to learn Amazon’s opinion of the matter, considering that they recently sued some companies that provide fake reviews.

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    12:59 am
    No, Virginia, There is no Stare Decisis

    My story ‘Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus’ was disqualified by Mr John Lorentz and Miss Ruth Sachter in the name of the Sasquan Hugo Administrators, on the grounds that a first draft of the story was put out on my blog for my readers as a Christmas gift eight days before the beginning of 2014.

    I did politely question the decision on the grounds that this case did not differ materially from a parallel case, where Mr Scalzi’s  OLD MAN’S WAR was posted to his blog in 2006 but was granted an award in 2013.

    The reply I received was this:

    John,In retrospect, “Old Man’s War” probably should not have been allowed on the ballot in 2006.</p>

    But things weren’t as clear-cut when he first posted the novel on his web site in 2002.  I was able to attend more Worldcons in the early 2000’s than I have in recent years, and I remember there being a lot of discussion during the business meetings during those years as people tried to define what was meant by “published” (we were coming out of the years when only only way to distribute stories or books was by printing them on paper).

    They finally settled on that it meaning whenever the text was presented to the public, whether it was on a web site, in an e-book or printed on paper.

    Now, with many stories and articles being nominated that came from online magazines or sites like Baen.com and Tor.com, there’s no question that web publishing is a major means of publishing.  So posting a work on a public web site is treated as equivalent to printing it in a magazine.

    I sincerely believe that a situation such as Old Man’s War won’t happen again–as long as the Hugo Administrators are aware of the initial publication.  (Since the Hugo Administrators change from year to year, I can’t guarantee that to be the case.  But if a future administrator reverted back to how Old Man’s War was treated, I’d certainly disagree with that action and I think most other people would, also.)

    […]
    I hope that helps clarify the situation.  The Hugo administrators each year are only human, and we all make the occasional mistakes.  But we try to do our best in interpreting the rules clearly and impartially.
    John Lorentz
    Sasquan Hugo Administrator

    This response, in my mind, raised more questions than it allayed, and so I wrote a second time, but have so far received no further answer.

    I suppose the answer came when I stumbled across Mr Mike Glyers’ 770 blog, where the announcement of the decision was made.

    N.B.: Mr Glyer has been nominated for 50 Hugo awards in his career.

    Now, I did not think it proper to speak to Mr Scalzi himself on the matter, since he has no power to influence the Hugo judges, nor was he privy to the note sent me, and if there was any further written record of the decision or the reasoning involved in my case, it was not shown me.

    But it seems someone did ask him, apparently in a fashion to which he takes  exception. In reply, Mr Scalzi holds forth his legal opinion as to why the two cases differ.

    N.B.: Mr Scalzi has been nominated for 15 Hugo Awards in his career.

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/15/the-latest-hugo-conspiracy-nonsense-involving-me/

    I invite your comments. Is his legal reasoning sound?

    The words below are his

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    Wednesday, April 15th, 2015
    9:37 am
    Silent Answers to Loud Slanders

    In response to the observation by Vox Day that the books and stories on the Sad Puppies slate of recommendations routinely overmatch the Hugo nominations offered by the conformist establishment of the past decade, one Glenn Hauman of Comic Mix is asking the fairminded and tolerance-loving fans of science fiction to go onto the Amazon sites of various books and works of any nominees for the Hugo awards recommended by the Sad Puppies, and leave or laud negative reviews. https://archive.today/UCk4j

    Mind you, he is not asking for the Evil League of Evil Authors to be scribbled on by fake reviews, but merely those persons who, in our humble opinions, we asked our readers to consider nominating for a Hugo, based on the quality of the work rather than any political considerations.

    Dear readers, I recommend bringing his call to violate the Amazon reviews system to Amazon’s attention. Also, one may leave comments on a fake review so as to warn innocent shoppers who might read it and be deceived.

    And Mr. Hauman of course must apologize and repudiate this petty act of incompetent crowd-sourced graffito.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    Tuesday, April 14th, 2015
    11:08 pm
    You Know Who You Are

    To whom it may concern:

    If you ever become a writer, you will get on your knees and pray, dear heavens please send me some reader who will read my work and get it. After going through draft after draft, after sweating ink and weeping in frustration, and finding just the right word, the right phrase, the right way to carry the scene, the right quote from a musty old book, the right story from an ancient legend — please send me someone who gets what the story is about.

    And sometimes, and no one can say when nor why, heaven will answer you abundantly, and send dozens of readers who eyes are opened and whose hearts are unclouded.

    Thank you.

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    4:41 pm
    12:35 am
    A Brief Open Letter to George RR Martin

    Normally I would not ask impertinent questions of my betters in days like these, but in this case, there is cause. http://grrm.livejournal.com/420090.html

    I left the following comment there.

    * * *

    Sir,

    You commented “John C. Wright SIX TIMES!!! John C. Wright, a writer famed far and wide for having no opinions on politics, race, religion, or sexual orientation, and would never dream of injecting such messages into his Damned Good Stories.”

    I assume here you are being ironic, and stating that I do indeed put messages into my fiction.

    However, we have worked together in the past. You edited the anthology SONGS OF A DYING EARTH in which my short story, ‘Guyal the Curator’ appeared.

    Were there or were there not pro-conservative messages in that story? You may not recall it, but I know you read it.

    If, since you are an honest man, you will say that story had no overt political message in it, on what grounds do you assume I put overt political messages in my other stories?

    In other words, you are accusing me of hypocrisy, I, who have never said a bad word about you in public or private to anyone, and who have always hitherto held you in the highest esteem. What is the factual basis for the accusation, please?

    If there is no factual basis, why make the accusation?

    John C Wright

    * * *

    ADDENDUM: Much to my pleasure and surprise, Mr Martin does me the honor of an immediate and concise reply. I repeat the whole here without comment. The reader is invited to draw his own conclusions as to the logical sufficiency of the reply.

    Actually, I don’t recall “accusing” you of anything. I was pointing out that the Sad Puppy stance against “message fiction” rang kind of false when they nominate someone (six times) who has lots of “message” in his fiction. It would have been more honest for the Pups to say they don’t want liberal/ feminist/ “SJW” / socialist/ atheist/ etc messages in their stories, but they think conservative, libertarian, and Christian messages are just dandy.

    Truth be told, I think there are messages in every story, whether the author intended to put them in there or not. The things we write are invariably colored by the ways we see the world.

    At this date, I don’t recall the details of your story in SONGS OF THE DYING EARTH. I would need to review it. Yes, of course I read it. I bought it. I liked it. You knew your Vance, and captured the Dying Earth quite well.

    Jack Vance himself was quite conservative, as you may or may not know, and grew even more so in the last years of his life. You can see it in some of his stories, though it requires careful reading; he never stopped a story for a lecture. Vance is only one of many conservative SF authors that I hold in high esteem. Actually, Vance is probably my favorite SF writer, and as a fantasist I rank him up there with Howard, Leiber, and Tolkien.

    I also like Heinlein, Kipling, Niven & Pournelle, Lovecraft, Blish… I love Poul Anderson. That does not mean I believe there were no messages in their fiction. That also does not mean I agree with those messages. They wrote great stories.

    What annoys me is the Sad Puppy stance that liberal writers are producing “message fiction” while guys on their ticket are just writing Ripping Good Yarns untroubled by politics or opinions.

    I said I would not comment, but I must make one: Mr Martin is to be saluted for being a voice of temperate reason in the midst of a flurry of shrieking passion. There are those in our field who should learn from his example.

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    Monday, April 13th, 2015
    11:38 pm
    Two More

    Anti-Puppy:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/hugo-awards-assaulted-by-sad-puppies-who-really-should-be-called-whiny-babies/

    A bawdlerized quote:

    They call themselves the “Sad Puppies” without, it seems, a shred of Sexual Congressional irony.

    Pro-Puppy:

    http://reactionarytimes.blogspot.com/2015/04/sad-puppies-iii-behold-workings-of.html

    My comment: Supposing one were a Man from Mars, let us say named Smith, dropped down to earth with no knowledge of the issues and history, would you notice a difference between the approach of the one versus the other?

    * * *

    Actually, we call ourselves the Evil Legion of Evil Authors. This particular ongoing campaign is called Sad Puppies, on the grounds that having what are alleged to be the foremost awards in science fiction controlled by brainmeltingly absurd uber-leftist ideological cliques and granted to mindnumbingly dull novels about body-swapping genderless AIs in space or dinosaur revenge fantasies is one of the foremost causes of puppy-related sadness syndrome.

    We wish fewer big eyed puppies to cry warm tears, because we care about the children. Don’t you care about the children, my dear termagant?

    You are correct that we have no shred of irony whatsoever. Our spokemammel, Wendel the Manatee, is as sober and serious as a hanging judge. We tolerate no mockery of our iron-faced humorless graveness of speak and demeanor. I will quote Wendel on this point:

    WHOOOOOEEEEEEWOOO! WHEEK! WHEEK!

    Well put, Wendel.

    * * *

     

    To establish my credentials as bigot, Raw Story, without speaking to me, quotes Daily Dot, who links to an publication called The Backlot,  who quotes a column where I complained about the self censorship of Sci Fi Channel, on the grounds that kowtowing to these mavins of Political Correctness emboldens them and puts those of us unwilling to bow the knee to Political Correctness in a less favorable position to make our living while living and letting live.

    The original column, somewhat brusquely, posed two questions: 1) what makes sodomy different from all other sexual perversions? Why is it singled out for special treatment? 2) Why is the distemper of the love involved in sodomy different from the distemper of hatred involved in racism? Why is it immune from all moral reasoning?

    I later apologized for the brusqueness, but the apology was flung back in my face, whereupon I realized that it was not the direct way in which I spoke the truth that offended them, but the truth. For that, no man can apologize even if he might.

    The Backlot goes on to say that I cannot hide behind Catholic teaching to say that I believe one should love the sinner and hate the sin, because I am a bigot, whereas Catholics are not bigots. Then the Backlot says all Catholics are bigots. Logic is not their strong suit.

    Now, contrast this acrobatic backflip of multiple links leading nowhere with how easy it would be to establish something that was true about me.

    Anyone wishes to establish, for example, that I am Catholic need only link to any of the hundred of places where I say so, because I boast of it. Anyone wishing to establish that I am a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater, on the other hand, has to link through links to links to people talking about me being a purple people eater, without ever actually producing a quote, or a bit of evidence.

    Or he could just talk to me, and get a direct quote. How hard is that?

    For a journalist, it is not hard at all. For a gossip, impossible.

     

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    11:38 pm
    Two More

    Anti-Puppy:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/hugo-awards-assaulted-by-sad-puppies-who-really-should-be-called-whiny-babies/

    A bawdlerized quote:

    They call themselves the “Sad Puppies” without, it seems, a shred of Sexual Congressional irony.

    Pro-Puppy:

    http://reactionarytimes.blogspot.com/2015/04/sad-puppies-iii-behold-workings-of.html

    My comment: Supposing one were a Man from Mars, let us say named Smith, dropped down to earth with no knowledge of the issues and history, would you notice a difference between the approach of the one versus the other?

    * * *

    Actually, we call ourselves the Evil Legion of Evil Authors. This particular ongoing campaign is called Sad Puppies, on the grounds that having what are alleged to be the foremost awards in science fiction controlled by brainmeltingly absurd uber-leftist ideological cliques and granted to mindnumbingly dull novels about body-swapping genderless AIs in space or dinosaur revenge fantasies is one of the foremost causes of puppy-related sadness syndrome.

    We wish fewer big eyed puppies to cry warm tears, because we care about the children. Don’t you care about the children, my dear termagant?

    You are correct that we have no shred of irony whatsoever. Our spokemammel, Wendel the Manatee, is as sober and serious as a hanging judge. We tolerate no mockery of our iron-faced humorless graveness of speak and demeanor. I will quote Wendel on this point:

    WHOOOOOEEEEEEWOOO! WHEEK! WHEEK!

    Well put, Wendel.

    * * *

     

    To establish my credentials as bigot, Raw Story, without speaking to me, quotes Daily Dot, who links to an publication called The Backlot,  who quotes a column where I complained about the self censorship of Sci Fi Channel, on the grounds that kowtowing to these mavins of Political Correctness emboldens them and puts those of us unwilling to bow the knee to Political Correctness in a less favorable position to make our living while living and letting live.

    The original column, somewhat brusquely, posed two questions: 1) what makes sodomy different from all other sexual perversions? Why is it singled out for special treatment? 2) Why is the distemper of the love involved in sodomy different from the distemper of hatred involved in racism? Why is it immune from all moral reasoning?

    I later apologized for the brusqueness, but the apology was flung back in my face, whereupon I realized that it was not the direct way in which I spoke the truth that offended them, but the truth. For that, no man can apologize even if he might.

    The Backlot goes on to say that I cannot hide behind Catholic teaching to say that I believe one should love the sinner and hate the sin, because I am a bigot, whereas Catholics are not bigots. Then the Backlot says all Catholics are bigots. Logic is not their strong suite.

    Now, contrast this acrobatic backflip of multiple links leading nowhere with how easy it would be to establish something that was true about me.

    Anyone wishes to establish, for example, that I am Catholic need only link to any of the hundred of places where I say so, because I boast of it. Anyone wishing to establish that I am a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater, on the other hand, has to link through links to links to people talking about me being a purple people eater, without ever actually producing a quote, or a bit of evidence.

    Or he could just talk to me, and get a direct quote. How hard is that?

    For a journalist, it is not hard at all. For a gossip, impossible.

     

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    Saturday, April 11th, 2015
    3:39 pm
    Did I Get Too Many Nominations?

    John C Wright has had six Hugo nominations in his career. Let us compare:

    • Patrick Hayden: 15 nominations (one declined)
    • Charles Stross: 15 nominations
    • Mike Glyer: 50 nominations (nine wins, two declined)
    • John Scalzi: 9 nominations
    • Alexis Gilliand: 8 nominations (four wins)
    • Theresa Hayden: 5 nominations
    • Seanan McGuire 5 nominations in one year….

    I am not so impertinent as to dispute the tastes or judgment of the fans who ponied up the money and took the time to nominated me. They are my employers; their word is my law.

    So far, in this tempest in a teardrop (it is too small for my teapot) there has been exactly one of my detractors who claimed my work was undeserving of notice, but countless detractors calling me a racist misogynist bigot ballotbox-stuffing flying purple people eater.

    I will leave the flying purple people eating accusations unanswered for now, because they are trivial, irrelevant and stupid.

    As to those who claim that we are introducing foreigners, gamergaters, or the unwashed masses into the pristine tower of science fiction, the numbers speak for themselves. We can take the Amazon rankings of books as a rough measure of the popularity of a work.

    AVERAGE AMAZON RATINGS for Best Novel category
    4.60 = Rabid Puppies
    4.64 = Sad Puppies
    4.46 = 2015 shortlist
    3.90 = 2010-2013 shortlists

    NUMBER OF HUGO NOMINATIONS
    15: Patrick Nielsen Hayden
    15: Charles Stross
    12: Isaac Asimov
    12: Robert Heinlein
    09: John Scalzi
    08: Jerry Pournelle
    07: Arthur C. Clarke
    06: John C. Wright

    Ask yourself who has delivered more quality work, more popular, to the Hugo shortlist? The Sad Puppies, or the previous cliques? The numbers prove objectively that our suggested slate better represents the tastes of the SF public.

    As to the one and only one fellow who thought my science fiction writing in general was inferior  to the social justice fiction he and his prefer. On what this was based, you are as free to speculate as I, since he had read none of the works.

    To him, I have but one reply.

    Read. Compare. Judge.

    Here is the list. (I will provide links as soon as my publisher makes them available.)

    • One Bright Star to Guide Them
    • Pale Realms of Shade
    • The Plural of Helen of Troy
    • Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus
    • The Parliament of Beasts and Birds
    • Transhuman and Subhuman

     

     

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    3:02 am
    No Tarring Tor

    Larry Correia, International Lord of Hate, has a remark it is in my financial best interests to share, and also a matter of honor:

    http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/11/last-sp-post-for-the-week-to-my-people-dont-yell-tor/

    The Sad Puppies campaign isn’t mad at Tor the publishing house. We have nothing against Tor.

    In fact, one of our suggestions for novel is by Kevin J. Anderson, and is published by Tor. One of our nominees is John C. Wright, and he is published by Tor. There are other Tor authors who are secret members of the Evil Legion of Evil. And there are some Tor authors and editors who have reached out to us this week, and who have told the angry mobs to calm the hell down and knock off the asinine defamation, both in public and in private.

    Don’t threaten to boycott anybody because of their business associations, because that’s exactly the kind of boorish behavior that’s been done to us.

    Don’t post links to a torrent site and suggest that people pirate stuff instead of giving a publishing house money. Do you have any idea how offensive it is to do that on a professional author’s feed?

    For those just joining us, if you are wondering where this is coming from, there are a couple of reasons many Sad Puppies supporters are leery of Tor.

    There are a few Tor editors who have accused my people of some vile and outlandish things recently, but the Nielsen Haydens are only a couple of the editors there. Sure, they’ve been insulting, but I’m not going to tar the other editors by association, especially since most of them haven’t said anything, and some have been very nice to us.

    Tor.com has posted some asinine stuff on this subject, talked a lot of trash about us, and run some absurd, preachy, social engineering, wannabe literati wankery articles.

    However, Tor.com isn’t Tor the publisher. From what I’ve been told by some Tor employees, they are kind of their own thing. Most people don’t know that though. On that note, I don’t know who the marketing person is over there, but seriously, some of the stuff posted on Tor.com is ridiculous and has left a lot of people on this side of fandom with a bad taste in their mouth.

    So, to the Sad Puppies supporters, be cool. There are a bunch of good folks over there, good authors and good editors, making good books, and some of them even agree with us.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    Friday, April 10th, 2015
    8:22 pm
    Perverting the Story to Kiddie Propaganda

    http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/2014/12/legend-of-korra-creators-confirm-korrasami-is-canon

    Dear Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko,

    I admire your creative effort tremendously. I watched your shows, bought your merchandize, and supported and lauded you. I made your work a part of my imagination and a part of my life, and introduced your show to my children.

    And this is how you repay loyalty and affection?

    A children’s show, of all places, is where you decided to place an ad for a sexual aberration; you pervert your story telling skills to the cause of propaganda and political correctness.

    You sold your integrity out to the liberal establishment. In a craven fashion you deflect criticism by slandering and condemning any who object to your treason.

    You were not content to leave the matter ambiguous, no, but had publicly to announce that you hate your audience, our way of life, our virtues, values, and religion.

    From all the fans everywhere worldwide let me say what we are all feeling:

    Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko: You are disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth. You have earned the contempt and hatred of all decent human beings forever, and we will do all we can to smash the filthy phallic idol of sodomy you bow and serve and worship. Contempt, because you struck from behind, cravenly; and hatred, because you serve a cloud of morally-retarded mental smog called Political Correctness, which is another word for hating everything good and bright and decent and sane in life.

    I have no hatred in my heart for any man’s politics, policies, or faith, any more than I have hatred for termites; but once they start undermining my house where I live, it is time to exterminate them.

    Sincerely,

    A lifelong fan.

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    8:16 pm
    Prayer and Donation Request

    Larry Correia, the so called International Lord of Hate, has a request for all kind souls:

    Many of you know Shadowdancer Duskstar, who has been posting here for many years.

    Earlier this week they tragically lost their 11 month old son.

    This Paypal link was set up for them. Because they live in Australia, this is the best way to donate money.

    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9MCPUTTUCBTUW

    She said “Any donations will go towards the cost of providing Brandon with a proper farewell, and easing the strain on the family with our abnormally tight living expenses during this time.”

    Our prayers are with them in this time of need.

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    6:02 pm
    From the Harvard Divinity School

    This is from the “This Week in Science and Religion” column. http://cosmologicsmagazine.com/this-week-in-science-religion-13/

    Sci fi and social battles. The stories and perspectives of women and people of color have long been marginalized in science fiction, and some social conservatives want to keep things that way. Despite some exciting gains (all of the winners of the 2014 Nebula awards were women and people of color), one group of people is attempting to make sure that the Hugo Awards (sci-fi’s most prestigious honor) go exclusively to white heterosexual men. Since votes for the Hugo Award can only be cast by those who have paid an annual membership, one group of conservatives calling themselves “The Sad Puppies” have placed a slate of homophobic, sexist, and racist authors onto the ballot. The most prominent of these is an obscure writer named John C. Wright, who has publically called same-sex partnerships “an aberration” and “a filthy phallic idol,” and has referred to writers who depict GLBTQ characters as “termites” and “disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth.” We at Cosmologics sincerely hope that these vicious attitudes do not receive the honor of a Hugo Award.

    I hereby announce a contest to see how many false, libelous or inaccurate statements exist in this paragraph of four sentences.

    And, before you ask, no, no one from the publication spoke to me in preparation of the article. Their one link goes to Slate magazine.

    And, before you ask, yes, I totally believe the press when they say Gamers are dead. That all these news organs come out in the same moment with the same story is totally believable. The press are neutral and objective, reporting only on facts.

    And, before you ask, no, I will not be suing anyone for libel. I will turn the other cheek instead. It makes life easier and it drives them batty.

    As a matter of logic, however, I cannot be both obscure and prominent at the same time and in the same sense.

    As a matter of fact, I cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be more prominent a science fiction writer than Kevin J Andersen or Jim Butcher.

    Perhaps the semiliterate authoress penning the sentence means merely that I am obscure among science fiction authors but nonetheless the most prominent of the sexist, racist, and homophobic science fiction authors? But, again, that would either mean (1) that Mr Andersen and Mr Butcher are not in these categories (in which case it is inaccurate to include them in the sentence when the whole slate is condemned) or (2) that I am more prominent than they.

    Either one is a libel to them, but for different reasons.

    As a matter of journalistic ethics, the article in Slate to which they linked in support of their propositions has this to say:

    This post originally misspelled Brad Torgersen’s last name and misstated that the creators of the Legend of Korra revealed that a male character liked men. They revealed that two female characters liked women. It also misidentified Teresa and Patrick Nielsen Hayden as the founder of Tor Books. They are the founders of Ansatz Press. Finally, a sentence was  updated to clarify that the WSFS, or World Science Fiction Society, administers the Hugo Awards.

    Emphasis mine. Mr Doherty is not pleased, I am sure.

    However, please note, that the accusations by Katy Waldmanm, the Slate hack, of racism, sexism, homophobia, baby-eating and devil-worship and being reactionary filth leveled heedlessly at innocent strangers and bystanders, all of them souls unknown to her, have not been removed from the Slate article.

    As a matter of logic, again, my attitudes are not up for the Hugo Award, nor my opinion about injecting leftwing agitprop into the children’s show LEGEND OF KORRA, but my stories and other written works are.

    As a matter of logic, those who called Larry Correia a liar for saying that the Hugo Awards were denied to writers espousing unpopular, pro-Christian or pro-Conservative views (such as the view that one should not use a children’s cartoon, aimed at children, to promote the homosex agenda) have never yet withdrawn their remarks, recanted, or apologized.

    Question: has or has not the Harvard Divinity School publication here voiced the preference that the attitudes — my personal political opinions — are sufficient grounds to deny me an award, which is allegedly an award given not for ideological purity, but instead for craftsmanship in science fiction writing?

    Question: Is or is not Larry Correia correct in saying that there is a bias against rightwing or conservative or Christian authors haunting the science fiction field? If statements from Slate Magazine echoed uncritically in the Harvard Divinity Review do not constitute such a bias, what would?

    Would, for example, statements asking all readers not to read anything by a white, straight, man for a year constitute such a bias?

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    3:16 pm
    If You Were an International Hate Lord, My Love

    Larry Correia, the International Lord of Hate himself in the AoSHQ podcast admires one of my stories.

    http://podcast.aoshq.com/2015/04/10/larry-correia/

    He is talking about Sad Puppies and the whole SF being mugged by Morlocks debacle.

    His comment about me is about 24:00

    Here are the two stories mentioned

    http://www.apex-magazine.com/if-you-were-a-dinosaur-my-love/

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/11/the-queen-of-the-tyrant-lizards/

    * * *

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    11:18 am
    We are mad when they lie about us, they are mad when we tell the truth about them

    http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/07/addendum-to-yesterdays-letter/

    Larry Correia notes

    Yesterday the following media outlets ran articles about the Sad Puppies campaign, in which they either directly said or insinuated that it was run and populated by racist straight white males with the goal of keeping scifi white and male. (not true)

    It was almost like they were all reading off the same script.

    Stupid EW

    Most of them said our slate was exclusively white, straight, and male (not true)

    Most of them said that last year was a big win for diversity (I believe last years winners were all white and one Asian).

    Most of them said our slate was exclusively right wing (not true, in fact the majority skew left, we have socialists, liberals, moderates, libertarians, conservatives, and question marks. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that last year’s “diverse” winners all espoused the same social justice politics).

    But there is no bias in this perfectly functioning system. My side said that political narrative trumped reality in this business. Believe me yet?

    We’ve seen this behavior before, but never at a level so blatantly false.

    By all means, read the whole thing: http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/07/addendum-to-yesterdays-letter/

    I will also add:

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    11:00 am
    What is the Hugo Worth?

    A private conversation with a well placed and influential editor in the New York publishing house was rather eye opening to me. It seems the Hugo, at one time, predictably bumped up sales for a work that won by a thousand books sold. Now, thirty.

    Hmm. Let us say you get the normal cut of the profit after selling through, for a $20 cover price of a hardback, this nets you roughly 2.50 per unit, or 75 bucks all told.

    I spent more on tickets to take my children to see THE LAST AIRBENDER in 3D, which was a terrible movie in any dimension, and the reason why I pray daily to the Erinyes to punish M. Night Shyamalan with emerods.

    Think of that. The Hugo might, might, give you extra money enough for an evening at the cinema, if that. No one is buying a replacement washing machine by selling thirty extra books.

    For short works, the financial benefit is zero.

    The financial benefit is small (in the case of novels) or zero (in the case of short works) because and only because the fans no longer regard the Hugo as a sign of worthwhile work. It used to be a trustworthy trumpet calling lovers of science fiction toward books and stories guaranteed to quicken the imagination, open casements to new worlds, throw wide the shining gates of the future.

    It used to be the award that paid homage, for example, to Frank Herbert for DUNE. To this day, many if not most, science fiction fans regard as this as the best SF novel ever penned. Look at the sales for DUNE just this year. Look at the Amazon rating.

    Now the Hugo Award has become a leper’s bell telling the wary to stay away from stories about nonbinary genderless nonheteronormative were-seals, murderous priests, and political statements of dreary leftwing dreck.

    The fans do not know about the Hugo Awards or do not care, save for a small and ever more irrelevant cadre.

    This means the Hugos mean nothing, represent nothing, and are no longer a sign of read-worthy work.

    Until this year.

    My fellow gentleman, shuggoths, dark lords, masterminds, countesses, impalers, sith, and beautiful but wicked queens of the Evil Legion of Evil Authors, delightful as it is to go all Death Star on the Hugos and blow it into asteroids (and what true science fiction fan does not delight in seeing cities nuked and worlds fried like eggs?) more delightful, to me, at least, would be to rip the award from the greasy pale fingers of the Morlocks, give a good spit shine, and make it mean again what it once meant.

    I feel I owe Frank Herbert the attempt.

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

    Thursday, April 9th, 2015
    2:36 pm
    And Now For Something Completely Different!

    Mrs Wright holds forth on the most preeminent social issue of the day: buxom bustlines!

    http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2015/04/08/superversive-sf-the-bosom-jiggle-factor-index/

    ms marvel

    Actually, she is writing on the Needs of Culture versus the Needs of Drama, which is the tension between the competing needs of the duty the artist owes the audience and the duty he owes the muse.

    Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

[ << Previous 20 ]
Fantastic and Speculative Fiction by John C. Wright   About LiveJournal.com