A wank that is somewhat pan-fandom - Science Fiction in general!

First piece of background: John Scalzi is an author and, at present, he was until recently (thanks, sgaana!) the president of the SFWA. In the past few months, he has been a very vocal supporter of anti-harassment policies at SFF conventions, and in general has been a supporter of having women and minorities represented in SFF. This annoys some people. (Warning: this wank, while it has not in itself veered into unfunny territory, is between two authors - and to some extent their fanbases - who stand on very different sides of the "what (if anything) should be done to ensure equality for people of different genders/sexual orientations/races/creeds." While going over facebook and twitter to research this particular kerfluffle, I encountered some of that in other posts. None of it is linked here, but it is in this general section of the blaggertubes.)

As a second piece of background, the Hugo Awards celebrate the best of Science Fiction, and are widely considered one of the most prestigious awards an SFF author can win. While highly prestigious, however, the awards are not immune from the general principle of award-giving, which is that first someone wins, and then someone else bitches about it.

All caught up? Good.

On Sunday, the winners of the 2013 Hugo Awards were announced. John Scalzi won the award for best novel with Redshirts, a comedic novel about the unusually high mortality rates of starship employees wearing crimson attire. As usual, the win touched off some debate around the quality of the various nominees. Some people enjoyed Redshirts, others did not like it so well. Fairly standard. The Guardian has covered some of the differing points of view here, most of which are centered around the merits of the books and the voting system.

John Ringo, on the other hand, posted the following:

If anyone has been wondering why Scalzi has been picking the rather stupid fights he's been picking lately:

[link to Hugo Awards announcement]

Scalzi, either directly in response to Ringo, in response to some other criticism, or just as a general response to the world in general, posts on his blog about the award, and includes the following:

* Likewise, as is also tradition whenever a new winner of a Best Novel Hugo is announced, there are people who are heralding Redshirts as evidence that the Hugo voting process is corrupt/confused/irrelevant/a sign of the impending apocalypse. I don’t take this personally because a) I am well aware that not everyone is going to like everything I write, and that this goes double for Redshirts, which seems to have the greatest range of responses to it of any book I’ve written, b) someone would complain no matter what and who won, because the Internet is vasty and noisy, and for some people, something they don’t like winning an award is clearly evidence of systematic problems and/or conspiracy, rather than simply a popular vote of a particular group of voters not reflecting their own personal preferences.

My response to this is, as always: That’s fine. And in a larger sense, a vote no one complains about correlates very highly with a vote no one cares about. I’m happy to see people care about the Hugos, even if it’s to be annoyed with my book as a winner. With that said, the fact is this year I won the award, now it’s mine, and I’m not giving it back. So they’ll just have to deal.

(Now, there are people who are angry I won because they don’t like me personally. To them I say: Ha! Ha! Ha! Sucks to be you, dude.)

This touches off a debate on twitter, including (but certainly not limited to) the following. Feel free to add to these highlights, as my twitter-fu is by no means expert. (Which is why a majority come from Scalzi himself.) Scalzi is accused of pandering, Ringo is accused of pandering, Chris Kluwe makes an appearance.

Just because John Ringo is being a total ass to me doesn't mean you might not like his books. Some to try for free: [link to free books]

@Scalzi: Reading your post that was referenced, never going to buy any of YOUR books again. You're a deluded hypocritical racist little shit.

From Scalzi: "Highlight of the day so far: Dude with Hitler Emoji Twitter icon telling me I was racist and he would never read my books. I thought: Good"

Also from Scalzi: Seriously, though. Poor spelling does not make you wrong, but consistently poor spelling does undermine rhetorical credibility. Spellcheck!

The problem is, the Internet makes it seem like you SHOULD read the comments. But then you do, and you say, "YEAH, I forgot. Dammit."

HTML has totally failed me, so here are a few good links for twitter: Scalzi, Chris Kluwe and, courtesy of </b></a>duraniedrama, John Ringo's page. (There's some potential for unfunny there.) You can find more tweets under the hashtag #womendestroySF. (Lightspeed has announced a "Women Destroying SF" special edition.)

The wank builds up, with Ringo declaring that his wife is hotter and his hair is better than Scalzi's, until at some point in this mess, Ringo posts to his facebook page again.

Scalzi was pissing me off even before getting a Hugo for a novel so remarkably unremarkable it would barely have made it to paperback in the 1970s. Nothing against it, it's a fun, simple, mindless, read from all I've gathered. But it's not exactly Stranger in a Strange Land or Nightfall.

[....]

Which is where we start to see the issues with Scalzi suddenly not so much 'coming out of the closet' but making a splash on a variety of hot-button issues that really don't sit well with his RETAIL market. The people who actually BUY the books over the counter as opposed to market, sell and even buy them for distribution. The more books you can get a bookstore to buy, the more likely you are to sell them. So being the poster child for your commercial people is a good thing.

Orson Scott Card is brought up in the comments, but less than you might suspect.

John Ringo's politics get further attention when Scalzi links us to a review of one of Ringo's books. The review can simply be referred to as OH JOHN RINGO NO, which proceeds to become a catchphrase in the ensuing twitter comments.

This wank, it must be said, is far from over, as no one has yet flounced. Twitter continues to explode, and Scalzi continues to post to twitter, and all in all, the wank has continued merrily on for the span of a few days. Enjoy!

EDIT THE FIRST: Courtesy of tunxeh (thanks!), we have Scalzi's latest blog post. It is, as noted, worth it even if all you look at is his U MAD BRO? macro. Since I can't seem to embed, here: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/09/06/some-final-hugo-related-thoughts/

So, one fine Friday, Amazon abruptly delists all titles by Macmillan. John Scalzi, who has books with Macmillan via Tor Books, notices and is initially puzzled and then increasingly annoyed as the reason for this gradually becomes clear. Amazon has apparently pulled this stunt because Macmillan is demanding that its ebooks be sold at prices of its choosing instead of being forcibly discounted to $9.99 so Amazon can sell more Kindles.

John Sargent of Macmillan runs a paid ad in the Saturday edition of Publisher's Lunch explaining their position.

I told them they could stay with their old terms of sale, but that this would involve extensive and deep windowing of titles.

(I think this is publisher-speak for "sure, you can sell them for $9.99, but we won't be releasing them to you in ebook format until WAY after the initial publication date. You give us paperback prices, you'll get 'em about when the paperback comes out.")

Amazon's repsonse was to delist the Macmillan titles (without actually telling anybody why, mind you, except as an anonymous tip to The New York Times.)

The Twittersphere and blogosphere respond as one would expect. Charles Stross is particularly pissed off. Making Light also has a post about it and there's a thread about it on Absolute Write with some hilarious mansplaining as a guy who knows the vague basics about ebooks doesn't understand why they cost so darn much and gets into it with a woman who has been in the industry for years and knows exactly why they do.

Amazon finally backs down in a public statement on, um, their own message board by the "Amazon Kindle team."

We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.

Scalzi sums up the mess in his own snarky style.

Which means he'll probably be the last to get relisted.

There's loads out there, really, but these are the most entertaining highlights, I think.

So there's a new publisher called Black Matrix Publishing that's planning four new magazines and two new book lines.

They're offering one-fifth of a cent per word for First Serial Rights.

John Scalzi is not impressed.

Black Matrix whines that they're not really a pro market. (Even if they are set up as an LLC and appear to be a for-profit business.)

Scalzi remains unimpressed.

Some of the responses Scalzi gets in his blog (about how getting into pro markets is haaaaard and everybody has to start somewheeeeere) provoke him to speak further on what he describes as "Aspiring Writer Stockholm Syndrome."

A guest post on SF Signal by one Jennifer Brissett provides a textbook example of such.

There are probably a few more links out there about this debacle, but these are the ones I know of right now. (What can I say, I loves me some Scalzi. One of these days, I might even buy one of his books.)

EDIT: Discussion on Absolute Write forums here. (Thanks to anarchicq for the tip.)

EDIT2: I knew I missed something. This was Scalzi's "presumably final notes" on the matter, though I'll add that this was before Brissett's tantrum was thrown and Scalzi saw fit to respond to it. (Thanks to ladyrogue for pointing it out.)

Hang on to your hats, kids, this one's a doozy in several parts. To start off, you might want to catch up on agilebrit's clairvoyantwank writeup. Clairvoyant indeed! To sum up, romance publisher Harlequin Enterprises teamed up with a publisher called ASI solutions to form Harlequin Horizons, a vanity press. Romance Writers of America promptly revoked Harlequin's "recognized publisher" status.

And now for a wank in several parts, involving a goodly number of awesome people in addition to a wanking Cast of Thousands (tm):

( Part 1: PubRants )

( Part deux: various forums )

( Part Three: SBTB, and Nora Fucking Roberts )

( Part the last: The NEW YORKER?! )

And finally, THIS JUST IN from PubRants. Watch that post for further fappery developments! Notably, Harlequin has decided to dissociate the "Harlequin" name from their vanity publishing rig in response to the RWA slamming them, and the MWA has weighed in. ETA: And the wank has matured nicely! Here's a couple comments of note: Anon #1, Anon #2, "Harlequin, were not stupid" [sic].

And here come the ETAS!
#1: SFWA tweets a heads-up, and the glorious katamari of wank rolls on!

#2: Coutesy of magnolia_mama, Lee Goldberg drops his two cents from the MWA soapbox. In a shocking turn of events, he seems to be making a cogent, reasonable argument. My world is rocked.

#3: annathepiper links us to SFWA's statement, which is possibly the strongest yet! For a snippet:

...Further, SFWA believes that work published with Harlequin Horizons may injure writing careers by associating authors’ names with small sales levels reflected by the imprint’s lack of distribution, as well as its emphasis upon income received from writers and not readers....Until such time as Harlequin changes course, and returns to a model of legitimately working with authors instead of charging authors for publishing services, SFWA has no choice but to be absolutely clear that NO titles from ANY Harlequin imprint will be counted as qualifying for membership in SFWA. Further, Harlequin should be on notice that while the rules of our annual Nebula Award do not expressly prohibit self-published titles from winning, it is highly unlikely that our membership would ever nominate or vote for a work that was published in this manner....SFWA does not believe that changing the name of the imprint, or in some other way attempting to disguise the relationship to Harlequin, changes the intention, and calls on Harlequin to do the right thing by immediately discontinuing this imprint and returning to doing business as an advance and royalty paying publisher.

Count on the pew-pew lasers genre to bring the burn!

#4: Found by pariforma, someone named Jackie Kessler has an excellent (and amusing) summary of the whole mess on their blog. The pricing breakdown (with reference links to the Harlequin price-sheets themselves) is particularly well-done.

#5, which should be like #3 but I missed it the first time: via lady_ganesh, Mr. Scalzi has spoken. Does anyone else smell something...burning?

( Too Hot (and big) For Your Flist )

Mmm, PR barbecue. As a bonus, there's a lovely herd of teal deer in the comments, including some truly lovely wanking by one Diana Peterfreund and a few others. Scroll on through, it's a good time.

Blooper reel: We, uh, may have played a part in crashing SBTB for a while there. please don't kill meeeee

#6: Zoe Winters continues her wanking in the comments of an article at the Examiner. Thanks dreamworld!