/lit/ - Literature

>>7021262
is that like, old news dude?

the last thread on this was a real peach

Sucks but does it really matter? It's just a reflection on the state of society this stuff is the norm. Obama got a nobel peace prize for being black. Atleast he even said he didn't deserve it.

>>7021268
it happened yesterday mate

>>7021275
sauce?

>>7021278
yeah, but people are fighting back, we are on the cusp of anti-SJW mainstream rebellion

SJW and feminism are spooks
Reject all scientific and imperial knowledge

>>7021286
empirical?

Hold on what is this puppy shit? Slate?

>>7021283
thread died after a ~80 post shitfight about whether Sad Puppies were founded by gamergaters

who fucking cares, the Hugo novel nominees were and have generally been good books

>>7021262
>"Modern" trash authors dividing themselves into tribes based on political affiliation
>Progressives throw a tantrum when conservatives point out their voting bloc and destroy the awards
>Proven that progressives are running a clique because they can't stand people who think differently, painting everyone who was even on the SP ballot as neo-con "straight white male" boogeymen, despite women and mixed marriages on the SP side
>Media parrots the accusations of nazi evil nasty men (did we mention men?) ruining diversity, oh the horror.

This is why people hate SJWs, they demand you be judged by your gender and skin color while thinking what they tell you, or they label you buzzwords and push you out of anything they control.

>>7021262
I hate conservatards but I hate SJWs even more. Science fiction is shit and I don't really care about its awards, but I think it sucks that there are SJW gatekeepers. I don't think I'm comfortable with anti-SJW vote cabals either, though.

I just want this whole carnival to end.

>>7021291
Emotionally fueled reactionaries who are upset that sci-fi isn't a no-girls-allowed club anymore.

>>7021314
more like

>mediocre author butthurt he didn't win an award
>starts a conspiracy to get him and the authors he likes elected by stuffing ballots
>then when this is stopped complains, completely unironically, about an SJW conspiracy

this is a literature board

>>7021291
tl;dr:

>SJWs amd SJW writers push fags, minorities and women to win Hugo's irrespective of the literature's quality in the past few years

>two groups of writers emerge as opposition to this claiming that sci-fi should be judged for awards based on its quality not on the gender, race or sexual orientation of the writer or the characters

>those two sad and raging puppy groups make lists (slates) of objectively good sci-fi works

>SJWs call that vote manipulation and racist/sexist/etc. literally being proud of not reading them and just pushing works that have trans character or are written by minorities for the awards

>queue HUGO ceremony the other day

>SJWs block any puppies' endorsed book not based on quality or merit, but because it is not progressive enough or doesn't have enough diversity and vote to not have winners in said cateogries

>for the first time in history 5 categories were left without winners

Good bait thread.
Does anyone have the modified image of that trite Venn diagram of 'This what the teacher thinks' and 'This is what the author meant' where the space beyond those two circles is labeled something akin to 'This is what he could meaaaaaaaaaaaaan :^)' or something

>>7021336

Thank you.

>>7021336
>objectively good sci-fi works

did you actually read any? I'm curious whether you're a puppy shill or just straight-up illiterate

>>7021331
>Authors snubbed for not having the same political affiliation suspect a voting block
>Push through a number of nominations that were constantly being shut down, including authors like the successful Jim Butcher
>Manbabies controlling the clique throw a tantrum and destroy the Hugos with no awards rather than let people they didn't approve of win

It was the definition of childish tantrums. Scalzi and his goons are disgusting for doing exactly what the SP said they'd do to protect their clique. They just defend themselves with the usual accusations of sexism/racism/whitemen/conspiracy/"it's okay when we do it"

>>7021352
it's the works that would have been chosen if there was no diversity quota

>>7021352
Lets hear about how this balding manchild's star trek fanfiction was worth an award, or how "If you were a dinosaur, my love" isn't awful childish shit.

Drink the koolaid little sheep, and hate the tribe you're told to hate.

I hope both sides lose

>>7021362
do you genuinely think that Skin Game and whatever trash Correia and Wright nominated was better than Three Body Problem/Ancillary Justice/Goblin Emperor

do you genuinely think City of Stairs is a "diversity quota" book

do you genuinely think that good scifi has ever been apolitical

>>7021375
I don't really like Scalzi and I didn't think the dinosaur story was very good

who do you think you're talking to? it sounds like you're the one slotting people into 'tribes'

>>7021379
>We can only allow the correct thinking and liberal-oriented authors to win
>Oh shut up puppies, art is always political. Only you're all nazis and we're champions of diversity. No your women and minorities don't count

>>7021379
cherry picking much?

>>7021379
>it's fine when we do it

>>7021403
I'm pretty sure I just listed the nominees for the novels category, which honestly is the only one people care about

>>7021391
Scalzi and his promoted gang are garbage, and I don't ascribe to any political party.

This thinking in which they "pimp" only others who think how the group demands is sick. They burnt down the Hugos because they could not IMAGINE awarding anybody not approved by their mob. Is it too much to ask to do away with all their slates, their cliques, their disgusting whisper campaigns and read a book for it's own merit rather than a checklist of fucking lip service to skin colors, sexualities and gender? Are there themes outside progressive dogma?

I cannot believe there are sjw shits on my /lit/.. wtf?

>>7021410
>>>/pol/

>white male writers and their white male heroes saving damsels is racist, sexist and segregating! you must be open minded!
...
>you must conform to out diversity quota or you won't get shit

>>7021262
That article is butthurt as fuck.

>>7021409
>>7021404
>>7021396
Holy shit have none of you actually read any of the Hugo novels? If not what the fuck are you doing here?

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I do not give a shit about the sjw/puppy stuff. I do not give a shit about the crap feminist short stories or whatever people are complaining about. I am literally just saying that the 'sjw' novels nominated this year were better than anything the puppies could nominate in their place.

I want to talk about books on /lit/, jesus christ why the fuck are you making this so difficult

>>7021359
>It was the definition of childish tantrums.

jej

>For his part, Beale—who is lead editor1 at a small publishing company, Castalia House, which got five of its writers and editors (including Beale himself) on this year’s Hugo ballot—has been outspoken about his goals. “I wanted to leave a big smoking hole where the Hugo Awards were,” he told me before the winners were announced. “All this has ever been is a giant Fuck You—one massive gesture of contempt.” Some nerds just want to watch the world burn.

Who is throwing a childish tantrum?

If you care about this dumb nerd shit popularity contest in any way, shape or form then you're a fuckin faggot

>>7021426
You are the one making it difficult for fucks sake. Read what you type.

The Three Body Problem is an amazing novel, but it wouldn't have been included if the writer was a white male.

Do you get it now?

So this just happened on Charles Stross' blog. I have been reading his stuff for 12 years and yet...

www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/bad-puppies-no-awards.html

Literally anyone who has formed any kind of detailed opinion on this should be thrown into a gas chamber, in addition to those who have any kind of opinions, positive or negative, on gamer gate/tropevswomen/whatever

>>7021436
as far as I know had The Dark Between the Stars (dear god) and Skin Game not been nominated, at least one of the spots would have gone to Robert Jackson Bennett's City of Stairs, and he's a white dude. Any evidence that excellent scifi books are being excluded just because they were written by white guys?

>>7021485
> Any evidence that excellent scifi books are being excluded just because they were written by white guys?

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/won-science-fictions-hugo-awards-matters/?mbid=social_twitter

>Early this year, that shift sparked a backlash: a campaign, organized by three white, male authors, that resulted in a final Hugo ballot dominated by mostly white, mostly male nominees.

>>7021485
>City of Stairs

>That imagined world is the setting for City of Stairs: a book that takes complex themes like colonialism, oppression, religion and systems of belief and weaves them into a story that is part fantasy noir, part murder investigation, peppered with humour and tragedy, hope and adventure, magic and twists, with female characters of all ages who lead the story and develop strong bonds of friendship with each other, in which most characters are people of colour, and where cultural, social and religious history are at centre stage and holy shit, was this book good.

>>7021511
forgot the link


http://thebooksmugglers.com/2014/09/book-review-city-of-stairs-by-robert-jackson-bennett.html

>>7021504
How is that evidence of anything? All the quote says is that some writers were butthurt they weren't nominated and so rigged the awards.

>>7021519
>white male authors and/or white male characters scorned
>female, trans and non-white writers and/of character praised

>how is this proof?

The city of you.

>>7021524
Are you serious?

If a book by a white male is shit, it's shit. If a book by a transfemale otherkin is good, it's good.

The irony is that you are complaining about identity politics but buying into your own reverse-SJW identity politics by assuming that when a writer isn't nominated it must be because they're white.

>one character is white male in a novel full of female character
>disaster! what was the author thinking! such a boring character! he could have been replaced by a black trans woman!

>>7021531
The mere existence of the SJW clique disproves everything you are saying by default

Just so you guys know, when the conservative side of this debacle argues that awards need to be based on quality and merit it falls on deaf ears because the liberal side considers the inclusion of non-cis white male perspectives to be the main thing indicative of quality.

>>7021537
You mean the one that didn't exist until the puppies tried to rig the awards with their own clique? jeez. pure hypocrisy

95% of the best living writers are white men, but none of them are going to be nominated for the Hugo Awards. You know why? Because they write real literature and not retarded spaceship dragon shit

>>7021542
you can stop troll baiting now, I give you 6/10 for effort

I've always found it odd that SJWs lament racism/sexism/etc., then turn around and push for people to win things solely due to their race/sex/etc.

>>7021540
It's almost like "quality" is a subjective (one might even say qualitative) factor that has no definite meaning.

>>7021548
kek, nice argument

>>7021542
problem with your logic is that puppies are clearly formed as a reaction, it cannot be a reaction to nothing

>>7021555
Yes.. they are formed as a reaction to a male and female dog copulating. What an excellent deduction

>>7021555
a reaction to a couple of writers and their friends not winning awards.

>>7021563
a reaction to the aggressive inclusion of works with no merit to fill a diversity quota of trans/female/nigger author and heroes

>>7021567
except that hasn't been demonstrated by anyone, and the puppies ended up nominating shit works.

>>7021578
ok, but my opinion is more epin and funny

>>7021578
>except that hasn't been demonstrated by anyone

If only you could read...

>>7021584
Lol ok anon :^)

>>7021323
>there are only conservatives and SJWs
Dumb fuck.

>>7021625
Everyone who is not part of anactive nationalist movement is a degenerate liberal cuckold jew, so why draw lines?

Last year's winner for short story was "The Water That Falls On You From Nowhere."
>In the near future water falls from the sky whenever someone lies (either a mist or a torrential flood depending on the intensity of the lie). This makes life difficult for Matt as he maneuvers the marriage question with his lover and how best to "come out" to his traditional Chinese parents.

Last year's winner for best novella "The Lady Astronaut of Mars":
>hirty years ago, Elma York led the expedition that paved the way to life on Mars. For years she's been longing to go back up there, to once more explore the stars. But there are few opportunities for an aging astronaut, even the famous Lady Astronaut of Mars. When her chance finally comes, it may be too late. Elma must decide whether to stay with her sickening husband in what will surely be the final years of his life, or to have her final adventure and plunge deeper into the well of space.

Last year's winner for best related work "We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative” by Kameron
Hurley

Last year's winner for best graphic story "Time” by Randall Munroe (XKCD)

>>7021695
wow, they are the true fascists . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .

ITT fagget nerds who are really, really mad at each other over literally nothing

Wasn't the biggest one from last year that book that was considered GROUNDBREAKING for having aliens that always referred to people in the feminine pronoun? I don't even know what the fuck the story is about because anytime you ask, they just say OH IT USES FEMALE PRONOUNS FOR EVERYONE SO PROGRESSIEV!! Fuck these people and their stupid awards.

>>7021746
>didn't read

It's sometimes impossible to tell the difference between SJWs and the opposition.

>>7021756
I am agreeing with you, you worthless goatherd

"As long as you don't draw dragons and phoenixes and that kind of stuff, all you have to do is adjust the design a little and you shall have something very pretty, very elegant, and tasteful."
-Jiang Qing

The reactionaries and the capitalist roaders were BTFO'd by the White Boned Semen Demon long long ago. Everybody gets on socialism train and you chose the rails.

>>7021695
I agree these are not very good.
However the puppies seem to believe scifi is all about battles and explosions and hot alien chicks which is unoriginal and frankly insulting.

>>7021511
>>7021518
>oh no my awesome urban fantasy has women and brown people in it

it's a good book anon, you should read it. I promise it has white men in it too!

>science-fiction grandmaster John C. Wright

>>7021695
>short stories
>novellas

Who cares?

Pic related historical timeline of events

>literary prizes

>>7021920
>interracial marriage proves he isn't racist
lol, because nobody who's married to a woman can be sexist, right?

Sorry, the Puppies set themselves up for failure here.

If their supposed liberal conspiracy actually existed they wouldn't have steamrolled the nomination process.

Yeah, even if it ended there, there would have been people who ideologically didn't read the books and didn't even consider them. That shit is background noise compared to the votes from people who would try to consider their votes on the merits of the books themselves.

If they hadn't relied on ideologues who don't even read to pump up their numbers 'to strike a blow against SJWs' they wouldn't have amassed so many sour grapes votes from people who remember getting novels kicked out of their hands in high school by meatheads.

If they hadn't declared their campaign a successful blow against those damn liberal nerds they might not have amassed so many sour grapes votes from people who resent the implication that their political leanings should somehow disqualify them from a discussion about whether a book is good or not.

If they hadn't shown such blatant favoritism to certain publishing houses and certain editors they might not have amassed so many sour grapes votes from people who expected the awards to be about a genre and an industry rather than one man's masturbatory employee of the month award.

The Puppies made complete asses out of themselves, sabotaged their own ideological message (which was, ultimately a question of 'fairness') by being actively racist, sexist and so on, and somehow believed they could court the votes of the wider science fiction community by actively and maliciously attacking other authors and their fans.

So yeah, I'm not surprised they got blown out. And because they muscled out some actually good books with some of the worst SF of the year, I'm glad they did.

>>7021262
I blame earlier SF and fantasy writers for creating genres which make POC, queers, trans people, the disabled, the overweight, and the mentally ill feel like they belong.

There's no need for a 'co-ordinated SJW vote drive' because being a hardcore fan of SF naturally overlaps with being a minority.

>Beale ran a ballot-stuffing campaign to promote books from a publishing company he owns
Real fucking classy there. Way to strike a blow for fair play.
If I wasn't so fucking sick of antiGG running it into the ground I'd make an "ethics in journalism" joke here

>>7021965
The reason why they got "blown out" is because they split their vote. The puppies were the majority of voters. They voted more honestly. The No Award voters were not a majority of voters, but were able to get a larger number than the other split nominations.

>Sorry, the Puppies set themselves up for failure here.

They were proved right. What happened is what part of their original goal was.

>The Puppies made complete asses out of themselves,

Just like gamergate amirite?

>with some of the worst SF of the year

Written by women and minorities

>>7021876
>I write high culture. What the puppy kickers write is lowbrow crap that pretends to be high culture. They would not recognize a Homeric metaphor or a Shakespearean allusion if it bit them on their barbermongerish cullions. (I am insulting their foppish testacles, for those of you who do not recognize Shakespearean allusions).

>These are halfwits pretending to be wits.

>To pretend that their joyless, godless, brainless pro-perversion hatemongering lecturing, hectoring and fingerwagging is somehow more civilized or refined than the edifying and educational tales written by and for persons of a civilized background and refined tastes is an absurd and unconvincing conceit, if not a neurosis.

>>7021992
>My views on homosexuals are the views of the Roman Catholic Church, which is to say, the views of Western Civilization since the time of Constantine onward. Those views are ones of love and respect, more respect indeed by far than felt by those who would encourage the sexual desecration of the human person. Why is pitiless contempt for those suffering sexual aberration a sign of Political Correctness, again, exactly, please?

>The phrase ‘beyond the pale’ refers to the boundary between civilization and barbarism. Originally, this was said to be the Wall of Hadrian, which held the Picts back from the civilization of Roman Britain.

>Which of the two of us, me (the champion of civilization, Christ and Rome) or Mr. Miles Schneiderman (a pathological liar and libeler, champion of ignorance, barbarism, confusion, untruths, and hate-mongering) is beyond the pale?

>>7021987
Are you kidding? Yeah, the puppies split their vote at the actual event, but they only got nominated in the first place by dishonest slate-voting tactics that crowded out people who were voting for the book they liked best. I'm only mentioning it because it literally disadvantaged me by putting some shit books in the nominees list, which gives me less good books to read.

I mean if you seriously think Three Body Problem, Ancillary Sword or Goblin Emperor were some of the worst books of the year... not sure what to say.

>>7021987
>Just like gamergate amirite?
The misogynistic hate group that constantly steps on its own dick and inspired the biggest liberal backlash in history? Yes, exactly like them.

>>7021920
Pretty epic troll, IMO.

>>7021954
Stop man, you're trying way too hard here.

>>7022007
LMAO at the idea of people like you STILL being mad about gamergate

>>7021695
>"We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative” by Kameron Hurley
Actually read it. Actually liked it.

>>7022019
People should be reminded of their failures. Especially when those people keep doing it over and over.

>>7022036
I don't think flagrant strawmanning is gonna help. tho

>>7022033
Hold up man this thread isn't for people who've actually read any of the books involved.

>>7022036
fuck heretics tbh

Anyone care to link me to a list of what was nominated / some (unbiased) reviews of them?

I don't follow this shit at all

>>7022077
>(unbiased) reviews
I got some news for you princess. There is no such thing as an unbiased review. In a review you take a position (giving you a bias) and argue for it.

>>7022084
Reviews that weren't colored by this controversy was what I meant.

Obviously there's no such thing as an unbiased review. Context motherfucker, do you understand it?

>>7021567
throwing around nigger doesnt help your argument dude rofl

Writing for stories is as bad as writing shallow political books.

>2015
>women and non-whites still doing nothing but whining about white men
>white men still doing all actual things

Mira Gonzalez wasn't even nominated for anything. The Hugos are a joke.

>>7022146
I dunno man. I see a lot of white men whining about people whining about them.

>>7021695
These stories are awful.

>>7022195
>blaming the victim
How progressive of you

>>7022221
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we weren't classifying whining as "doing actual things". If whining counts, you're still wrong though.

Both the Hugo and Nebula are meaningless awards with no real prestige and I don't care about the politics of genre awards.

>>7022221

Posts like a sjw
Memes like a sjw
Annoying as a sjw
Somehow not an sjw

Why are white men such pathetic babies?

>>7021336

And that's why SJWs are a cancer to society

By the way, why has no one started to write a dystopian novel about SJWs yet?

>>7022257
http://wordfight.org/bnw/bnw-unit_packet.pdf

>>7022257
All the good novelists are SJWs (read: not neo-reactionaries), since to be a good novelist you need to be capable of empathy. You should write that novel yourself, anon! Only it won't be good, because you'll never produce any artistic work of merit.

>>7022263
Oh, I didn't realize this was attached to some course packet. Well ignore everything after page 5.

>>7022254
White men are the fathers of western civilization and everyone else is just an ingrate child who won't move out of the house.

>>7022265

That's nice, Anita, now get back on one of your e-begging schemes

>>7021336
>queue HUGO ceremony the other day
>queue HUGO ceremony
>queue

>>7022270

Anita? I'm lost pal

>>7021323
>Science fiction is shit and I don't really care
No more needed to be said fam.

>>7022270
ssh anon remember? Hijacking the Hugos has absolutely nothing to do with gamergate, no sir

>>7021954
>using sexist unironically

>>7022257
http://www.amazon.com/Mister-Alex-Kurtagic/dp/0956183506/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440395858&sr=1-1&keywords=kurtagic

>>7022280
Some lady who talks about how women are represented in video games. For some reason certain types of people equate this to censorship and oppression.

>>7022280

Sure you are, it must be those evil white man again, mind raping you with their 'sarcasm', a privileged, racist and patriarchicalismistic constructionistism which exists solely to oppress all non-whites and all non-males

>>7022298

Well as an evil white male myself I'm still lost. If >>7022294 is right you are upset about a video game critic?

>>7022301
>a video game critic
Don't call her that. You'll just set him off even more. She looks at how women are represented in video games. She isn't a video game critic. This is an important distinction to these types.

>>7021262
>Breitbart

>Shut it down.jpg

>>7022269
>tips fedora

>>7022301
I thought she hated video games?
I'm pretty sure she doesn't even play the ones that she reviews.

Good on her anyway, nothing but a degenerate hobby

>>7021262
Are real news outlets actually using the term "sjw?" Have we really come to that point?

>>7022294
to be fair Anita is just the mouthpiece for Jonathan McIntosh who believes in literally rewriting history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4noZRsVV30

>>7022312
>Breitbart
>real news outlet
pick one

>>7022313
>literally rewriting history
Humanity has done this since they started writing history. And it's not like the most basic understanding of history most people have is in any way accurate. I don't see how this is inherently a bad thing.

Reeeeee muh essjaydubyas! I am being censored! Why do feminist cunts say i'm a sexist! AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM! STAY OUT OF MY VIDEO GAMES BITCHES REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>7022312
>real news outlets

It's conservative Jezebel.

>>7022318
That's retarded. You're retarded. Just because bad behavior is prevalent doesn't make it excusable.

I've seen SJWs try to retcon Beethoven as a black man. This shit is ridiculous.

>>7022304
She has no legitimate criticisms, she wines about non-issues typically in ways that make quite apparent her total lack of genuine experience with the subject matter.

That and her funding program and lack of products has produced an distinct air that she simply wanted to profiteer off of controversy.

>>7022304
Do you unironically think that the person who said incorrect things about the games she critiques, Bayonetta is a sexist mother and you are encouraged to kill civilians in hitman, is actually a good critic worth merit?

That is retarded. She even steals footage from other channels.

The Hugo's have been complete shit for a long time. It became a seal of what to avoid after a while. Harlan Ellison said it, Stephan King said it, etc.

>>7022007
I don't know about you, but a couple of faggots on twitter really can't be a misogynistic hate group. There are even women in it. I don't generally get involved with that shit, but at least don't generalize. You sound like an oversensitive asshole who only likes work if they are progressive.

>>7022310
She does not play video games.

>>7022322
That does not really prove your point. Was there even a good nomination or winner in the Hugo's? Barely any any of them were good. Acting like a cihld does not help your argument.

>>7022327
Egyptians were black.

>>7022318
>history is often biased so we should just throw out any notions of accuracy or integrity and rewrite everything to fit my agenda
surprised how often I see this argument tbh

>>7022339
>no good nominations in the Hugos

All three of the non-Puppy novel nominees were good books.

>>7022316
>>7022324

I guess that's slightly reassuring, but I really hope this meme doesn't spread.

>>7022327
>I've seen SJWs try to retcon Beethoven as a black man. This shit is ridiculous.
No one takes that seriously. I've seen anti-SJWs wash over the horrors of slavery and colonialism as "civilizing missions". And this was the general consensus at the time.

There's a difference between silly ideas and incorporating new historical facts into accepted history. At one point we knew nothing about pre-Columbian civilizations in America, and just assumed they were savage beasts. Archaeology has completely changed that view. Should we not incorporate this history in because it "rewrites" things? Should we refuse to update our history books because idiots on the internet see a dutch radio ad out of context and think it's evidence of a silly idea?

I'd say no. I'd say a careful consideration of facts makes it necessary to update and rewrite history as we learn more. To refuse to change it because you don't like things, and then point to non-historians as evidence that it is a universally bad practice seems intellectually dishonest to me.

>>7022339

So you are upset that she doesn't like games? Honestly don't see what the big deal is

>>7022334
Her criticisms are on cultural representations of women. They are legitimate in that context. She isn't trying to tell people "this game is fun, play it" or "this game is buggy avoid it". If that's the only way you can conceive of video game criticism, then of course you're not going to see any value in it. But that's a failure of your own inability to see outside of the contexts you're most comfortable and familiar with.

>>7022352
but Jonathan McIntosh isn't advocating that we update history as new information becomes available

>>7022327
>Beethoven was white

>>7022339
A critic's "merit" is only to the extent of their ability to have an audience trust their judgement. No critic is inherently good or bad. They have opinions, and people either agree or disagree. For those who consistently agree, a critic's opinion is of merit. A critic's job is to preach to a choir of like-minded people. This is true in video games, films, literature and so on. Also note that really, she isn't so much a video game critic, as a cultural critic.

>>7022344
That's a nice strawman. I've already addressed this argument though.

>>7022352

>>7021965
How were the puppies racist? There were actual minorities, women, and homosexuals. One was married to a black woman and has a child. He ended up getting death threats and his family got threats too.

>>7021954
You are telling me that a man in a loving relationship with child is now a racist? You are such an unbelievable asshole.

>>7022033
That book was complete and utter pretentious garbage.

>>7022349
They were ok. Nothing spectacular.

>>7022351
It has spread though. Most people use it as a derogatory term towards those who are proclaiming to be for social justice and then go around and do incredibly hateful things.

>>7022360
Everything she says is a moot point. She comlplained about killing civilians in Hitman was terrible and sexist since you could kill women, She even tried to say you are encouraged to do so even when you gain negative score and can fail if done enough. Everything she says contradicts previous points made. She is not a good critic for videogames an her only claim to fame is crying harassment when people said they did not like her work.

>>7022368
That is bullshit and you know it. You should know about the topic at hand before talking about it. You are not supposed to lie or misinterpret what you are talking about, and Anita does this constantly. She even stole footage from other people claiming it was her own.

>>7022361
OK. Well that isn't what I'm advocating for. I've never heard of Jon McIntosh before this thread, and I'll likely not really give him much attention after it. He isn't a major historian. I doubt he has much pull in academia. And that's where history is written.

>>7022352
there's a difference between discovering the remnants of ziggurats versus claiming there's insufficient evidence that Beethoven was white.

evidence doesn't rewrite history, it solidifies it. Retards screaming"oppreshun" rewrite history.

>>7022374
>They were ok. Nothing spectacular.
Please list three "spectacular" scifi books (i.e. books that are clearly better than TBP or Ancillary Sword).

>>7022376
I don't care about him specifically but the ideas he talks about are dangerous and not at all uncommon

>>7022376
As the brains behind Feminist Frequency he has a HUGE influence on shaping the oppression narrative in current liberal academia.

>>7022374
If you dislike her so much, why not just ignore her? You aren't her audience. Just stop paying attention. If you're so concerned about her fame, why not stop contributing to it? I'd be willing to bet that half her appeal is her ability to stir up shit and get responses from people like you.

It ISN'T bullshit. There is nothing inherently good about Harold Bloom for example. He just has managed to convince a lot of people his opinions are of value due to his credentials and reputation for literary acumen. That doesn't mean he's right all the time. In fact, I've encountered opinions of his I feel are seriously wrong.
Or Roger Ebert. He's a well known and respected film critic, but personally I think he's an idiot. I've seen him be "wrong" so often about films I've loved (Full Metal Jacket for instance), that I completely disregard his opinion on films. A thumbs up from Ebert is meaningless to me. See what I'm saying?

And again, her topic isn't video games, per se, but representation of women in video games.

>>7022360
Her criticisms are based on massive cherry picking, taking things out of context, and making mountains of mole hills, and special pleading. She has even admitted multiple times she doesn't really play video games much, if at all. She capitalizes on galvanizing the opinions of those with little formal experience who are thus easily amenable to her narrative.

It's no different than those who stir opposition to something like socialized healthcare by conflating it with Nazism or Stalinism knowing those without familiarity with the subject will often accept said narrative at face value.

>>7022379
>Retards screaming"oppreshun" rewrite history.
Except they don't, because they literally don't write any history. You're fear mongering because you spend to much time hate reading blogs online.

>>7022390
Feminist Frequency has little to no influence on academia. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that supports your position.

>>7022374

You literally just regurgitated that "I can't be racist I'm black" garbage. Is it so unbelievable that someone could have a self destructive belief?

I'm not sure I trust your review of the book considering you play video games plus the fact are upset by of all things an alleged terrible video game critic.

I think you should say to yourself aloud in a mirror what you are mad at and see if you can take the person in the mirror seriously.

>>7022389
Claims of vague threats looming on the horizon aren't very convincing.

>>7022390

>HUGE

Topkek literally a fucking boogeyman.

>>7022391
>there is nothing inherently good about defending the masterpieces of literature from the School of Resentment

>>7022392
>Her criticisms are based on massive cherry picking, taking things out of context, and making mountains of mole hills, and special pleading.
Congratulations, you're learning about criticism.

It's no different than those who stir opposition to something like socialized healthcare by conflating it with Nazism or Stalinism knowing those without familiarity with the subject will often accept said narrative at face value.
Right, and the value of such punditry is completely dependent on how much you agree with it. People look to critics for likeminded opinions to take the work out of forming their own opinions. I guess in that sense I could argue ALL criticism is "bad", because it makes people mentally lazy. But I won't because who has time to know everything about everything?

>>7022397
So just because he disagrees with you and wants merit to be the thing that gains awards, he is a racist?

He is a liberal man married to a black woman and has a child. You telling me I need to look on a mirror for criticizing a reviewer and defending a man being slandered is ridiculous.

What proof is there that he is racist? He is married to a black woman, has a child with her, and they are both in a loving relationship. How does that make him racist? Why assume terrible things about him just because he disagrees with you? Why say such horrible things about a man and justify the threats that he and his family got due to hypocrisy like that?

>>7022402
There's nothing inherently good in it. When you frame it in such a way as to suggest an inherent goodness (as you just did), it certainly seems that way though. But I'd have to completely turn my brain off to fall for such sophistry.

>>7022392

Honestly I'd pull back on that mountains out of molehill shit

1. It's video games the most molehill of all entertainment
2. A video game critic the most molehill of all criticism

And if you are >>7022390 or agree I'd really reconsider what that phrase means.

>>7022407

No I'm saying that the argument "can't be racist because I'm black" and any variation is pretty much a laugh riot.

>>7022410
The main problem I have seen is that she has gone to expos and colleges to preach that crap. She even went on media channels.

>>7022399
I don't think it's really a threat because deep down him and all like him are weak pussies

>>7022413
And who is listening to her? She's preaching to the choir.

And is it better if she's banned from such venues? Isn't that sort of attitude the biggest problem with over zealous social justice warriors? That they want other viewpoints silenced because it offends them?

>>7022416
Then what's your complaint? That ideas you don't agree with exist?

>>7022413
>people that annoy me shouldn't be allowed to talk

>>7022412
I want you to reread what you said, and then say it.

You are now moving goalposts here. You claimed they were racist, and I give you examples of how many of them are not, and now you say that their identity does not matter in terms of racism?

How is that not hypocrisy?

>>7022425

I'm not the other anon just pointing out sjw rhetoric.

>one group with an agenda tries to load Hugos
>succeeds
>next year a second group woth an agenda comes to the Hugos
>btfos the old group
>old group claims the new one ruined it
They're all worthless in my books.

Why even care about SF awards in 2015? All notable science fiction novels are from decades ago anyway, and SF as a genre, despite being filled with interesting ideas, always has horrible writing even when it's at its best.

>>7022393
>Except they don't, because they literally don't write any history.
Maybe you should ask some kids what they're being taught about Native Americans. They're being taught that life before the white man showed up was all rainbows and gumdrops, when in fact they were capable of just as much violence as any other civilization throughout history. But no, things are being rewritten to fit in with Disney's version of Pocahontas.

Have you ever heard of Holt, Rinehart and Winston? Textbooks in America are being edited to downplay separation of church of state, edited to eliminate the importance of slavery in the Civil War, or outright erasing Thomas Jefferson all together. This books are being taught to children. It's a real fucking problem, regardless of whether you're willing to admit it or not, because it doesn't matter what you know is true, what matters is what everyone else THINKS is true.

>>7022423
>>7022420
My main problem is that people are not able to critique her work without being labeled as some bigot.

I don't mind her speaking, but it is seriously a problem if people can't point out any lies she has said or refute her critiques without some buzzword being thrown.

>>7021262

Nigga you don't expect me to READ that alphabetical tower of Babel?

I don't why people give a shit tbh, modern science fiction is trash

>>7022407
I'm not racist because I have a black friend. How any adult can find this 'logic' compelling is beyond me.

All this shit about 'liberal academia' and the 'oppression narrative' (it's really cute how GG keeps appropriating terminology from their enemies to sound smart) is meaningless. The bottom line is, you disagree with Anita, now what? I'll tell you: it's patently obvious that the motivation of many of Anita's critics is ultimately to get her to stop talking, as with all 'liberals' and feminists who dare to 'play the victim card'. The rational white male warriors for truth seem to be infected with the illusion that whatever they believe is the objective truth, and anything that challenges those beliefs is a malicious lie; an attempt by conspiring powers to undermine them. Tell me: why is it that every time an outspoken woman pops up, she receives a torrent of abuse? Is it because what she is saying is wrong that she merits such a reaction, or is the reaction proof of her rightness?

>>7022406
>Congratulations, you're learning about criticism.
If you are arguing all criticism is in that form, I'd call such erroneous. Certain criticism of a particular thing can be based on genuine, impartial discussion of it's artistic merit or virtuosity, rather than inherently biased political or ideological dissection.

>>7022410
She manages to take it a whole new level. She routinely selects single factors of female characters, ones that tend to imply her experience with the game is limited to photos, and proceeds to criticize the game based on this. Ironically these same characters are often extremely strong women far removed from typical gender roles. See: Lucy Stillman, Samus, Kat from Gravity Rush.

>>7022443
You have to be a troll. You are saying some really hateful things at this point and that is terrible.

You even contradict yourself. No one cares Anita is a woman. Jon says the same thing and I still think he is an idiot for saying those things.

I want you to reread what you just said about this man's family and how you are justifying the abuse,threats, and rape threats his whole family got.

>>7022434
>elementary school books present a simplistic representation of history

This has always been true. Furthermore, there's nothing new about the idea of the "noble savage" or playing up "states rights" as the cause for the Civil War. You're trying to present this as a huge new emerging threat, when really it's been an ongoing debate for decades, many decades in the case of the "noble savage". I'm not denying it's true, I'm denying that it's some insidious SJW plot to "rewrite" history. Your specific examples have been argued about forever, and in a rather transparent way, if you pay attention to such things. Most people don't, so they're shocked when they read articles about textbooks being published that call the Civil War "The War for Southern Independence" or something. Debate is healthy. There's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes that means the side I agree with "wins", sometimes not. I learn to live with that, and advocate for what I see is best. There's nothing wrong with you doing that as well. But fear mongering about insidious plots to brainwash the youth doesn't make you seem like someone capable of reasonable debate. It just makes you seem uninformed.

>>7022435
Have I labeled you a bigot? No. You're trying to argue with her sycophants, maybe. But why would you do that anyway? If you feel strongly about her, find a platform and argue against her positions. You'll find an audience. How do I know? You'll be far from the first to have done so. Just as there is Anita's videos, there are entire Youtube channels devoted to arguing against her.

>>7022447
>impartial discussion of virtuosity
>implying anyone's ideas of virtuosity are ever impartial of political biases
>implying politics don't shape - and are not a reflection of - our values

>>7022447
>impartial discussion of it's artistic merit or virtuosity, rather than inherently biased political or ideological dissection.
There is nothing impartial about discussing artistic merit. Even deciding what aspects are of merit or represent virtuosity is a political act.

>>7022453
>It just makes you seem uninformed.
Telling people to safeguard themselves from misinformation and to be aware of political agendas behind journalists and publishers makes me seem uniformed. That's rich.

>>7022451
I am not 'justifying' anything. Frankly, I don't care. Just keep in mind, when you make your little emotional appeals, that you're on the side of the debate that constantly downplays the significance - or questions the authenticity - of threats of violence over the internet. You're forgetting where we are, friendo.

>>7021262
This is like when the noble liberals of the Man Booker Prize were upset that Laszlo Krasznahorkai won. I don't give a rat's ass about SF and Fantasy, but I enjoy when the self-styled humble and accepting get a kick to the jaw for being bastards.

>>7022447

Takes it too a whole new level? I'm glad I don't go to /v/ this is sad. You haven't even seen a destructive critic yet. Honestly I'd be happy if all that was wrong with literature and film was misperceptions of strong female characters.

>>7022435
I dunno if it's worth anything, but I googled for rebuttals to tropes vs women

This was the first result
http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2013/03/10/a-rebuttal-to-anita-sarkeesians-tropes-vs-women-episode-1-damsels-in-distress/

Nobody called him a bigot in the comments, and I couldn't find anything on google, either

>>7022477

From what I have gathered is that no one in the whole gg fiasco has been able to respond to her without drawing the ire of her pals. I'm honestly a little upset I put down my book to read up on this.

>>7022474
Why were they upset, was it because he's not a brown woman?

>>7022457
>>7022458
One can criticize literature based on it's prose or effectiveness in communicating ideas or evoking emotion without commenting on it's ideological content. A film on the basis of it's cinematography.

Sure, ideas about these things are normative, but there is a tendency for there to be a degree of consensus about them across "political" bounds.

>>7022481
Here's another one and I don't think anyone even cared
http://dustycartridge.com/features/a-response-to-anita-sarkeesians-tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/

I don't think either of the two writers I linked self-identified with the gamergate movement though, maybe that's why they didn't cause a stir

>>7021533
>a white male character was boring
>"Impossible! White men can't be boring! Conspiracy!"

>>7022490
Yes. I'm not kidding.

>>7022468
It's they way you're telling people. You aren't saying "be aware" you're saying "X is a huge threat thanks to these people" when in actuality the threat isn't new, it's always been here, and you're telling them what the treat is (which seems to boil down to things that offend you). You're not telling people to be aware, you're trying to supply them with a view that you prefer. Now you're completely free to do this, but don't be surprised when anyone who sees it for what it is dismisses your punditry.

>>7022475
If you have a genuine argument, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

You don't seem like this matter is one you are particularly interested in or familiar with. Suffice to say, Anita's scrupulous approach has at times resembled destructive criticism.

>>7022471
>you're on the side of the debate that constantly downplays the significance - or questions the authenticity - of threats of violence over the internet.

I don't think there's a side that does this. Most people seem to be fine with threats and acts of violence when it advances their agenda.

>>7022491
You really can't though. You're bringing a lot of assumptions in when you says "these things are widely accepted and thus Truth". From your own position, I should think that when you comment on ideological content, this is actually less of a problem, because you're laying your own ideological assumptions out, so people can factor that into the criticism as a whole. Being apolitical isn't possible and claims to political neutrality only serve to mask the political assumptions you have.

>>7022510
>I don't think there's a side that does this. Most people seem to be fine with threats and acts of violence when it advances their agenda.
I guess that the conspiracy theories about Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn faking death threats and 'doxxing themselves' never happened. Also GG denying responsibility for those 'rogue elements' while not doing anything ti denounce them because it's 'an inclusive movement'.

>>7022513
One most certainly can criticize something based on the presumed virtuosity of it, say the difficulty of producing or replicating it.

>You're bringing a lot of assumptions in when you says "these things are widely accepted and thus Truth".
I did not say that, you did. My point is that there can be consensuses on particular areas of merit that are not strictly organized along political lines. Consensus =/= truth.

I'm not claiming apoliticality is possible either, I'm saying the only form of criticism is not that which exists merely to serve political aims, as the original reply seemed to imply and never clarified.

>>7022453
>You're trying to present this as a huge new emerging threat,
You say that as if gawker media isnt a huge new emerging threat

hello is this the inane comments thread

>>7022541
But what you define as virtuosity is political. Is Jackson Pollock a virtuoso? Why or why not? Why is "difficulty" the standard for virtuosity? Is Hemingway a less talented artist than Faulkner because his language is more simplistic?

>I'm saying the only form of criticism is not that which exists merely to serve political aims
But these DO serve political aims. Most conceptions of virtuosity uphold established (and thus politically conservative) criteria for determining value. That's my point. There is no political neutrality.

>>7021262

It's perfect hypocrisy on part of the "Puppies".

>For his part, Beale—who is lead editor1 at a small publishing company, Castalia House, which got five of its writers and editors (including Beale himself) on this year’s Hugo ballot—has been outspoken about his goals. “I wanted to leave a big smoking hole where the Hugo Awards were,” he told me before the winners were announced. “All this has ever been is a giant Fuck You—one massive gesture of contempt.” Some nerds just want to watch the world burn.

And then they accuse SJWs of "scorced earth tactics".

>>7021278

Lol, seriously?

Read up on the Hugo Awards.

>When one of the presenters went on a long rant about how “pretentious literary nonsense” like Delany’s and Roger Zelazny’s was “abandoning the old values of good, solid, craftsmanlike story-telling,” the room got very quiet. Delany won two awards that night—and received a standing ovation for his wins. Isaac Asimov, in a misguided attempt to cut the tension of the night, joked to Delany afterward that the reason they gave him the award was because “you’re Negro,” a remark Delany read as "a self-evidently tasteless absurdity" and a "standard male trope." But it was Delany himself who noted that the worst of the racist backlash in the science-fiction community was yet to come.

>>7022545
I suppose that depends on your perspective. I don't really appreciate click-baiting online content, but those tactics are hardly unique to Gawker. Take a look at the publication in the original post. Just as guilty. This is more of a problem of how journalism as a business operates in the online age than any particular political ideology (though I'd argue that when you get down to it both Gawker and Breitbart work to support neoliberal capitalist ideology).

Again your argument for what is a "threat" seems to boil down to "things I don't like exist". Not very convincing.

>>7021262
People need to stop having opinions and instead find some less harmful way of stroking their egos.

>>7022468
You really ignored that whole response, didn't you?

>>7022549
Because the difficulty of producing something is the most objective possible way to quantity the skill that produced it. Virtuosity is regardless, using this definition, not inherently liked to the enshrinement of current cultural norms, true pathfinders may, and have, display virtuosity by producing a work which required extreme effort and passion.

Regardless, you are blurring the issue here. The point is, again, that you can criticize something without producing literal propaganda with serves no other purpose than to garner support for a given political position.

You could argue that his prose is superior.

>>7021567
>works with no merit

Name a specific 2013 or 2014 Hugo winner, THAT YOU HAVE READ, that you think has no merit.

>>7022532
It's more to say that it's not exclusive to their side. Have they ever done anything to prevent their supporters from doing the same?

Nominated for a Hugo

>>7022594
But why should "skill" be a measure of value? Why not elegance and simplicity?

>irtuosity is regardless, using this definition, not inherently liked to the enshrinement of current cultural norms, true pathfinders may, and have, display virtuosity by producing a work which required extreme effort and passion.
But what constitutes skill, difficulty, virtuosity and so on isn't a universal cross cultural value. By privileging your cultural norms, you're making a political statement. Again, you aren't being neutral, you're masking your politics in a veneer of neutrality.

>you can criticize something without producing literal propaganda with serves no other purpose than to garner support for a given political position.
And my point is that when you do this, all you're doing is mystifying the propaganda as something "objective", which is more deceptive. Blatant propaganda will be viewed as such. The most effective propaganda is the type not seen as propaganda at all. Furthermore, when you get down to it, having an opinion on anything is propagating a position, which as I've already repeatedly pointed out, is going to be political.

>You could argue that his prose is superior.
Who's? Faulkner or Hemingway? Why? Because it is more elegant? Does that mean "skill" isn't necessarily measured by difficulty? Or does that mean anything we decide is skilled must be difficult? You're getting more tangled up instead of detangling things it seems.

>>7022607
Here >>7021695

All of those are complete, undeserving garbage.

>muuh coming out as gay in front of muuh Chinese minority family

Covers several checks in the politically correct notebook.

There is nothing wrong with social commentary, if done well. You think Heinlein or Asimov didn't comment on issues? Like the Strugatsky brothers said "sci-fi is a way to look at today's problems through the lens of tomorrow thereby freeing ourselves from any shackles".

BUT

Straight out pandering to minorities and giving accolades to works of literature just because they have trans or gay androids in them is NOT how you do things properly or how you measure merit.

>>7022618
>>muuh coming out as gay in front of muuh Chinese minority family

Do you think maybe a Chinese minority author might write about a Chinese minority family? Or is it "pandering" to write a story through a lens some gamegater on 4chan doesn't share?

>>7022640
It isn't pandering if it panders to the sensibilities of straight white males. Didn't you know?

>>7022640
I have a problem when it gets nominated, because it is pandering and not for it's quality as a work of literature, I don't have a problem if a Chinese author right about Chinese people you absolute imbecile.

How are my words not clear?

>>7022617
Difficulty, not skill. Because it is objective relative to average human ability.

>But what constitutes skill, difficulty, virtuosity and so on isn't a universal cross cultural value. By privileging your cultural norms, you're making a political statement. Again, you aren't being neutral, you're masking your politics in a veneer of neutrality.
I'm not submitting a universal definition of virtuosity, merely one with makes the point which there are comparatively objectionably bases upon which criticism can be based.

>And my point is that when you do this, all you're doing is mystifying the propaganda as something "objective", which is more deceptive. Blatant propaganda will be viewed as such. The most effective propaganda is the type not seen as propaganda at all. Furthermore, when you get down to it, having an opinion on anything is propagating a position, which as I've already repeatedly pointed out, is going to be political.
As I've said, certain things can be less a matter of deliberately furthering given position to sate ideological desires than others. As it stands, you are arguing propaganda deliberately designed to push an agenda with absolutely no attempt at a factual justification is inherently equivalent to something which justifies it's position with facts or reasoned arguments, simply because both are foundationally driven by bias. Human motivation is inherently biased, yes, but this does not mean everything is equivalent in using the momentum human thought provides to analyze the world.

One could argue that "less simplistic" language is more difficult to produce when following accepted grammar rules. I'm not certain I would generally make this argument, I only submit that it could be made.

>>7022652
>right

Obviously meant write, sorry, it is 4AM here and I am falling asleep as it is

It's save to assume that the writers opposing the "sjw fraction" are awful.
This is enough grounds for me to dismiss them...
Like most 4chan users really

>>7022653
>Difficulty, not skill. Because it is objective relative to average human ability.
But your use of difficulty is just a measurement of "skill". Why difficulty? Better question, how is "difficulty" measured? Is it more difficult to write like Hemingway or Faulkner? Why? Let's look just at Faulkner. Is his passages that contain "Negro dialect" less difficult to render than his passages written in the dialect of a southern gentleman? What about the dialect of someone like Anse versus someone like Quentin? Why are these things more difficult? Is it contextual? If so, does the context bring in politics?

>there are comparatively objectionably bases upon which criticism can be based.
And I'm making the point you're wrong. Your assumptions of objectivity are actually rooted in what your politics are.

> propaganda deliberately designed to push an agenda with absolutely no attempt at a factual justification
I'm arguing all criticism is pushing an agenda and is incapable of "factual" justification. It's subjective.

>inherently equivalent
On the contrary, I'm suggesting that something that is inherently subjective positioning itself as "facts" is worse, not equivalent.

>One could argue that "less simplistic" language is more difficult to produce
Yes, one could argue that. One could argue many things. And none of them are factual or true. They're subjective opinions grounded in an ideology. I'm making the case that when you clearly establish the ideology and put it into the open (which you would describe as pushing an agenda, even though regardless of your divulging your ideology you're still pushing an agenda), this is preferable to masking it as "fact" or "truth" or "objective".

>>7022681
Plenty of crazies on both sides. I'd say you're just as much of a moron as the zealots by outright dismissing anything without doing even a little bit of research or critical analysis.

Im surprised by how childish even the authors on both sides are, calling each other feminists and MRAs as if either term should have ever devolved into a pejorative instead of something to be proud of.

>>7021472

Seems like you have a pretty detailed opinion about the subject, anon.

B-but muh asian/black wife

>>7022647
Straight white males are the 'objective' audience. Anything else is pandering. Or if you're a 'liberal' sadpuppy/gamergater, you might say there's nothing wrong with writing a story about non-white people or those of unconventional sexual orientation, but to acknowledge the merit of such works is still pandering. It's nothing personal; only that everything that deviates from straight, white, and male, is a gimmick/political correctness gone mad.

There is no take over.
We have discussed this a million times.

Science Fiction readers are typically liberal/libertarian.
Science Fiction writers are typically liberal/libertarian.

The Hugos are a popularity contest.
What everyone likes and can easily access wins.
Neil Gaiman wins because everyone knows Neil Gaiman and everyone likes Neil Gaiman and everyone can read Neil Gaiman.
Gene Wolfe doesn't win because not everyone knows Gene Wolfe and not everyone has read or can understand Gene Wolfe.
Gene Wolfe has won Nebula awards, they are voted on by the members of the Science Fiction Writers Association of America.

Last years Hugo winner was a Space Opera. Written by a Woman. Whats the big deal? Being a Space Opera ticks a lot of boxes for people.
The year before that, a Star Trek pastiche won. Being a loving tribute to Star Trek ticks a lot boxes for people.

There is a paranoid reactionary minority in America that believes everyone is out to get them, that there is a cultural war being fought. That they, evangelicals and rapid nativists and racists are in the majority, and that the godless atheistic liberal internationalists are trying to take over.

A couple very bad quality SF writers ascribe to this mentality and believe that they are being kept out of the Hugos.
Which is more simpler: this world view, or that they are simply not popular?

Because that's what this all comes down to. The Hugos are a popularity contest.

And an obscure minority are complaining that they are not popular. Not because they're bad writers or because of the politics they smear all over their works, but because of the Plot Against Me.

>>Congratulations to all the writers who won awards on the basis of their gender, race and sexual orientation
Every Best Novel winner for the past 20 years has been white. All but one of them have been American. 3/4 have been Men.
There
Is
No
Plot

>>7022706
I agree but calling Ancillary Justice a space opera is a serious stretch

>>7022706
>not everyone has read or can understand Gene Wolfe.
Real talk that nigga is so hard to read I cant even get into the universe at all tbh

>>7022691
>But your use of difficulty is just a measurement of "skill". Why difficulty? Better question, how is "difficulty" measured?
The amount of effort or energy expended to accomplish it. Consider the difference between creating the Pyramid of Giza and the a pyramid in your sandbox.

>I'm arguing all criticism is pushing an agenda and is incapable of "factual" justification. It's subjective.
Criticizing a wheel on the basis that being square make it less apt to roll relative to a round one is entirely objective.

>On the contrary, I'm suggesting that something that is inherently subjective positioning itself as "facts" is worse, not equivalent.
This has nothing to do with something positioning itself as facts, or how it presents itself at all in fact. It has to do with the merit of the argumentation behind the criticism put forth, it is not universally equivalent. Nor is all criticism equivalent in bias or the lengths it goes to to further this bias.

>Yes, one could argue that. One could argue many things. And none of them are factual or true.
It most certainly requires more effort to produce more complex writing than simple writing. This is not a matter or which is better. Are you seriously implying a complex paragraph describing something an animal is not more difficult to produce than the sentence, "There's a cat?"

>>7022702
>only that everything that deviates from straight, white, and male, is a gimmick/political correctness gone mad.
heads I win, tails you lose

>>7022708
It isn't?

>>7022715
This is a pointless argument. The puppies first layer of argument is to claim that too literate works are being pushed.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The winners are all plain as day.
The second layer is to make claims about the content being about minorities or the writer being from minorities.

>>7022614

>>7022720
Space opera's like war and romance in space. AJ has no war and no romance. Is Foundation space opera?

>>7022715
>The amount of effort or energy expended to accomplish it.
And how are you measuring that? If I write 1000 words of shit, is that more difficult and thus more skillful than a single page of Lolita?

>Criticizing a wheel on the basis that being square make it less apt to roll relative to a round one is entirely objective.
Too bad we aren't comparing geometric figures, but the quality of art.

>the merit of the argumentation behind the criticism put forth it is not universally equivalent.
I'm not claiming they're equivalent. I'm claiming that "merit" is subjective, and when you cloak your subjective opinion as apolitical objectivity because it is about "merit", you're being deceptive. Even if you don't realize it.

>Nor is all criticism equivalent in bias or the lengths it goes to to further this bias.
I agree. I've been repeatedly stating that hiding one's bias actually makes it more effective as propaganda than being open about it. I'm not sure why you keep trying to present my position as one of equivalence.

>Are you seriously implying a complex paragraph describing something an animal is not more difficult to produce than the sentence, "There's a cat?"
It's easy to make that call in an extreme example, but judging literature isn't that easy. But let's go for it. Which is of greater "merit", the Cat in the Hat or the Twilight series? Why?

Itt
White tippers getting btfo

>>7021262

ED told me Sad Puppies were an SJW thing.

>>7022732
Space Opera is shit on a grand scale and empires and rapid interstellar space flight and all that shit
And it does in fact have war and romance you obviously didn't read it

>>7022733
Sorry that's meant to say "1000 pages of shit" compared to a single page of Lolita.

>>7022735
its lolbertarian cultural warriors

>>7022737
grand scale + empire + interstellar flight = space opera? lmao

go on, tell me who the war was between, or who was romancing who? Breq's whole thing is that she's literally romance-less

space opera without war is like porn without fucking

>>7022733
>And how are you measuring that? If I write 1000 words of shit, is that more difficult and thus more skillful than a single page of Lolita?
Decidedly not. Lolita would in that case be a more difficult to produce work, shit obviously is not difficult to churn out.

>Too bad we aren't comparing geometric figures, but the quality of art.
Criticism of that degree of objectivity is possible only with an accepted purpose for the thing being criticized. How does it accomplish for fail to accomplish it's goal. Comparatively justified criticism is possible however, as is my point.

>I'm not claiming they're equivalent. I'm claiming that "merit" is subjective, and when you cloak your subjective opinion as apolitical objectivity because it is about "merit", you're being deceptive. Even if you don't realize it.
Merit is as subject as any similar concept.
I not claiming merit is objective, only that there are general bounds on which the quality of something can be considered greater or worse which are just as well. Few would argue "I knocked up Satan's Daughter" is as good as "War and Peace." It's not objective, but it is nigh ubiquitous.

>I agree. I've been repeatedly stating that hiding one's bias actually makes it more effective as propaganda than being open about it. I'm not sure why you keep trying to present my position as one of equivalence.
You argue that the bias itself always has equivalent influence and thus equivalent significance, thus is what I disagree with.

It's easy to make that call in an extreme example, but judging literature isn't that easy. But let's go for it. Which is of greater "merit", the Cat in the Hat or the Twilight series? Why?
Never read either. An objective determination of the amount of effort required to produce one or the other could be formulated however, relative to an example representation of average human ability - determined neuropsychologically on the model of the human as a machine. I use an extreme example to illuminate the point that there is a genuine difference in effort to produce different artworks, even in the case of literature.

Jesus Christ /lit/, you really will side with anyone as long as they promise to be edgy enough for you. This Sad Puppies movement is more pathetic than that Gamergate thing that happened last year. Maybe /lit/ really has gone to shit if it can't behave better than /v/.

>>7022397
>because you play video games
>judging someone based on irrelevant shit and not the content of their argument
Fucking retard

>>7022769
>Lolita would in that case be a more difficult to produce work, shit obviously is not difficult to churn out.
I'm talking about a single page of Lolita, not the whole book. Surely you don't think writing a single page, no matter how pretty is more laborious than writing 1000 pages?

>How does it accomplish for fail to accomplish it's goal
Completely subjective. The goal of a literary work or even a piece of fiction isn't made explicitly clear. Your "justifications" are just more subjective opinions. There is nothing objective about something because you're able to justify it to yourself or an audience.

>there are general bounds on which the quality of something can be considered greater or worse
Those general bounds are subjectively determined. As you pointed out before, consensus doesn't make something truth. Because many or most people agree on something doesn't make it more objective, just the audience that will unquestioningly accept it larger.

>You argue that the bias itself always has equivalent influence and thus equivalent significance, thus is what I disagree with.
No, again, I am saying that hidden bias is more influencial, and thus of great significance. You're arguing the opposite. There is no equivalence. You're strawmanning. Repeatedly.

>An objective determination of the amount of effort required
But what requires more effort isn't objective. Do you mean mental or physical effort? Are they equal? If not, why is one greater than the other?

If you don't want to talk about Cat in the Hat and Twilight insert any long piece of popular genre fiction you've read and compare it to any Dr. Seuss book you've read. If you've never read Dr. Seuss, go ahead and take the roughly five minutes it takes to read Cat in the Hat. I'm sure you can find the whole thing online. I'll wait. Then tell me which is more difficult to write.

Judging art isn't something you can count through calories. I actually think it's laughable that you're suggesting measuring it through bio-chemistry. Literary criticism isn't a science. You can't measure it or perform experiments to "prove" it. But hey, that's just my subjective opinion.

>>7022781
>Judging art isn't something you can count through calories. I actually think it's laughable that you're suggesting measuring it through bio-chemistry.
Maybe he's a socialist technocrat who subscribes to the labor theory of value and wants to replace currency with 'energy vouchers'. Perhaps he also feels that socialist realism is the only true art firm, with everything else being perverse bourgeois relativism. Of course, now that I have put it in those terms, I suspect the idea may lose its appeal to him.

>>7022781
>I'm talking about a single page of Lolita, not the whole book. Surely you don't think writing a single page, no matter how pretty is more laborious than writing 1000 pages?
Firstly, you said 1000 words. Secondly, if more people can produce 1000 pages of shit than one true page of Lolita, Lolita effectively requires more effort in being beyond the capacity of many.

>Completely subjective. The goal of a literary work or even a piece of fiction isn't made explicitly clear. Your "justifications" are just more subjective opinions. There is nothing objective about something because you're able to justify it to yourself or an audience.
Read again, the capacity to accomplish a set goal is the discussion, and is not necessarily subjective. Rather or not a wheel should be round is itself a subjective matter without accepting the goal that it roll.

>Those general bounds are subjectively determined. As you pointed out before, consensus doesn't make something truth. Because many or most people agree on something doesn't make it more objective, just the audience that will unquestioningly accept it larger.
As I said. Still, being subjective does not make something unreal. Emotion is subjective. Most all forms of artistic criticism may as well be abandoned if true objectivity is required. That said, certain approaches are more justifiable than others.

>No, again, I am saying that hidden bias is more influencial, and thus of great significance. You're arguing the opposite. There is no equivalence. You're strawmanning. Repeatedly.
My original argument was that bias is not equivalently expressed across all criticism, which you do apparently agree with. The variable effectiveness of propaganda based on how obvious the bias is was never part of my argument, it is something you introduced, and a totally separate point I would agree with in and of itself. Obviously that propaganda is best which is "not propaganda."

>But what requires more effort isn't objective. Do you mean mental or physical effort? Are they equal? If not, why is one greater than the other?
Effort is objective in the context of what is required for the human machine to produce a given thing. I don't claim to be currently able to quantify the differential effort in specific terms, but it is not impossible. Humans are again machines operating within the confines of certain physical laws, it can all be reduced after quantifying the variables.

>Judging art isn't something you can count through calories. I actually think it's laughable that you're suggesting measuring it through bio-chemistry.
One wouldn't typically, but you can, and it would produce an objective basis for comparison. Criticism can be so.

The ineffability of something has often been a basis on which art was praised, this is a reductionist means to quantify it.

>>7022794
It's not an approach I would subscribe to, simply an extreme case to make the point that there are less biased means of criticism.

>>7022806
>ineffability
unduplicatablility

I'm far too tired for this. Going to bed.

>>7022806
>you said 1000 words.
Which I immediately corrected. But ignore that, right?
>Secondly, if more people can produce 1000 pages of shit than one true page of Lolita, Lolita effectively requires more effort in being beyond the capacity of many.
The question is of effort. What requires more effort? It seems that judging the effort on a case by case basis is fair. You can't measure someone's effort against something objectively if you're saying "this effort is worth more than that effort". You have to standardize the measure of effort. You've failed to do so in priviling the rarity of Nabokov's effort. Furthermore, assuming that something hasn't been done elsewhere isn't proof that it can't be done elsewhere. Who's to say that there haven't been 1000 Lolita's written that we're simply unaware of?

>a set goal
But your determination of what that goal is is subjective. You can't say with any authority what the goal of a book or any piece of art is. Again, art isn't a wheel or a tool or geometry or science.

> are more justifiable than others.
For you. You haven't even justified this to me. Who says your conception of justification is even justifiable?

>My original argument was that bias is not equivalently expressed across all criticism,
I agree it is expressed across all criticism, but not in an equivalent way. The presence of a quality does not make that quality equally expressed. The way a quality is expressed does not make all expressions equivalent.

> an objective basis for comparison.
An objective basis for comparison that says nothing about the art itself. You could compare writing a novel to mowing the lawn on that same basis. You've moved outside the realm of literary criticism and into the realm of what makes you sweat more. Art ain't science, chum. You can't objectively measure it. You can't quantify it meaningfully. It's a question of quality, and quality is both contextual and subjective.

>>7022551
The options are "hypocrisy" or getting fucked, so fuck you. The SJW shot first and are the criminals. Puppy retaliation is punitive justice.

It's fucking science fiction.
Who gives a fuck? It's garbage for manchildren.

Might as well argue about video game awards, they're about on the same level.

>>7022397
>Ignoring the argument since someone plays videogames

What? What does that have to do with what was said?

>>7022471
You are now justifying death threats and rape threats towards people who disagree with you, you hypocrite. Stuff like that is bad coming from all sides. Don't try to justify that garbage just because it is the "right people doing the right harassment."

>>7022640
Tou can write about minorities or any type of character you want, but that work should not be praised or given an award just for being progressive. The quality of writing and merit of the author are the only things that matter. The whole book you are talking about is only pandering nonsense for the sake of pandering and progressive nonsense. Sci-Fi is one of the genres where people can arbitrarily make up a race. How is that diverse?

>>7022833
>The question is of effort. What requires more effort? It seems that judging the effort on a case by case basis is fair. You can't measure someone's effort against something objectively if you're saying "this effort is worth more than that effort". You have to standardize the measure of effort. You've failed to do so in priviling the rarity of Nabokov's effort. Furthermore, assuming that something hasn't been done elsewhere isn't proof that it can't be done elsewhere. Who's to say that there haven't been 1000 Lolita's written that we're simply unaware of?
Effort is a measure of the difficulty of imitating something. Either in terms of physical labor or the mechanical means that facilitate its accomplishment. It is not an appeal to the figurative rarity of Lolita, but to the fact that it requires more ability to produce than shit. Effort and mechanical ability together produce inimitably, perhaps this is clearer.

>But your determination of what that goal is is subjective. You can't say with any authority what the goal of a book or any piece of art is. Again, art isn't a wheel or a tool or geometry or science.
The goal is subjective indeed, as I said, but facilitates objective comparison and thus criticism.

>For you. You haven't even justified this to me. Who says your conception of justification is even justifiable?
To society at large, given that certain means are held in higher esteem than others. Not objective, but as good as it gets in practical terms. Justifiable isn't the word I should have used however, I should have stuck with "less-biased."

>I agree it is expressed across all criticism, but not in an equivalent way. The presence of a quality does not make that quality equally expressed. The way a quality is expressed does not make all expressions equivalent.
We are in agreement then on my fundamental point.

>An objective basis for comparison that says nothing about the art itself. You could compare writing a novel to mowing the lawn on that same basis. You've moved outside the realm of literary criticism and into the realm of what makes you sweat more. Art ain't science, chum. You can't objectively measure it. You can't quantify it meaningfully. It's a question of quality, and quality is both contextual and subjective.
It does, how imitable the art is. Some may even consider lawn mowing an art, just as many other lasting physical acts, such as dance. Difficult, or inimitably, is a comparatively objective basis upon which to compare something which might be considered artistic. Often, it is a fundamental one which is the basis of much of the "awe" and "wonder" art may produce, the simple question, "how was this achieved?"

>>7022838
You moron. One of the leaders openly stated that they gamed the awards show for "lulz". They ruined an awards show (even further, depending on your view), and pretended it was some brave gesture. It's just the same petty cliquishness SJWs engage in. They politicised an awards show to oppose it's politicization. That's hypocrisy. If they really cared about sci-fi, they wouldn't have bothered with "nerd popularity contest", and enjoyed literature for its own merits and not for the sake of accolades.

>>7022842
>It's garbage for manchildren.
That's exactly why the anti-sjw crowd cares.

>>7022842
Rather be a manchild than a faux smug stick in the mud, tbh.

>>7023302
>Rather be an angry stick in the mud than a faux smug stick in the mud, tbh
Fixed your typo

>>7022842
I hate you and disdain you. You and your stupid anime character.

>>7021463
>called out for being a faggot
>replies with as much generic bile and idioms as he can possibly fit in two sentences

you must have some shit taste in books to enjoy anything this dumb hack of a cuck's put out tbh fam

>>7021376
I honestly suspect the Neo-cons vs SJWs are just the furfag community that has imploded on itself and his dragging the rest of society with it into the pits of hell.

>>7021262
It kind of bothers me, but on the other hand the main reason the Sad Puppies' books are not winning Hugos is that, as the French would say, ils ne sont pas very good.

>>7023284
Both sides are manchildren.
Male anti-SJWs are bitter losers who hate women because they think feminist conspiracy is why they're not winners.
Female anti-SJWs are desperate losers who think if they fit in with the anti-SJW crowd they'll get attention from the opposite sex that they so desperately crave, aka "not like other gurls" syndrome.
Male SJWs are desperate losers who think if they fit in with the SJW crowd they'll get the attention from the opposite sex that they so desperately crave, aka "m'lady" syndrome.
Female SJWs are bitter losers who hate men because they think patriarchal conspiracy is why they're not winners.

And they both fight over completely retarded, pointless shit no one over the age of 15 should care about. Seriously, guys? Video games and science fiction are important issues to you?

>>7021987
>he reason why they got "blown out" is because they split their vote. The puppies were the majority of voters. They voted more honestly. The No Award voters were not a majority of voters, but were able to get a larger number than the other split nominations.

That's not how the single transferable vote system works. As long as the slate voters rank all of the slate candidates above anything else, if they were in the majority one of the slate candidates would have won. And in any case in each of the five categories in which No Award won, No Award had more than half of the first-place votes. These numbers are available to the public.

>>7023351
I know man, I guess I ignored the sjw propaganda on purpose for some years. He hasn't been that preachy in his past novels tbh, he really turned it up recently.

Ok, so I have to ask...

Who actually gives a fuck about the Hugos anyway?

As a science fiction fan I tend to read whatever sounds the most interesting or the most fun.

This could be anything from an award winner like Dune to the latest Star Wars tie-in.

Wether or not a book is a Hugo winner has no influence on my reading choices.

The only people I know personally who even care about WorldCon or the Hugo Awards are 60+ years old and complaining about the damn kids on their lawns with their movies and tv shows and how that isn't "real" science fiction.

>>7023408
wow, so deep!

>>7021746
It's the AI which used to run a spaceship, because it was AI either made by or used by a culture without genders it didn't see gender in species which do.
I only read the first chapter, didn't know that it never uses the male pronouns. Probably will finish it later but not that fussed.

>>7023494
It's true though

>>7021920
>Several prominent members of the clique had won an unreasonable number of times.

Brianna Wu's husband Frank has fucking four Hugos and actually refused nomination one year because he figured he had too many(then won another one the next year).
Pic related, his art(first one I found on Google, others might be better, I'm not digging deeper into that Tranny-scrotes website looking).

>>7023514
Ok, but if there are no genders in that alien race wouldn't "she" be just as alien a concept as "he"?

It makes no sense. There would be some other completely non-gendered pronoun meaning something like "this one" or "that one".

So yeah using "she" makes just as little sense as using "he".

I can't understand the mindset of people who engage in SJW apologetics.

Like I really can't.

I don't understand what fucking disease of the mind could make someone prone to siding with those things.

I really think we need to do better in terms of communicating to SJWs and their apologists that they are NOT human beings in any way and do not deserve to be treated as such. I can understand how someone might subconsciously feel like bourgeois moralizing done on behalf of privileged white feminist fraudsters is cool but I really think when we have a climate where these gremlins feel comfortable stating their views openly without threat of mockery there's something very wrong.

>Science Fiction

who cares it's all fucking garbage

>>7021578
>"If you were a Dinosaur, My Love"
>A book about a faggot muslim being beaten and his boyfriend dreaming of him as a T-rex eating the criminals
>Won a Hugo

That is why the Hugos are shit. Handing out awards for anything pushing the right dogma they want to hear, even if the story is shit.

What's the bigger meme?
Calling everyone to the left of you socially an SJW or calling everyone to the right of you socially a /pol/fag

>>7023571
How would you know? You can't even capitalize or punctuate, you buffoon.

>>7022762
Its the start of a civil war
If you couldn't figure out the burgeoning romance then you need to do some reading comprehension

>>7023578
Whatever else it might be, that (very) short story is not a book.

>lose
>fucking SJW taking over everything
>win
>fuck you SJW we win white pride galaxy wide
Either outcome is perfect for these morons it just lets them behave like pigs in mud

>there is a plot to take per the hugos
>the evidence is that works I don't like and people I don't like have been nominated and some have even won
How can someone honestly say this without their brain leaking out of their ears?

I hope the September happening comes and destroys Western civilization. These liberal cucks won't be able to survive outside their special hyper padded bubble.

>>7022471
Like all those SJW freaks who sent bomb threats because gg was exposing their shit to some journalists? Or mailing a syringe to a gay man? Or getting a black man fired? Or getting a female webcomic artist fired? Or threatening women and their families?

Social Justice is a disgusting cancer for mentally ill people to abuse whoever they want provided they spit buzzords and pay lipservice to shallow diversity quotas

>>7022706
>There is a paranoid reactionary minority in America that believes everyone is out to get them

"Straight white men are all working together to be racist sexists oppressing minorities and women! It's their fault I'm not a CEO!"

I can't wait until summer is over and all of the high schoolers hysterical about how much they hate social justice warriors and how hard it is to be a straight white male go back to school.

>>7023627
>Stupid dumb sjw scum think they're oppressed by muh white devil
>In reality, straight white men can't even get organized enough to rig children's book awards
Wow sjws are dumber than we ever could have imagined

;)

>>7023642
>children's book awards

What is it with /lit/ and SF?

Do lasers and spaceships, or elves and dragons really rustle your jimmies that much?

Show me in the doll where JRR Tolkien and Frank Herbert touched you.

>>7023627
>being hysterical and seeing a vast plot if a few winners aren't white men
This is the basis of all complaints, this is what deserves cry baby reaction images

>>7023659
Tolkiens shit
Tolkien wasn't even popular til the hippies started reading in the late 60s
Lord Dunsany, E.R. Eddison, Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, C.L. Moore, Jack Vance, Poul Anderson, Ursula K. LeGuin are the real big influences on fantasy

All Tolkiens influence has been an endless stream of derivative crap

>>7023659
You literally said it yourself, dude. Lasers and spaceships, elves and dragons.

I know I'm probably wasting my time since the usage of the phrase "jimmy rustling" indicates you're a subhuman underage /v/ermin, but do you seriously cannot understand why someone with actual interest in literature would look down on "lasers and spaceships" and "elves and dragons" as children's books?

>>7023659 #
Tolkiens shit
Tolkien wasn't even popular til the hippies started reading in the late 60s
Lord Dunsany, E.R. Eddison, Evangeline Walton, Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, C.L. Moore, Jack Vance, Andre Norton, Poul Anderson, Ursula K. LeGuin are the real big influences on fantasy

All Tolkiens influence has been an endless stream of derivative crap

>>7021262

Don't post this shit on /tg/, it's not /tg/ related, maybe /cgl/?

>>7021296

to be fair Weir's The Martian was kept off the novel nomination list by this shit, AND Weir missed out on his second year of eligibility for a campbell nomination because of this shit, so yeah, legitimately good hard sci-fi was robbed of an award because "muh jesus" types wanted to buy themselves a rocket dildo.

So there's legitimate reasons to be sour about this thing.

>>7023675
>if a certain technology is present then it is no longer literature

>>7022614

>>7023675
I just can't help but think it's snobbery of the highest order.

Are you honestly going to tell me that something like Dune, Lord of the Rings, The Man in the High Castle, 1984, etc aren't good enough to be considered "real literature" just because they're science fiction, fantasy, and alternate history?

>>7023695
LotR isn't
Stop citing it
You're not helping yourself
Cite Waltons Mabinogion or LeGuins Earthsea or Harrison's Viriconium or Crowleys Little, Big or Wolfes New Sun

>>7023670
>>7023676
u avin a giggle m8?

>>7023702
Except none of those are the defining work of their genre.

Love it or hate it, LOTR is pretty much the defining example of High Fantasy.

>>7023695
They're not real literature, but the reason they're not real literature is not just their setting, as your post seems to imply.

On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone liking those books were it not for their settings. Their messages (at least when they pretend to have a message, like Dune does), are laughable.

>>7023708
>LOTR is pretty much the defining example of High Fantasy.
"High Fantasy", like pretty much all fantasy, is garbage for children. This is not a good thing. It's like praising To Love-Ru because it's the defining example of harem manga.
Grow up.

>>7023708
But they are
Its not

>>7023601
both these outcomes are horrible, how do we get a third win condition?

>>7023708
Then you admit your representative work has no literary merit and insist upon it for muh feels

>>7023715
>tipping intensifies

>>7023695
Lemme let you in on a little secret, it is snobbery of the highest order.

>>7023715
>"High Fantasy", like pretty much all fantasy, is garbage for children
Why?

>>7023719
Game theory tells us the only way to win is not play the game

>>7021314
>This is why people hate SJWs, they demand you be judged by your gender and skin color
This, they claim to fight racism and sexism but for them everything is about race. They have a very racial way of thinking.

>>7023715
>They're not real literature, but the reason they're not real literature is not just their setting, as your post seems to imply.

Ok. Then what, in your opinion, makes something real literature? Is it the setting, the characters, the plot, the message?

>"High Fantasy", like pretty much all fantasy, is garbage for children.

How so? Because your argument seems to quite literally be that anything with elves or dragons is automatically shitty and written for children.

>Grow up.

I openly enjoy what I enjoy. Regardless of other people's opinions. I'd consider that to be a fairly "grown up" point of view.

You're the one screaming that something is automatically for babies just because you don't like it.

>>7022265
>All the good novelists are SJWs (read: not neo-reactionaries), since to be a good novelist you need to be capable of empathy.
SJW are irrational, and only care about pushing their agenda through disruptive means. I don't see how this is "empathic", and not everybody who is not a SJW is a "neo-reactionary" (whatever that means).

>>7022318
>I don't see how this is inherently a bad thing.
It is a bad thing for the people that care about objective truth more than about women's feelings.

>>7021472
Why? Because it bothers you?

>>7023746
>SJW are irrational

Isn't most "serious literature" like Dostoyevsky and Shakespear all "feels not reals" and generally not just irrational but actively anti-rationality?

And that goes double for the Structuralists and post-structuralists. Rationality and Scientific Positivism tends to get fairly short shrift in literature.

>>7023722
And for a moment there, I thought I might have been too harsh when I called you a subhuman underage /v/ermin.

>>7023729
It has no lasting artistic value. It's cliched wish fulfillment for manchildren that pretty much consists of constantly rehashing hero's journey. You read one "High Fantasy" novels and you've read them all.

Have you ever read one of those novels for any other reason besides its setting and/or plot? Be honest.

>>7023744
Allow me to explain myself. I have no problems with you liking and enjoying fantasy. If you like something, then good for you. Everyone should have something that entertains them. But don't pretend the shallow entertainment has any kind of lasting artistic value, and don't start crying and call people snobs because they don't highly value your children's books.

You can be an adult and be entertained by something like Lord of the Rings or Sword Art Online. But to cry online when people don't consider those mature works of art and try to defend their literary merit? Not a very adult thing to do.

>>7023726
>Lemme let you in on a little secret, it is snobbery of the highest order.

They're all just jealous of our jetpacks.

>>7023776
>It's cliched wish fulfillment for manchildren
Please tell me how Children of Hurin or LOTR is "wish fulfillment". In both, the hero of the story is abused, crippled, and they fail. If that's wish fulfillment, people have shitty wishes.

>>7023787
And "good guys" in Game of Thrones keep suffering and dying, I guess that means it isn't garbage either.

>>7023776
You keep coming back to LotR.

Is that really that offensive to you?

Ok sure, it inspired a lot of low-quality copy-cats, but that's not the fault of the original work or the original author.

Hourly reminder that sjws and their opponents are both immature fucks that think they're being persecuted for their race, gender and/or sexual orientation whenever their feelings get hurt

>>7022340
Americans are black

>>7023798
But I was arguing as to why LOTR and a lot of fantasy isn't wish fulfillment, you're changing the subject.

>>7023814
Moving the goalposts.

Fairly standard tactic.

>>7023800
I only mentioned LotR twice, and I'm not the one who brought it up. There's more than the two of us in this thread, you know.

I don't find it particularly offensive. I had fun reading it when I was a kid. I'm only in this discussion because of >>7023659 and because I find the immature /tg/enerate attitudes like >>7023778 annoying. Can you honestly imagine an adult drawing an image like the one in >>7023778 and finding it witty? Dude jetpacks lmao.

>>7023814
Wish fulfillment doesn't guarantee a good end, there's such a thing as noble sacrifice, for example. And Children of Hurin, like so much of the genre, is not a stand-alone work.

>>7023827
>Wish fulfillment doesn't guarantee a good end, there's such a thing as noble sacrifice
But Turin killed himself when he found out he fugged his sister. And Frodo was a crippled failure.

>>7023830
>And Frodo was a crippled failure.
I know people vehemently defending the artistic value of LotR tend to be illiterate and of below average intelligence, but seriously dude?

>>7023839
What, was Frodo not seriously crippled by the Nazgûl? And did he not fail to destroy the ring? And are you not avoiding my argument?

>>7023839
>This fucking Ad Hominem

>>7023827
>Can you honestly imagine an adult drawing an image like the one in >>7023778 and finding it witty?

Considering it was probably drawn by an adult for enjoyment by other adults, yes.

>>7023844
>What, was Frodo not seriously crippled by the Nazgûl? And did he not fail to destroy the ring?
You summed up Frodo's character as a crippled failure. If that's honestly your impression of the character, then I don't know what to say anymore. How can you miss the whole point of Frodo and his character arc so hard? It's not a hard book to read.
Maybe read Lord of the Rings again? Have you even read it the first time, or did someone read the synopsis of it and then paraphrased it to you?

> And are you not avoiding my argument?
I told you that heroes can suffer as well, and your counter-argument was "but these guys suffered a lot". That's not an argument worth trying to counter. And what you wrote in your post was so idiotic I'm honestly more interested in trying to get you to reread LotR again than to try to convince you that fantasy is garbage for children. At this point, even fantasy seems too hard for you to comprehend, so you know, baby steps.

>>7023618
Like I said, suck it up and deal with it. If Gamergaters can get together and systematically stalk and harass 'SJWs', then I see no reason for you to now turn around and complain about them doing the same in retaliation. For all your friends' talk about the 'day of the rope' and the race war, white male culture warriors seem to be under the impression that they can get away with reinstating the 'golden years' (that are perceived by the majority of people nowadays to have unfairly favored white men) completely bloodlessly. No, my friend. If you want to start a war of harassment, censorship, and rigged votes, please don't then complain that your adversary dares fight back.

Let me reiterate that I don't condone abuse; I am just calling you out on your own hypocrisy. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to fight 'minorities and wymyn', be prepared for a fight instead of trying to weasel your way out of it with mental gymnastics.

I stopped paying attention to new scifi when I read an anthology of hugo winners from 07 and one of the winning short stories was literally a matriarchal homosexual colony on the moon

>>7023830
Children of Hurin was a fanfic retelling of Rune of Kullervo where Tolkien moved the characters and story into his own headcanon. That's like definition of wish fulfillment.

>>7022614

seriously though

what the actual fuck

>>7024061

No y-y-you don't understand anon! The white race is s-s-supposed to reign supreme you...cuck!

>>7022867
>Either in terms of physical labor or the mechanical means that facilitate its accomplishment.
Subjective distinction you're making. There's nothing objective about this. You're choosing to define "effort" in such a way that a single page requires more effort than 1000 because it allows you to obtain

>facilitates objective comparison and thus criticism.
Nonsense. The choice of what goal is present is subjective and how well it's able to achieve that goal is subjective. If I said the goal of a piece of writing was to communicated "inspiration" there is nothing objective about that choice, nor how I'd measure it's accomplishment of that goal. Wrong again.

> Not objective
Exactly.
>"less-biased"
A subjective determination. I'd venture to guess that "less-biased" for you translates into "I agree with it".

>We are in agreement then on my fundamental point.
No, because your fundamental point is that you can measure qualitative things in a quantifiable way which is bunk.

You then ignore the fact that you "objective" critical system doesn't actually say anything about art itself. To cover for this you invoke the subjective feelings of "awe" and "wonder". It's a wonder how you're able to cope with such cognitive dissonance.

>>7023810
White people ARE being persecuted on the basis of their skin colour. This is an undeniable fact.

>>7021463

In offtopic, I read about two pages of Accelerando.

I still remember the disgust I felt: "GPS guided rollerskaters" or something. The exact moment I put that book away was when he mentioned how Amsterdam radiated tolerance "like a pulsar".

God, can I please fucking unread this!

>>7025320
That guy here, some of his books are surprisingly good. Singularity Sky and Iron Sunrise for example. Maybe that's why he dropped them? Prolly didn't fit into his agenda.

Other books just kill with obvious pandering to the max, like Accelerando.

Amazing ideas, sorry they ended up in his head.

>>7022614

>>7023350
Allenby is top tier waifu material