text:
User info | |
User name: | RayOlivieri |
Name: | Ray Olivieri |
Website: | http://foodsupplyguide.com/efoods-direct-discount-code-efoods-direct-coupon-code/ |
Bio: | Why to hold up and move all over there when you are getting every last trace of the assortments of delectable suppers at your doorstep from this trusted connected store. With the proposed items and aids you might revel in your normal and hygienic lifestyle.
History | |
Joined: | |
Number of posts: | 1 |
Latest posts: |
This user does not accept Private Messages

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Prague Bypass with Elvaloy® Helps Move Cars and Cargo Across Europe
Bypass in Prague, Czech Republic, helps moves cars and cargo across Europe thanks to Elvaloy® RET
In Prague, Czech Republic, a 23-km section of a highway bypass including a 2.3-km, 150-ft-high scaffolding bridge, was paved using Mofalt E®, a polymer-modified bitumen (PMB) made with Elvaloy® RET. The bypass helps move major cargo and cars, connecting to pan-European corridors through from Germany, Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary. Local temperatures range from -20°C to +30°C.
"Great performance of DuPont materials in asphalt mixes and the willingness of DuPont to cooperate on other innovative projects gives us assurance that we can use this material on prestigious and strategic constructions, and provides us with peace-of-mind that our reputation is not at stake." - Managing Director, Strabag (Czech Republic contractor).


text:
75 Responses
I tweeted the story as I read it at #whalerape (now lost to the ether)
For those who weren't following, this is probably the essential tweet.
"Couldn't the Codex writers group just have bought Stone a cake?"
Ah Martin, you're funny.
A boy can dream, can't he?
I note that 'The Lady Who Plucked Red Flowers beneath the Queen's Window' won the Nebula Best Novella award and Rachel Swirsky is also a member of Codex. If you are going to logroll at least pick a decent writer like Swirsky.
"I tweeted the story as I read it at #whalerape (now lost to the ether)
Behold! I made this for you. Whether you'll thank me for it or not remains to be seen….
Huh, I did Codex for a while but gave it up in favour of a real-life group. Maybe I should have stuck with it, I could have a Nebula by now.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Not that you should let that simple fact get in the way of your narrative. Hell, why bother with facts at all, when you have such a lovely conspiracy theory and–by your own admission–not one shred of proof?
Ah, but don't mind me. Apparently, I'm a just member of an all-powerful cabal. Do carry on.
So are you saying that you disliked the stories and didn't support their nomination or vote for the winner? Tell us what you dislike about the story under discussion, Matthew. I'd be curious to hear.
I haven't yet read the story under discussion, although I will before I cast my Hugo vote. The quality of the story (or lack thereof) was not the subject of my comment.
The comment made the simple and obvious point that there is no proof for this conspiracy theory.
"Friends vote for friends" is hardly a "conspiracy theory." One question that came up, Matthew, was what percentage of people in SFWA vote for the Nebula awards. Did you vote for the Nebs at all this year?
Well then, you're not exactly counterproof of the "conspiracy theory" either, are you? The question is who votes for these awards and why—someone who doesn't vote at all isn't of interest. (A Codex member voting against would be of interest.)
OK. Take no interest, then. Fine with me.
My point–for the third time–is that there is no proof of the accusations made here. And the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Refute the point, concede it, or ignore it. I don't care either way.
If you're going to give folks lectures on proof and argumentation, Matthew, you should check yourself first. Well-poisoning ("all-powerful cabal"), strawman arguments ("conspiracy theory") and the like aren't points, they're fallacies.
It would be rather extraordinary if members of the same writing group who bothered voting didn't vote for their friends in the group—we know quite a bit about human psychology these days, after all. Tell us, what makes Codex congenitally immune from "vote for your mates"?
That would be option 3, then. Very good. Carry on.
Be sure to report back to The Venting Thread on Codex!
…I'm not sure how to respond to this since it seems a little bit like a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.
Is there an influence that writers know each other? Probably. Is that a particularly greater influence from Codex than it is from any other network of writers? I mean, there's a big tangle of writers in NYC, and I think being able to be visible in some of those communities can increase the number of people who are familiar with your work. Is that deeply different from Codex?
I voted against Codex members for short story, for a Codex member for novelette, for for novella (sue me :-P), and against for novel. Also I did not vote Codex for the Norton although I can't remember whether anyone from Codex was on the list.
My top picks, including works that did not get nominated–but excluding novellas–would have been Kressel (not Codex), Nina Allen (not Codex), Charles Yu (not Codex), and an "all-equally-good" between Barry Deutsch, Paolo Bacigalupi and Kate Milford for the Norton.
I would think the largest influence that the Codex membership has on the process is whether or not it gets nominated since people have to pick and choose what they read in the field and stuff by other members in a group of yours will be more visible to you. I try to read what ends up on years best lists, and from friend's and editor's and critic's recommendations, and that sort of thing, but I will also read work by writers whose work I've had experience with liking (either inside a group or out of it) and sometimes writers who approach me in other ways, which is more likely to happen if they have some prior association w/ me.
I'm sure Codex isn't irrelevant. I'm not sure it's a voting bloc–in that case, I would have expected to see the votes spread (possibly uselessly) b/w the like four Codex stories in the novelette category. Or I would have expected to see them concentrated on the best story in the bunch. (I guess I disagree with some people on which that is.)
Nominating bloc, though. Perhaps.
Given that nominations are part of the voting process, and that nominators are fairly unlikely to not vote for the work they nominated for, I'm unsure what your objection actually is, Rachel. Nominating bloc isn't distinct from voting bloc.
Certainly there are many aesthetic agendas and factions within in Codex (it's a big group after all), and if the tangle of NY writers started showing up on awards ballots based on either obscure stories not otherwise widely read, or simply bad stories, of course people would point to it. But that tangle of NY writers isn't really creating the effects that Codex writers are creating. (The NY tangle is also a little different than Codex too—Codex selects for people with professional sales, which leads to a specific shorter fiction orientation; the NY tangle has all sorts of things going on, including pure novelists, people who have passed their peak of creativity or just aren't "new" writers, etc.) Codex even insists on headshots in its forum for "[t]o make it easier to recognize each other at events, cons, etc." That's different than mere geographical ties.
As far as the spread of votes on the final ballot, it's worth noting that it only takes a couple dozen votes to get on a ballot—(e.g., as few as 23 at Ausiecon's Hugo for the Short Story categories). A faction-creating device like a private online community with 100+ members is sufficient to launch a terrible story like EJS's onto a ballot, and an excellent story from someone else onto the ballot, and then when the final votes are ready, factions still work.
Far from being a "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, the objections seem to be, "Well, all 200 of us didn't vote for the Mormon space whale rape story, and even those that did didn't do it just because we're workshop buddies, and you can't prove it even if we did, so you're wrong." But as nobody claimed that every Codexer votes for stories that otherwise nobody else would, that's a pretty obvious strawman. It's "vote for your mates"—the difference is that it's easier for Codex members to have a few dozen mates.
I'm not arguing that people aren't influenced by social ties. Sure, they are. Is that the entirety of the argument? Then fine. I agree. People are influenced by their social connections to other people in lots of conscious and subconscious ways.
My social ties mean that, e.g., I am likely to read work by Vylar Kaftan and I am likely to read it with a more generous eye than I might a stranger's. But I didn't nominate her, and I didn't vote for her. & my social tie to her is considerably stronger than "she is a random person on a message board that about 50% of the time makes me froth at the mouth."
Maybe people do go out and intentionally vote for their mates over other people, rather than just being subconsciously influenced. Beats me. I hear stories about people voting for their friends after not reading the material on the ballot. Sucks. Those stories come from lotsa different social networks, though, formal and informal, with barriers to entry and without. Seems to me that the difference b/w Altered Fluid or Fictionados or Clarion West alumni Wiscon attendees or people who go to KGB readings, etc., on the one hand–and Codex on the other–is degree, not kind.
Also, I'm vaguely aware that some people have headshots on Codex, but I don't think they "insist" on them. I've never uploaded one (possibly someone could have done it for me) and my browser doesn't display them.
k, it occurs to me that maybe we're talking about systemic effects instead of personal intentions, e.g. the loose association of these people creates a feedback loop in which the minor and subconscious influences of social ties creates a phenomenon wherein this group is more likely to show up on the ballot
which I think is probably true
as opposed to deliberate logrolling or an intention to vote for your mates
which i think is probably not true, or at least not widely true
>Altered Fluid or Fictionados or Clarion West alumni Wiscon attendees or people who go to KGB readings, >etc.,
The main difference being that AF and F have maybe a dozen members, or twenty counting the periphery, not 100+. Same with any given Clarion class. Wiscon attendees and people who go to KGB readings aren't grouping of professional writers who workshop together. You aren't comparing like with like here, not at all. Imagine a discussion of a glass ceiling or the influence of Ivy League eating clubs on careers, and someone countering that sure sure, maybe, but isn't it just as suspicious that the sons of plumbers also tend to be plumbers sometimes.
Or to be a bit more blunt, Rachel—were this about anything else, I seriously doubt you'd be making the argument you just did.
I think that this thread touches upon a wider and far more pernicious issue in genre awards and that is one of misrepresentation and self-deceit.
Like most communities rooted in the artistic and therefore in the intellectual, genre likes to present itself as being all about the ideas and all about the quality. We have 'Best Novel' awards and not 'Fans' Choices' and the genre community is very very fond of presenting itself as incredibly open, meritocratic and accessible.
However, from the Hugos, to the Nebulas, to the Locus awards and the BSFA award in past years the reality is that most people vote for their mates all the time. They vote for people they have known for decades and people they workshop with, they vote for people they know from conventions and people that move in the same circles as they do.
To a certain extent, this type of thing is unavoidable and it is really fucking hard to disentangle your aesthetic assessment of someone's output from your assessment of them as a person. At the lowest possible level, if you know that someone has done good work in the past then you are more likely to look upon their future works in a positive light even if their new works are not as good as their old work… and that problem scales upwards all the way to the point where "This is the best work of science fiction published in 2010" becomes completely indistinguishable from "I really like Connie Willis".
I can sympathise with the difficulty of disentangling those two sets of issues, I really can, but an important step towards making awards actually meaningful is a recognition that the community has a real problem with this.
But clarion west alums don't just filter by class–there's a communication network that goes pretty far beyond that. I'm connected to at least 100 CW people, primarily through CW. I seek out class members from years before and after mine; I am introduced to them by other people in the network; I volunteer for CW; I fundraise for CW; I recruit for CW and subsequently meet the classmates of the people I've recruited; on alternate years, I drive to Seattle to meet the class while they're still attending; I go to Clarion West events at cons when Leslie or Neile organizes them.
Anyway. If the concession that you're looking for is, do I think that knowing people on Codex is helpful in creating a situation in which my work is more visible? Sure. Participating in Codex is helpful in creating a situation in which my work is more visible.
I am uncomfortable publicly discussing my feelings about work that gets nominated for the ballot due to what appears to be "vote for your mates" stuff in groups other than Codex which I would need to do in order to explain why I think you're underestimating the degree to which the situations are like. I'm not sure there are any bridges I'm willing to burn in the name of that disagreement. So I guess I'm conceding that, too.
Anyway, I hope to continue to be able to read widely next year so that the people whose work I find exciting aren't just my mates. I hope to find more Kate Milfords and Kris Millerings and Nina Allens and Charles Yus and Benjamin Francisco-Maulbecks and Will Ludwigsens and Will McIntoshs. Reading widely enough to discover new authors is the only antidote I know to defaulting to voting for my mates. And I definitely wish I read more widely and better.
I hope others find ways to read representative cross-sections of work as well.
I'm not arguing that people aren't influenced by social ties. Sure, they are. Is that the entirety of the argument? Then fine. I agree. People are influenced by their social connections to other people in lots of conscious and subconscious ways.
The argument is a bit stronger than that. I would suggest this in instance where people have been so strongly influenced by social ties that they have produced a perverse situation. That situation (a very bad story being chosen by a bunch of writers as the best of the year) is not only undesirable, it is avoidable. It is, I feel, something worth complaining about in the vain hope that it might happen a bit less. I don't think it is enough to just wave it away as part of life; sure influences work in "lots of conscious and subconscious ways" but some are more conscious than others.
I appreciate that you read widely and don't just nominated your friends. But, while I wish more people were like you, this isn't really about you. When I made the connection between your story and Stone's, it was not to suggest any negative action on your part but to highlight the contrast between the two. You are an extremely respected short story writer and I've seen awards buzz around your story since it was published. There is no reason to suspect that 'The Lady Who Plucked Red Flowers beneath the Queen's Window' was the beneficary of logrolling (although I'm sure those conscious and unconscious influences played their part) when the much more obvious reason for its win is that it is a good story (I nominated it for the Hugos myself). There is no such possible counter narrative for 'That Leviathan, Whom Thou Hast Made'.
I can't stand the casual dishonesty of voting for mates but what gets me about this particular example is just how blatant it is. Usually I would just chalk it up to the genre's fundamental lack of interest in art and move on but when a story this bad wins a major award I feel I have to say something. As Jonathan says, the problem is pervasive but here not only is the result worse than usual but the connection seems clearer than usual. Perhaps Stone didn't actively lobby members of Codex, perhaps he is just a really nice guy who people like or perhaps there really is a secret mormon cabal in the SFWA, I've no way of knowing. The only people who do have a way of knowing are the people inside those groups. So it is a bit disappointing for you to say that you know this sort of logrolling goes on in other groups but you won't name names and I have to take it on trust that it doesn't happen in Codex. The fact that people are uncomfortable publicly discussing the issue is why it persists.
CW does have a fairly strong network, it's true, and of the number of types of oranges you compared apples with last time, Rachel, CW is certainly the most apple-like of them. But it's a truism that most Clarion (and Odyssey) alumni don't last. It's not an ongoing project, the way a rolling online workshop is. It involves many people who have not published and ultimately will not publish, also unlike Codex.
I'm also sure that other networking groups can and do launch people's nominations. Hell, the only reason I'm nominated for a Hugo is because James Nicoll spent a lot of time championing Haikasoru on his blog and USENET. The difference that when someone asks how I got on the ballot, I tell them. Hell, I tell them on my work blog: http://www.haikasoru.com/science-fiction/haikasoru-and-the-hugos/ I demystify, rather than insist on continued mystification.
It's also not as though the old groups—Analog mafias and Friends of Bwana and the like have gone away. There are also plenty of shitty stories getting on ballots from pure inertia—Willis's pathetic joke of a novel is a clear example—as well. But when a new set of writers emerge with few publications and almost zero major publications and end up on the Campbell ballot, and when deeply shitty stories end up winning Nebulas, there is something going on. And when all these people have a very large, if factionalized, network of new writers with pro sales in common, well, the evidence is obvious if circumstantial.
We know that networks work. We know that Codex is a uniquely large and active network—large enough to support factions* themselves of sufficient size or enthusiasm to match other networks. And then we're told by several Codex members "Oh no, it's not that!" Oh, and "Well, other people do it too!" That the latter contradicts the former is often left unremarked upon.
Reading widely is the answer. I dropped out of SFWA and HWA years ago partially because the awards were fairly obvious "vote for your mate" nonsense, and little could be done about that. My "award reading" basically consists of reading as widely as I normally do, then sending notes to the Shirley Jackson Award jury when I come across something good. Sometimes what I've recommended even ends up on the ballot. Sometimes not. Almost every time though, I hear after the fact that what I suggested was entirely off their radar until then. I have high hopes for "Maloulou" by Marie Lily Cerat in HAITI NOIR (Akashic Books) next year! The problem with membership or popularity awards is that reading widely and reading well doesn't have much of an impact. Feeding suggestions to a jury can. The Hugos and Nebulas are basically designed with networks in mind.
*Speaking of "secret Mormons", there's certainly a faction within Codex powerful enough whether through volume or numbers to insist that dirty words on workshopped stories be obscured. Who knows what their religious beliefs are if any (I presume there's a mix), and I've certainly known Mormon writers happy to use and read curse words (Willum Hopfrog Pugmire!) But yes, the EJS story does seem right up the alley of this faction.
Forgive me for intruding, I just wanted to ask for a quick clarification. Is the argument:
EJS won because of Codex
EJS is a member of Codex, therefore he won because of Codex
I'm curious because you distinguish Mr. Stone from Ms. Swirsky, whom you identify as deserving of the award and so that is the more obvious reason she won, not connections.
So is the argument is more along the lines, Codex is a large, active group and is an easier venue to curry feelings of good will among smaller groups or other members that will trump voting decisions?
As for the original question, I'm curious why the answer is Codex and not Analog writers/readers–is it because Codex is the larger group? Or is it likely a combination? So when a member of Codex is also a part of another group, the combined force of the two..?
Thanks for your time.
It's more like, "A deeply awful story won, suggesting that people voted for reasons other than the text of the story. One likely cause of EJS's role and reputation inside Codex." Of course, another possibility is that there are plenty of people who simply like deeply shitty stories—but that doesn't explain why this one won—or that there are enough people sympathetic to Mormonism (or antipathetic enough to "moral relativism") that the story appealed–but that also wouldn't explain why other shitty stories of this type haven't won.
Since this was the Nebulas, the "readers" of Analog (who aren't all writers) are less important. This also isn't a typical Analog story—the science is Star Trek spectacle, for example, and there is a religious theme—so the Analog mafia likely wouldn't have carried it through, not on their own.
I don't quite follow the distinction you are making with those two arguments. My argument is EJS didn't win on merit therefore he won because of connections. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the conduit of those connections was Codex.
As for the original question, I'm curious why the answer is Codex and not Analog writers/readers–is it because Codex is the larger group? Or is it likely a combination? So when a member of Codex is also a part of another group, the combined force of the two..?
Maybe it was Analog readers rather than Codex members who nominated and voted for this story (although I note it didn't win the Analog readers' poll). If it was, then they didn't manage to have much of an effect on the rest of the Nebulas.
I'm sure the more networks you are in the easier it is to engineer this sort of thing. But really, I'm less interested in the exact way it happened than the fact it happened.
"I don't quite follow the distinction you are making with those two arguments. "
I'm not sure I was clear either–originally I was trying to parse out your distinction between EJS and Swirsky–that is: did both win because they were Codexians and therefore if a Codexian wins, it is because of Codex and not because of the story (or even, if a Codexian is nominated, it is because they are Codexians and not because of the story).
But after reading through the comments, it didn't look like that was what you were driving at.
Hmm. Looking at Nick's comment, perhaps the logical statements are:
If… lesser deserving stories wins –> Author must be part of influential group (OR) [other explanation, e.g. vote splitting]
The contra positive of which would be:
Author is not part of influential group [and] [no other explanation] –> One of the lesser deserving stories did not win
And perhaps not, as I think I originally read it:
If Author is a member of influential group –> Lesser deserving story will win/be nominated
Anyway, thank you for your responses. One other thing I was curious about–what would the ideal Nebula voting system be? Would revealing the number of votes fix it, or do you (anyone reading this) believe it needs a more serious overhaul? (I confess complete ignorance of how the voting works in practice–I don't qualify for SFWA so it's never really been an issue for me)
My ideal Nebula voting system would be one where all the members of the SFWA acted like Rachel Swirsky and read widely and nominated according to what they read. Then I'd like them to read all the shortlisted stories and vote according to what they read, preferably by Single Transferable Vote.
Revealing the voting figures wouldn't fix the problems with the award but it would give it greater legitimacy.
That Rachel Swirsky and I are both members of Codex ought to be proof enough — even for the skeptics — that Codex is not a monolithic bloc. As for criticisms against "Leviathan" I am forever disappointed (though never surprised) when intelligent people engage in discussing their personal taste as if it's objective fact. It's perfectly understandable, Martin, if the story wasn't to your liking. Taste is taste. Yours is entirely valid, for you. That a story not to your taste won a Nebula doesn't automatically indict the entire process — especially when, as you yourself note, something that was to your liking (or at least you like the writer) did in fact win.
As someone else already noted, we cannot doubt the validity of the process that effected Eric James Stone's win without automatically doubting the validity of the process that also effected Rachel's win.
Perhaps in a perfect world, the Nebulas would be like the Writers of the Future award: author names stripped off, thus the stories have to stand all by themselves, and it's impossible for an author's name recognition to influence the voting. Unfortunately I can't ever see this being practical; not unless we shrink the Nebula voting body to a closeted few, who are never allowed to know author names; on anything they read. Ever.
I think we just have to conclude that entertainment awards of all varieties are interesting and perplexing things. They are not won for hard work, bravery or valor, the way military medals are won. Nor are they won through decisive competition, like the World Series of baseball, or the recently-concluded championships of the National Basketball Association. Entertainment awards are bestowed, perhaps haphazardly, by institutions and, occasionally, individuals. Or even venues.
I got a readers' choice award, the morning before the Nebulas were handed out. I like to think I earned that award the hard way: enough Analog readers liked my story to go to the trouble of voting for it in the annual magazine poll. I am sure many readers disagreed with this selection, and rightfully so: taste cannot be 'wrong' for any of us, as individuals. But in the aggregate, the story 'worked' for enough people to secure enough votes to put it ahead of the competition — stories written by authors with far bigger name recognition than moi.
Perhaps this is the case with, "That Leviathan, Whom Thou Hast Made?" Flawed or not, to your taste or not, the story "worked" for enough people in SFWA that they felt stirred to mark their ballots accordingly. And isn't that the best that can be asked of any story? That it "work" for those who read it? Maybe not all, but at least some? Enough people to collectively raise their proverbial hands and say, "Yes, we liked this!"
Who on Earth ever said that Codex is a monolithic bloc? Even once. Seriously, it keeps coming up. Cite or stop lying.
The appeal to the subjective is all rather ridiculous—the fact that stories like "Leviathan" don't often win the Nebula. Were decisions truly made on a subjective (as opposed to an intersubjective) basis, the Nebula results would be more or less random as regards quality. But they're not. This story is absolutely an outlier. It's an outlier because in the framework of contemporary SF, it is widely understood that unsubtle deck-stacking is bad, that "Mary Sues" are bad, that Star Trek-quality science is hardly of interest, that stories involving a human shouting at an all-powerful ball of light/plasma/gas are old hat, etc. There are certainly plenty of stories with all these out there—they tend not to be published too often, and when they do, they only very rarely win awards. So how does one explain this rare occurrence? Brad's suggestion that people should turn off their brains at 'it won cuz people voted for it' isn't going to get very far, luckily.
Nick attacks "Leviathan" using his intellect and his (supposed) grasp of what is and is not acceptable in the genre right now. To understand why "Leviathan" worked for enough SFWA voters I think you have to be able to grasp that stories like "Leviathan" win precisely because they defy what is expected — and they go for certain key emotional themes that resonate far, far louder with readers than any set of arbitrary contemporary industry expectations about content or characterization. Granted, sometimes that emotional resonance is a negative resonance. But then again, truly powerful stories usually don't leave many people on the fence. Readers are inspired to either like, or dislike. That "Leviathan" appears to have stirred up a vocal chorus of critics at the same time it's won the Nebula, would seem (to me) to indicate that Eric James Stone did his job far, far better than he's being given credit for in this thread.
Besides which, why are "Star Trek" stories automatically bad? Scratch even the most jaded SFWA veteran and he or she is liable to have a handful of favorite movies or TV episodes from that long-lived franchise. As with Eric's story, love it or hate it, Star Trek has found a way to speak to people. Which to my way of thinking is the greatest accomplishment any piece of fiction can ever hope to accomplish — modern literary pretension be damned.
Oh, my "supposed" grasp, yes, that must be it. I'm utterly sure that "sexy secular girl scientist put in her place by smart guy with no particular skills or knowledge" does emotionally resonate with some readers—and I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of them, Brad. But you know what? "Hey, I know that guy (or woman)! And he's a nice guy (woman)! And (s)he wrote a story!" is also a form of emotional resonance. And it apparently works even when the story in question doesn't appear in a venue as high-profile as Analog, if enough people have that "In know him/her!" impulse. And gee, it just keeps happening and for Codex members. Not only for them, of course. Harlan Ellison's fairly minor story won him a Nebula too this year, thanks to his byline rather than the content. But the content wasn't eye-rollingly bad or anything.
Incidentally, the "vocal chorus of critics" were stirred up by the Nebula win because the story won, not because the story is so powerful it must somehow be spoken about and hashed out publicly. It's a competently written Mary Sue story. It's a delusion to say that there are many possible interpretations of the story, or that it's powerful. You can call that "modern literary pretension", but it ain't. That's just your conservative ideology talking, Brad. The "chorus" emerged because, well, the story isn't award-caliber and the author himself isn't so famous that it was a vote for him. Plenty of people talk about Connie Willis's awful duology winning awards too—it's just that the answer there is more obvious. People voted for her name on the cover, not for anything in it.
Finally, Star Trek is hardly a touchstone for SFWA members' own original writing, which is fairly obvious given that most SFWA members who write about space-based adventures don't more or less take a forty-five-year-old TV show and then inject their own religion into then, and publish it. I seriously doubt people voted for "…Leviathan" because it was like Star Trek.
So, nice guys who write decent stories shouldn't win awards? Is that the takeaway? Eric is both too well known and yet not well known enough? He couldn't possibly win unless the Codex fix was in? To quote Ben Kingsley, "Don't kid yourself, it's not that organized." Even if Eric had actively campaigned — via Codex, via the Analog mafia — which he did not, I am very skeptical of the assertion that the story by itself could not possibly have attracted the voter attention necessary to snare the trophy. Because from where I sit that is precisely how it went down. Eric wrote a nice story, did no compaigning, and the story managed to do the rest on its own.
Again, taste is taste. It cannot be "wrong" for the individual, yet the individual cannot reasonably impose his or her taste on the broader public without committing a logical fallacy. That's essentially Person A holding Opinion B, therefore Opinion B must automatically also be true for Persons C, D, E, F and G. If some people didn't think "Leviathan" was worth the award, okay. For them, this assertion of taste is true. But it's both unfair and impossible to assume that everybody felt (or would feel) the same. Obviously enough people liked the story to give it their favor.
To then assert that Opinion B cannot be wrong, therefore Person H won the award only because Person H is buddies with People W, X, Y, and Z, smacks so much of trying-too-hard, it's almost embarrassing.
A couple years back I had an old pro take me aside and explain it to me thus, about other people and their success, "Look kid, author K or novel J may not be to your taste, but they obviously work for somebody. Instead of getting mad about it, stop and think about how or why a given writer or a given book, or series of books, is speaking to an audience that large. There's something deeper going on, and it's worth considering. Maybe even respecting — though you personally may not like what author K puts out."
I had to really think hard on that one, because up until then I'd commonly done what's been done in this thread: make assertions of fact based purely on my own tastes, then sit back and grumble about why a given author or a given franchise was doing well — making money, getting accolades, etc. — when clearly the material wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
There's still a lot of stuff out there that I personally find bad, or in which I have no interest. But if something is winning awards — or especially if something is selling a lot and making good money — obviously my singular taste on the matter has not prevented other people from making their own choices, based on their own taste.
And I do not think the buddy network is so strong as to make people vote for a genuinely poor story, just because they happen to be cordial with the author of same. These votes are still confidential. Nobody risks losing a friendship over a Nebula ballot. Nor can friends honestly expect other friends to pledge 'sympathy' votes based purely on the friend connection. It may happen sometimes, but I don't think it's a common enough nor a powerful enough motivator.
Well no Brad, "decent" stories shouldn't win awards. Excellent ones should. As far as the rest, that's just extended rhetorical gymnastics. It seems like you can't actually describe why the story should have won an award, except to point out that it did.
Well, Nick, who are you to say, "That Leviathan, Whom Thou Hast Made," is not, in fact, excellent? Unlike you, I am not trying to pass off my personal taste as the universal default of the SF reading body. Which is essentially all your argument seems to boil down to: you didn't think the story was that great, and you don't seem to think the writer is that great either, therefore everyone else must feel the same, therefore the only explanation possible is that it was a team effort by Eric's buddies. It's like you're a Miami Heat fan who still can't figure out how or why the Dallas Mavericks won the title a couple of weeks ago. Was Dallas technically the more talented team? No. Dallas just had more heart, and that's what made the difference. I think Eric's story had a lot of heart too, enough to impress enough SFWA voters anyway. It's really that simple. That you want to make it more complicated than that tells me you're either sore — because someone you really wanted to see win, didn't win — or you're just personally irked (on general principle) that a guy like Eric could win with a story like, "Leviathan."
In either case, I find those motivations shabby. Even for you.
Well Brad, I'm an excellent reader. And I double-checked my estimation with other excellent readers. Of course, excellent readers can disagree—that's a sign of a powerful story—but in this case it's basically excellent readers versus people who make appeals to subjectivity.
Aside: how do I know I'm an excellent reader? Simple, I use your metric: "selling a lot and making good money." I went from editing a semi-pro magazine to running my own imprint. I make a high salary for publishing (any higher and I'd leave books behind for management) and the books I edit have had rights sold to major motion picture studios, have been through multiple reprintings, have been nominated for and won awards, etc.
And here's the good part: your appeal to subjectivity is a self-undermining argument. Clearly you think the story is worth arguing over and clearly you think it's reasonable that people (other than yourself) like the story. The Nebulas too can't just be waved off as subjective. The award claims legitimacy based on the fact that the decisions are made by professional writers, after all. If SFWA really thought taste was subjective, they could just run the awards based on a random lottery system. If you really thought everything was subjective, you wouldn't bother arguing at all. Not one bit.
It's a simple observed fact that people vote for their friends, for people they have heard of, for people they have some affection for. There's actually a massive literature on voting behavior, and plenty of anecdotal evidence when it comes to awards. (I was a SFWA member before they obscured who nominated what—the network links between writers were pretty clear. It was the same with HWA.) And you give the game away on two counts: you can't explain why the story deserves the award, even as a matter of taste, and you have decided that I'm "irked (on general principle) that a guy like Eric could win"…well, what does "a guy like Eric" even mean. If Eric wrote an excellent story, I'd be thrilled to read it, and thrilled if it won an award. I've read a grand total of three stories by Eric—one was fun (it was in BLOOD LITE, about a ghoul and a werehyena ), another was short and goofy (it was a podcast, actually). I had and have no particular beef with whatever Eric is supposed to be "like." But you, of course, are well-acquainted with him and a co-religionist—and this story has a religious theme. That's your actual objection to my comments, or Martin's, or anyone's. We dare apply actual critical standards to a story that valorizes your religious beliefs.
Or, to put it another way, you're just "voting for your mate." As I said was common.
So, you and some people you know read the "Leviathan" story and you all agree among you that it's not award-worthy. Fine, no problem. If you'd simply said, "Eh, this wasn't to my taste," and left it at that, no harm, no foul. Taste is taste, and cannot be "wrong" for you as an individual. And if a group of people agree (more or less) then that's also fine.
What's not fine — in my book — is to take it a step further and to begin invalidating the award (and the story) by suggesting the only possible reason the story won, was the buddy system. When I look at the list of names who were up for Best Novelette, I think any one one of them (basically all of them) had essentially the same amount of potential "buddy boost." Nobody in the running was an unknown and every person in the running has friends in SFWA who can vote.
And because neither you nor I can read hearts, nor minds, we will never really know on a case-by-case basis why "Leviathan" won. I think the story had a lot of heart and trod some familiar, deep themes. I am prepared to believe that the story had buddy boost, but because of emotional resonance on matters of faith and religion, I am prepared to believe it also got a lot of genuine appreciation among some SFWA readership. Not everyone in SFWA is a cynic about, nor a critic of, religion. Even conservative religion.
You seem prepared to believe that it was ALL buddy boost; that reader appreciation cannot factor into it — because you yourself (and some people you know) did not appreciate it as readers, and you seem to think your opinion(s) on such matters trump disagreement.
Thus, you're engaging in Argument From Authority as well as Biased Sample argument.
Which takes me right back to pointing out that while you are authorized to speak for you, you are not authorized to speak for SF readers as a whole. Certainly you don't have a handle on the whole of SFWA, otherwise the "Leviathan" win wouldn't be so vexing for you. It defied your assumptions, so now you're grasping for "alternative" explanations that don't challenge those assumptions.
You have your own opinion, and regardless of how highly you value it, it is still just yours. Just. Yours. And if events have transpired that a story has won a Nebula against your judgment — ballyhooed as it apparently is — the win could partially be due to buddy boost, but it could also very easily be due to reader appreciation too.
And it would be silly of me to try to "argue" you into understanding or accepting the merits of a story which clearly underwhelmed you from the get-go. That's like trying to talk someone who hates pizza, into liking pizza. Or someone who doesn't like hip-hop into liking hip-hop. These are subjective evaluations that cannot be objectively argued or demonstrated to be incorrect, false, or otherwise invalid.
If everything is subjective, Brad, then you have no standing to object to any argument that diminishes invalidates an award based on either the results or the methodology of the award. So, tacitly you agree that not everything is subjective. (And as a matter of fact, critics and readers do occasionally change their mind about what they've read based on conversations with people who liked/disliked some piece of work. That's because not everything is subjective. If you've never had conversations that improve your aesthetic sense…well, we've already determined that you're not an excellent reader)
You might also want to refresh yourself on those logical fallacies. Neither are in case here. Some opinions really are more credible than others. It doesn't take much to join SFWA, and there's nothing particular to selling three whole stories that makes one an excellent reader. As far as buddy boost and reader appreciation…you're the one who introduced the notion that EJS is a certain sort of person that I may not like (and that you do). Seems to me that buddy boost and reader appreciation are heavily entwined in cases of very bad pieces of work, which is of course a well-founded phenomenon when it comes to award voting. Some people have faces only a mother could love. Doesn't mean that the mother is lying or wrong, but it does mean that her opinion doesn't count all that much…
But hey, if someone, you know, anywhere, would actually like to defend the story as one of award-quality (not "decent", not "space whales are kinda cool, I guess") instead of appealing to either subjectivism or thinly veiled insinuations of anti-LDS sentiment, I'd sure love to read it!
This is the assumption I made at the awards ceremony:
I haven't seen the voting numbers for the noveletes, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were relatively flat. With a field of seven candidates and relatively few voters, a vote or two could have made a big difference. And with people who have more post-modern/literary taste split b/w Shweta and Caroline–and perhaps Barzak and deBodard–it wouldn't surprise me if that made room for people who strongly dislike everything but hard SF to vote for the Analog story.
Kelly's was technically hard sf too, I guess, but it had a more emotional and girly feel (woo for emotional and girly stories).
That's just my guess. My guess doesn't exclude Codex having an effect–in, for instance, raising the visibility of the story to the point where it got on the ballot–or, alternately, in motivating people to choose EJS over someone else when they didn't feel strongly about which was better–or possibly in some people voting without reading the category (oh, please don't do that, everyone who does that)-but that was my guess.
It also wouldn't surprise me if, in my category, the hard SF people split b/w Chiang and Landis letting me sneak through. Or if, in novel, the post-mod/lit people split between Nnedi and Nora, giving Connie the win. Or, you know, whatever the hell happened to give Pratchett (great writer, mediocre book) the win over Paolo and Barry.
I don't find EJS's story A) as bad as others do, but also B) even granting that it's as bad as others think it is, I *still* wouldn't find that to be out of step with previous nominees and winners. I guess this is where the "mates" stuff comes in, though, because I'm hesitant about pointing these things out specifically. In a context where stories with the quality of "I Remember the Future" (which I disliked significantly more than EJS's) are regularly on the ballot, I don't find it dramatically surprising that (again, granting the point) decently-written but essentially low quality work can win.
Martin–I'm sorry if my post came across as indicating that I thought there was logrolling going on in other communities. I don't think there is, at least not much; but I do think that writers get a parallel boost to the one from Codex in other groups. You are right to observe the boost is not awesome in any circumstance.
Generally–I would love to see the Nebulas go to a jury system. I think jury systems are inherently superior, and can be even better when supplemented w/ popular vote. I think my ideal award system would be juried nominees, w/ maybe a slot or two for popular vote (like WFA), and then a popular vote (done w/ numbered rankings, not straight-up) for the winner. Everyone just bear that in mind for when I'm appointed Award Goddess. :P
Brad: I'm afraid you are massively out of your depth intellectually. Presumably you don't mind this since you think your heart is in the right place.
Anyway, here is the problem in a nutshell:
The story's tone and dynamic between Malan and Dr. Merced irritates me in ways I can't fully articulate. I've read one other story by Eric that did the same thing–it almost makes think of… old fashioned sexism? Focus on physical description of women + sexuality; a morality that reminds me of old Star Trek episodes… Anyway, I've read other stories by Eric that I've loved a great deal so my dislike of this story doesn't make me any less thrilled that he won the Nebula. He's a good writer and a wonderful person. Yay for him.
"I dislike the story and think it's sexist but I'm thrilled it won a major award."
Rachel: I too think jury awards are inherently superior (and if anyone wanted to appoint you SFWA Awards Goddess I would be more than happy). There are quite a few juried awards though and I would also quite like to see a genuinely popular popular award. On paper, the idea of every professional science fiction and fantasy writer in America voting for their favourite works strikes me as a worthwhile one. The problem seems to be low turnout and a depressing lack of interest.
As I mentioned in the blog post, low turnout, many candidate FPTP is exactly the situation where you would expect logrolling and vote-splitting to produce perverse results. It really is a shame the SWFA refuses to release the voting statistics and I can't see any reason why they wouldn't, unless they are embarassed by the turnout.
I don't know enough about the membership of SWFA to say what sort of vote splitting might occur so I will go with your analysis. 'Leviathan' doesn't strike me as the sort of story the hard SF bloc could whole-heartedly get behind and I'd have thought there was a difference between the sort of people who would vote for Chiang and those who would vote for Stone. But I don't know, just as I don't what influence any other networks had. (Apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying about logrolling.)
With Willis and Pratchet I think it is less likely to be vote splitting than just the unthinking name recognition Nick mentions above. The same goes for terrible writers like Michael A Burnstein and Michael Resnick who are thankfully abscent this time round. I would have said Stone hasn't reached that level of name recognition and doesn't have a similar body of work behind him. So that is the surprise for me and why I'd suggest there is a more direct and active form of influence at work.
Martin, you had my interest — despite the baldly snobbish assumption of superiority — until you called Mike Resnick a terrible writer. This is an assertion so laughably absurd I find it difficult to believe it's been made, even if you happen to find Resnick very much not to your taste. We are clearly not going to agree on much of anything, if you're going to have this kind of regard for Resnick or his work. I will therefore conclude my participation.
Just for general reference, Brad, Martin is by no means alone in considering Resnick a terrible writer. In fact, until "Leviathan"'s Nebula win (and Hugo nomination), Resnick, and his perennial Hugo nominations and victories, was the go-to argument for the inherent brokenness of popular vote SF awards.
"Martin, you had my interest — despite the baldly snobbish assumption of superiority — until you called Mike Resnick a terrible writer. This is an assertion so laughably absurd I find it difficult to believe it's been made, even if you happen to find Resnick very much not to your taste. We are clearly not going to agree on much of anything, if you're going to have this kind of regard for Resnick or his work. I will therefore conclude my participation."
'What? You only have domestic beer? Why… I've never been so insulted in all of my life! Good night to you sir!'
I'm kind of surprised that anyone who writes for professional publication would advance the argument that "it's all totally subjective, anyway."
While I do think there is something to be said for the argument that EJS won because of "voting for your mates" and affiliations, I think his status as co-editor of OSC's IGMS had a lot more to do with it. People love their editors. Editors tend to create their own followings.
Codex is a small number of people—even if only 200 SFWA members voted, I think the Codex membership is unlikely to sway the vote. ESPECIALLY because, as you pointed out, there are 4 Codex stories to choose from. That's going to split the vote.
And First Past the Post actually makes splitting of the Codex vote MORE likely under those circumstances. Because you can't vote for all four of your mates—you have to pick one. So FPP plus connections may ultimately have contributed to "Leviathan"'s win, sure. Absolutely. But I think Codex is the wrong tree to bark up.
The IGMS connection is a good one (though there is a lot of Codex mixed in with that broad school; there are a lot of OSC bootcamp alum etc, in that griup). Again, when I or someone points to Codex, we are not simply saying that any member of Codex will vote for any other member of Codex–we are saying that "vote for your mate" works pretty well when you have a fairly pure environment of a couple hundred professional writers from whom to make mates, you'll have a bunch and that will show up in relatively weak categories like Nebula novelette or the Campbell award, etc.
I'm unsure why people keep defaulting to refuting an argument nobody ever made…except that such arguments are easier to refute than the ones actually being promulgated.
Which argument wasn't made, Nick?
And is the novelette a weak category? Novelettes are most of the words published nowadays, after novels. I don't have SFWA stats, obviously, but Aussiecon says 69% of Hugo ballots voted in that category, vs. 79% for novels, 70% for novellas, and 71% for short stories. Best editor and the Campbell are down at 48% and 47% respectively.
Novelette is a weak category because there are many more short stories published each year than novelettes, thus making getting attention for any short story more difficult. "[m]ost of the words published nowadays" even if so (I doubt it, given that there are many markets that don't publish novelettes or do so only occasionally) isn't a remotely useful metric since people don't vote for words, they vote for stories. Also, novelette has the lowest of the percentages you listed for stories. That makes novelette a weak category. (Neither editorial awards or the Campbell are awards for works, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. But of course editorial and Campbell awards are weak.)
The argument nobody made is the one implicit here: "I think the Codex membership is unlikely to sway the vote. ESPECIALLY because, as you pointed out, there are 4 Codex stories to choose from." The assumption is that people are claiming that any Codexer will vote for any other Codexer, which is not what anyone said.
Yeah, okay, I was totally faking it on 'most words published.' I like reading novelettes the best myself; so there's some projection.
BUT 69% vs. 71% or 70%? vs. 79% or 48% ? (you did list the novelette and Campbell categories as weak!). +/-1% is statistically equivalent close. I would have guessed novella was the weak category, since they take much longer to read and DRAMATICALLY fewer of them are published.
So it's not a weak category. Novelette is pretty much exactly as "weak" as short story or novella.
The argument is that Leviathan won because people vote for their mates, and then ESJ's membership in Codex was introduced as evidence of mate-ness. I agree with the first; I disagree with Codex as the likely cause of the alignment in votes. Because there are other, more likely affiliations which would have generated a larger number of votes.
I can see Codex mate-correlation having a measurable impact on nomination, but not on voting. And yeah, at some level, I have more faith in the non-IGMS names I see on the Codex membership list—I have some faith that those people, seeing 4 stories by people they know, would NOT choose the most terrible, shallow, and banal of the lot. Their vote would split in the same way the rest of the SFWA's split, allowing the IGMS/Analog preference to establish a lead.
… I could be depressingly wrong, I could have misplaced my faith in the non-IGMS members. Even so, I think that IGMS (and the general tone-deaf taste of Analog readers and writers) is the true "vote for your mates" correlation here.
Jackie, you're looking at a single year–is Aussiecon somehow especially representative of the Hugos? (Novella is also fairly weak category, though there are a number of markets that publish novellas as stand-alone books which raises their profile since they are promoted in the manner of novels.) Short story is a stronger category only because the competition is much more keen (more published each year), not because there are a ton of voters. There are few novelettes published, and they are not often published as stand-alone books or as the centerpiece of a collection or anthology, so it gets the worst of both worlds.
I tend to agree that IGMS is a significant vector–but this isn't the first odd result coming from Codex members, and there is a significant overlap between IGMS partisans and Codex members. Day-by-day interactions are helpful for maintaining networks after all. Given that Codex even occasionally obscures curses in its workshops so sensitive people need not read them tells me that the population you're concerned about is cementing their social relationships on Codex.
And again, for the third time now, "Codex is an especially large network–large anough that its factions are as significant as other networks–and networks encourage mate-voting" is not the same as "Every Codexer blindly votes for every Codexer," so I have no idea why you keep returning to the idea of vote-splitting.
This is irrelevant to the discussion, but if I may clarify a quick point: the cuss word obscuring is for general discussion on the threads, not the work shopped stories (or I suppose not just the work shopped stories? Which may strengthen your general point). People can use the formatting code for their critiques on the threads but I can't really recall a lot of critiques that have called for swearing… and if people are quoting something someone else has said (such as the story) people tend to forget to use the formatting code altogether. It's not an automatic thing.
Right, that's why I said occasionally and workshops. The point is that the behavior hints at the existence of the population Jackie was talking about within Codex…and within Codex with sufficient influence to have that behavior become a part of the culture.
2009 (1074 ballots total): http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2009%20Final%20Ballot.pdf
Novel: 85%, Novella: 62%, Novelette: 69%, Short Story: 75%, Campbell: 36%
2008: Currently unavailable
2007 (total?): http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2007%20Final%20Ballot.pdf
Novel: 471 ballots, Novella: 349, Novelette: 409, Short Story: 438, Campbell: 348
2006 (total?): http://cluebytwelve.net/Hugos2006/hugos.html
Novel: 567 ballots, Novella: 535, Novelette: 515: Short Story: 516, Campbell: 386
I mean, if you want to argue that novelettes are a "weak" category in CONTENT, well, I'll still disagree, but that's extremely subjective (yes, intersubjectivity, but we both lack the proof of sample to talk about that meaningfully), and we'll just argue all day. But "weak" in voting numbers? No. Again, we don't have SFWA numbers for the Nebula, but based on recent Hugos: none of the four fiction categories suffer from particularly weak voting relative to any other. Novella is the aggregate weakest, but not by much.
Look, I don't think this is an interesting question, and we've ground it up pretty thoroughly. So I'm moving back to the meat of the argument.
"And again, for the third time now, "Codex is an especially large network–large anough that its factions are as significant as other networks–and networks encourage mate-voting" is not the same as "Every Codexer blindly votes for every Codexer," so I have no idea why you keep returning to the idea of vote-splitting."
I didn't say every Codexer votes for every codexer, I said ASSUMING they do tend to vote for their mates, just as any other group of colleagues would be expected to, AND AS MARTIN SUGGESTED WITH "NETWORKS ENCOURAGE MATE-VOTING", then they had quite a choice of mates, and no clear reason to prefer their one mate over their other three mates. And if there is a tendency, I'm arguing it's Analog or IGMS derived. I begin to suspect you are intentionally not reading me for comprehension!
Martin, am I dreadfully misreading you, and do you mind explaining how? Martin, are you still even there? Martin? …Martin?
Novelettes are a weak category because there are relatively few to choose from each year. This was already stated. Showing the number of ballots doesn't mean anything one way or another.
Also, if there is a functional difference between "every Codexer votes for every codexer" and "no clear reason to prefer their one mate over their other three mates" it escapes me entirely. It's already been stated that Codex is large enough that even internal factions are the size of other networks.
Martin, are you still even there? Martin? …Martin?
Yeah, I'm still here. But like I said, I'm more interested in recognising and addressing the problem than the exact cause of the problem (where everyone only seems to differ on degree). Perhaps the problem is inevitable but hopefully naming and shaming is some help. There also seem to be steps the SFWA could take to lessen it such as re-introducing a sensible voting system. But there doesn't seem much appetite for this.
I am just dropping in to say that I just reread "Leviathan" and also read "Travels With My Cats" all the way through for the first time, and as many ways in which the latter disappoints (or would, if one weren't pre-disappointed), I have to say that Stone's prose makes Resnick's look pretty good.
Also, though, I take Jackie's point. In the absence of other evidence (e.g., knowledge of the internal structure of Codex and the relative sizes of various factions), the simplest voter behavior model is that a Codex member is equally likely to vote for any nominated Codex story, in which case Codex might be sufficient explanation for Stone beating Barzak, Kelly, and Narayan, but not de Bodard, Kastenschmidt or Yoachim. It *might* be that Codex voters disproportionately went for Stone, but equally they might have all voted for de Bodard. Without more numbers we can't know. So it's not a complete explanation for the win; to explain why Stone beat the other Codex stories we have to look at other factors—Analog mafia etc.
But, Nick, it seems like you're arguing that from what you know of Codex, it's disproportionately Mormon, or at least lilywhite American reactionary. If that's the case, then disproportionately more Codex voters might have gone for the Stone. I'm not sure what that would mean, though. Is it "vote for your mates" again? Or is it that Codex is a good platform for reactionary writers to make a reputation among their fellow reactionaries?
Martin, FWIW, SFWA VP Mary Robinette Kowal says that she looked into the statistics and IRV "doesn't do what it was designed to" for a pool of less than ~10,000 voters. Then again I'm not sure how much I care what it was designed to do, or even what it actually accomplishes, if it at least provides the appearance of a broader base for the winner, some satisfaction for runners-up, etc. But I imagine this was talked to death over in the UK during the run-up to The Referendum On Nick Clegg, or at least before it became The Referendum On Nick Clegg, so maybe you have some references?
Mind, I think SFWA is completely capable of giving a Nebula to a story this bad under pretty much any voting system whatsoever.
Appealing to the simplest model is rather different than appealing to the most accurate-seeming model. Declaring that what one doesn't know of probably doesn't exist—while also claiming to have made no such declaration—isn't a good way to think things through. What actually existing social networks of a couple hundred people contain individual members of exactly equal social status? The answer is zero. It strikes me as rather odd to assume for the sake of discussion or inquiry that in this case the answer is one: Codex.
There is a conservative (reactionary? who knows!) faction of significant influence within Codex, and also the nature of Codex makes any sort of faction a bit more rigorously reinforced than the mere fellow-feelings of co-religionists or Analog writers, etc. Also, EJS in particular, as one of the founders of Codex, is likely a leading figure in the workshop regardless of his politics, religion, or aesthetic agenda. He's also a very nice fellow by all accounts. All these things count.
Further, Codex effects also seem clear to me with various other awards, including Campbell nominations, Hugo nominations etc. None of them are quite so awful as "Leviathan", but were otherwise obscure enough that a vote network or bloc seemed more likely than mere popularity in the blogosphere. That this story, despite its great handicap of being awful, wins without the assistance of a major social network of influence though its author is a founder of the network, seems to me to be the extraordinary claim here.
SFWA VP Mary Robinette Kowal says that she looked into the statistics and IRV "doesn't do what it was designed to" for a pool of less than ~10,000 voters.
Um, what does this even mean? (And has anyone told the Hugos?)
Martin, I think my point was just that you're likely "naming and shaming" the wrong group by pointing out Codex.
… but I'm also currently having an e-mail discussion about this with Jed Hartman. He has a couple of SF friends who really did like it— the quote he shared was from the friend who really enjoyed the "classic sense of wonder" she got off it.
I think it's quite possible it's not just mate-voting that we're going up against here—we may be talking about a completely different mode of reading SF. I've had this problem a lot talking with some of my own SF friends: they find tired cliches fresh, stilted dialogue witty. And just possibly, in this case, shallow moralizing thoughtful.
What's more, when I try to get them to read the stuff I find "good", they hand it back saying they just couldn't get into it. Sometimes they hand it back saying they HATED it.
Nick likes to talk about intersubjectivity, but I think it's possible we are dealing not just with a spectrum of taste, but an actual bimodality. And I don't think naming and shaming is going to fix that. I don't really know what could.
I wouldn't have been as surprised if "Leviathan" had won the Hugo, which is a fan award and certainly many fans have parochial tastes. But that it won the Nebula was especially interesting, and telling, to me.
I think my point was just that you're likely "naming and shaming" the wrong group by pointing out Codex.
The primary purpose of this post is to name and shame Stone – I'd like people to try and write better stories. The secondary purpose is to shame the professional writers who voted for it – I'd like people to stop voting for terrible stories. The tertiary purpose is to try and name some of those people – I'd like people to stop pretending it is nothing to do with them. I am not at all unconvinced that the Codex writers group didn't play a role in this story winning the Nebula.
But maybe it didn't. Maybe everyone who voted for this story is just like Jed Hartman's friends and are simpletons who actively hate the written word. If that is the case and they are the strongest faction currently voting in the Nebulas then perhaps you are right and we should all just give up.
[…] What's The Opposite Of Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes? – in which I take issue with the Nebulas. 2) 'The Star' by Arthur C. Clarke […]
[…] Roundtable. Unfortunately the actual experience of reading the supposed cream of the crop of SF was deeply disenchanting. Similarly disenchanting was my story by story reading of three significant anthologies: The Ascent […]
Is there a place I can read ""That Leviathan, Whom Thou Hast Made" so I can form an opinion. I'm curious now.
I think Star Ship Sofa has a podcast of it.
[…] What's The Opposite Of Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes? – in which I take issue with the Nebulas. 2) Everything That Is Wrong With Commercial Fantasy In […]
[…] say the comments; "devastating and brilliant". It is a pile of shite of 'That Leviathan, Whom Thou Hast Made' proportions (though not actively offensive in the same way). It is a problem for SF that stories […]
[…] It's all prime condition for mediocrity to flourish. For proof of that–well, does anyone really need proof that SFF is where the mediocre, the subpar, the outright bad are celebrated? George RR Martin just got a "lifetime achievement" award after all. What achievement that might be is anyone's guess, since as far as I know he hasn't done anything that might constitute a contribution to humanity–or even anything that might be considered innovative within genre itself. All he does is shit out soap opera. Entertaining, sure, but ultimately worthless. Which sums up most of the genre very well, and provides ready answer as to why genre will never be taken seriously outside its fandom (no, not even Nebula and Hugo winners–maybe especially not those winners). […]
Hmm. Codex vs Puppies?


text:
Every summer we escape the heat of Phoenix and head 4 hours North to the mountains for a relaxing extra long weekend. We hike, we play, we geocache, we just enjoy a slow life with lots of family time. Mostly I make something yummy in the slow cooker, but at least once we hit up a local pizza parlor and enjoy a huge pizza and a Goat Cheese Fonduta appetizer. Every year I say, "I should make this at home."
Well, this year, I finally did!
It really was so simple that it makes a perfect appetizer for unexpected guests, serve at your next party, take it to a potluck, or make it for Superbowl.
On our way home from our mountain vacation we took a detour and checked out a goat farm. It's a small farm that raises goats and llamas. We were able to spend a little bit of time wandering around with the goats and then sampled several varieties of cheese. The kids loved it and still talk about it because goats are hilarious!! If you are ever in the Phoenix area, check out Fossil Creak Creamery, just two hours or so North of the area. If we had planned our visit better we could have watched them milk the goats…maybe next time.
But we did come home with some lovely goat cheese and goat's milk fudge….oh yeah…that was amazing!
I used our fresh goat's cheese to whip up these wonderful appetizer for the family soon after we got back from our trip while everything was still fresh in mind. The goat cheese is creamy and a bit tangy which goes nicely with the tomato sauce.
- 4 oz goat cheese
- 1 1/2 cups marinara sauce (I use homemade marinara, but use your favorite sauce)
- 1 tbls chopped fresh basil
- sourdough crisps or a thin loaf of sourdough, sliced thin and toasted
Lay out goat cheese to come up to room temperature, about 30 minutes.
Gently warm marinara sauce on the stove. Place goat cheese in a microwave save dish and heat for about 20 seconds. The goal is to warm it up a little bit, not melt it. Gently pour sauce into serving dish and place warmed cheese in the middle of bowl. Sprinkle with chopped basil.
Serve with sourdough crisps.
http://www.aroundmyfamilytable.com/goat-cheese-fonduta/Join the newsletter
Get Delicious & Seasonal Recipes in your INBOX every week.


text:
Manage Reservations
Need to make changes to your reservation? You've come to the right place!
Already an IHG® Rewards Club Member?
Sign in
to view reservations.
To find availability and pricing information for your meeting and event, please request a meeting quote online. If you have questions or would you like to book your meeting or event by phone, contact us at 1-800-652-3705. Email us at firstname.lastname@example.com.
From 9 - 120 Parties
Non Residential Breakfast Meetings are Welcome,
From 2-120 Parties
Non Residential Companies and family occasions are catered for. Contact pur conference professionals for menus and further details.


text:
No doubt in my mind that Obama tried to delay the agreement. Obama's prediction that the surge would utterly fail depends on failure in Iraq. For Obama, it's Obama first, country last.
Mark Hudson– do you even believe the nonsense you just typed on here? If you keep up with the fact checks on CNN, you will notice that the MAJORITY of what McCain and Palin spew comes out as False or Misleading. If you want to talk about a couple of liars, turn your half blind eyes toward the Republican ticket. They will give you your moneys worth in falsehoods.
Obama is a great orator, and as great a speaker he is also a smooth operator.I have no doubt he wanted this Iraqi delay to happen. As if his political campaign didn't release the Keating smear on McCain. This year both campaigns have been uglier than ever and while Obama is shining in his element, smug with himsef, McCain is clearly playing catch up. McCain wanted to play a good game but then he underestimated the political machine of Chicago. In the end, do we want the slick spendthrift who knows what we're going to do five moves ahead (or before we do) or the simple frugal tough guy with good character? I'm not so sure...maybe I'll just write in Hiliary Clinton!
Fact check, ya right, run by a biased News outlet.
Hey John. I believe everything I read in Wikipedia since it is liberally biased. This Obama conversation with Iraqi officials was also mentioned in a column in the New York Post, also. Oh, I know that is a conservative paper, also. Were you expecting to see something potentially negative about Obama in, say, The New York Times? Give me a break.
With the Palin/McCain campaign willingly telling outright lies...some of us americans still believe them. I wonder why?
Obama/Biden 08/12
The McCain campaign is self destructingl
Now I suppose she can see Iraq from Alaska! Why would anyone listen to this woman???
As a follower of Christ myself, I feel Palin gives a bad example of a Christian. Her comments are mean spirited and aimed to stir hatred and discourse among the people. It is very disquieting to me that a person like this might end up as our leader. If she does, God help us. I will continue to pray for her and our country.
what's the point, another typical ignorant moron...
The dirty job for Obama is done by the media, McCain has to do it himself. Given this wrong the perception you have is right!
Congress must approve any troop level agreements. That's just a fact. I must be missing something here...
Sarah Palin will do anything to get McCain elected. Every time she opens her mouth a lie comes out.
What are all these about? Will somebody tell Palin to let us know what McCain is going to about the sagging economy? I betcha, she will go and check and come and tell ya. It is the empty vessels that make the loudest noise. A tree without a root wobbles on it's stock. No wonder, the McCain campaign is wobbling and are making the most outragous noise. Keep wobbling for you are definfitely going to fall with a bang on Nov. 4th. Watch Out.
I used to go to a space on the internet where people came together to discuss spiritual things. Often we go off into political and social issues. I said way back then that Bush/Cheney was the personification of the antichrist, pure evil. I have not change my mind.
I saw all this happening, and I warned about it. I seem to have a gift for sensing what political figures are all about, whether they are good or evil from my earliest memories. I said the Bush administration was going to take this country on a rollercoaster ride to destructions. I said that it began with Daddy Bush, but would not end with him. And I was right. I don't want to be right again, but I think we are dealing with something much bigger that Republicans and Democrats.
I hope that We, the People are finally paying attention and taking this seriously. We are talking the battle between good and evil, People. There is way too much at stake .....
I've always heard that desperate people do desperate things, but for McCain/Palin to stir up such hate and discontent among their supporters disappointed me. Are they trying to start a racial war? I watched their supporters respond to their lead. This country should be pulling together, not falling apart at a time like this. We're a nation that's already hated by other nations and now we have a presidential candidate and his sidekick putting hatred thoughts in the minds of their supporters, by using words like terrorist, muslin in relation to Barack Obama? How unamerican! Are McCain and Palin that naive to believe this hatred they're stirring up will stop with Obama? Do they really believe this will unite us? Does selling your soul for the presidency and vice presidency worth the costs "a nation divided". Barry Goldwater and George Wallace would be proud of McCain and Palin, and David Duke, well, he's giving them the "thumbs up."
Palin needs to go somewhere and hide after the verdict of the troopergate. She has no pride. She is as guilty as sin. It;s apparent that she will do or say anything to benefit her.She is a die-hard racist!
She a dummy. there are so many good candidate to pick and Mccain pick a dummy.
now you want someone to be your president to make that kind of decision?
FACT CHECK is a far left wing organization. They always cover up for the Communist Democrat Party by obscuring the true story. The average liberal "mush brains" swallow it hook line and sinker.
This is not the original story on Obama getting the Iraqi's to not sign an agreement. Why didn't FACT CHECK tell the true story? Simple, it's a cover up.
The Time report names its source. Obama supporters will, of course, not believe it. But who cares? Its about independents who are not drinking Obama's kool-aid.
Its clear Obama will do anything, including harm his country to win the election in November.
And by the way, as for stirring up hatred, that's a laugh considering the hatred the left has shown for Bush and Cheney the last 8 years and the hatred they have shown Sarah Palin since she was asked to run for VP. Your outrage rings hollow. When you call for your side, which is truly the side of haters, to tone it down, then your words may have more meaning to the rest of us. You reap what you sow.
McCain and Palin are the reason why race is becoming an issue again. November 4th, the verdict will be in...Guilty for McCain and Palin.
More unsubstantiated scuttlebutt from Palin.
This is for Valerius...how long have you been a racist. I'm willing to bet that you didn't even know that you were one.
Wow, I guess we know who this websites audience is. I dont think I have never see so many one sided responces to a claim that so blatantly has some truth to it. Lay off the cool-aid Obama fans, learn your history, and how Mr. Hussein is about to repeat it.


text:
UnNews:Public get sick of Large Hadron Collider news stories
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Public get sick of Large Hadron Collider news stories
The news outlet with approval higher than Congress |
Sunday, March 26, 2017, 05:36:59 (UTC)
• Newsroom • Audio (staff) • Foolitzer Prize • Indexes • Random story |
19 September 2008
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND - It seems that ever since the Large Hadron Collider was switched on a week ago, the Scientists seem to be trigger happy with the machine. They are switching it on everyday, causing new disasters and phenomenon.
Some of the disasters are:
- Destroying God by accident
- Creating numerous Black holes in our atmosphere
- Creating a wormhole to a parallel Universe
- Destroying Switzerland
- Proving the Mayan doomsday theory
- Gave Conspiracy Theorists something else to worry about
However, the problem is nobody cares. There are constant reports coming in everyday about what these terrorists Scientists have done to our lives. The only story people remotely care about is the fact it destroyed Switzerland. This is because losing all the money has made the world's economy fall apart, forcing the Lehman Brothers out of business. CERN Scientists said this was supposed to happen.


text:
The MBA program offered by Berry College's Campbell School of Business has been honored for excellence by The Princeton Review. This is the third consecutive year that the Campbell School has been featured in The Princeton Review's annual publication recognizing top business schools nationwide.
"We are pleased to recommend the Berry College Campbell School of Business to readers of our book and users of our site, www.PrincetonReview.com, as one of the best institutions they could attend to earn an MBA," stated Robert Franek, senior vice president for publishing at The Princeton Review. "We chose the 301 business schools in this book based on our opinion of their academic programs and offerings, as well as our review of institutional data we collect from the schools. We also strongly consider the candid opinions of students attending the schools who rate and report on their campus experiences at their schools on our survey for the book."
The Princeton Review does not rank the business schools featured in "The Best 301 Business Schools: 2010 Edition" on a single hierarchical list or name one business school best overall. Instead, the book has 11 ranking lists of the top 10 business schools in various categories. Ten lists are based on The Princeton Review's surveys of 19,000 students attending the 301 business schools profiled in the book. The 11th, "Toughest to Get Into," is based solely on institutional data. The lists are available online at www.PrincetonReview.com. The Campbell School is one of 66 schools in the book that appear on one or more of the book's ranking lists.
"The Best 301 Business Schools: 2010 Edition" features two-page profiles of each institution. In its profile, the Campbell School was lauded for "having an increasingly important presence in the North Georgia economic community."
"We are delighted to once again be recognized by The Princeton Review as one of the top business schools in the nation," said Dr. John Grout, Campbell School dean. "This recognition is the result of the continuous efforts by the Campbell School faculty to offer a quality MBA program within the Northwest Georgia region. We are pleased that our students have this opportunity to express their support for our program."
Fayette Front Page
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Campbell School Lauded for Quality of MBA Program
berry college,
fayette front page,
georgia front page,
princeton review,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Super 8 Merriam Shawnee
- Airport Transportation
- Suites
- Drycleaning onsite
- Non-smoking hotel
- Microwave in room
- High-speed internet in room
- Refrigerator in room
- Reduced mobility rooms
- Non-smoking hotel
- Microwave in room
- High-speed internet in room
- Air-Conditioning
- Suites
- Airport Transportation
- Drycleaning onsite
- Laundry
TripAdvisor Reviews Super 8 Merriam Shawnee
Travel Blogs from Merriam
Day 2: Grabbin' BBQ in KC
We figured being in Missouri we needed to stop by Kansas City for some amazing BBQ since the city is known for it!! We stopped at.... We ordered 4 huge meals and shared between the four of us!! We don't think we could eat at another BBQ place again that is how good it was!! After this we drove to a town in the middle of no where (3 hours east of Denver) on I-70 West in Kansas State next to a town called Kanarado (we loved this name) and got a hotel to get some shut ...
Plaza Centre, Kansas City
... the hotel, we checked-in to the next and found an amazing noodle bar, a chain restaurant that sold every type of noodle from mac and cheese, pasta to Thai dishes. I had quite the lunch. We were planning on going to the museum again, but Jonathan watched the football and I went to the hotel gym. After making a plan for the next leg of the journey, Jonathan took me to the Cheesecake Factory- a restaurant that sells nice food and incredible cheese cake. I ate ...
Kansas City, Missouri
So - what is in Kansas City you may ask? Charlie Parker's saxophone! We went to the Jazz museum on 18th and Vine Street, opposite the "Gem Theatre" and also saw the Jazz Walk of Fame. It was really cool to see a museum dedicated to Charlie Parker, Ella Fitzgerald and Duke Ellington - the three greats from Kansas City. Of course Louis Armstrong also got a big mention. It was mainly a museum of Bebop. Luckily for Jonathan, ...
Restart Day 3
... on Broadway just south of downtown. It was really cool, they were playing for a radio show, so we were the audience. They had a Brazilian jazz guitarist as a special guest, he was really good. When the show ended, we decided we needed to go, but once we got in the car we decided we wanted to check out 12th Street and Vine, since it's a line in our favorite Kansas City song. So we searched all over, and once we found it, we ...
Triathlon Special: Hayley's Account
... well; I needed to remain living in my head until the end of the race. Nonetheless, it was cool I had a cheer squad. I was ecstatic with my finishing time of 88 minutes. And I was feeling pretty darn good. Transition from bike to run was much more efficient. Probably because I forgot one of the four things I needed: my visor. About a kilometre into the run, I was hurting. I was hurting real bad. And yes, only a kilometre in. My left shoulder was in agony. I had ...


text:
The CafeMom Newcomers Club
Featured Posts
Like if you were against CIO and they were for it, would you still be friends with them? Or if they are on strict schedules and you just go with the flow? How about vaxing and non vaxing? Would you still let them watch your kids? What are your experiences with this- have any of your friendships suffered because of this?
I DO NOT want to turn this into a bashing post, everybodys got their own opinion. Just curious as to how it would affect your friendships.
- Only group members can vote in this poll.
- 60% - Yes
- 31% - No
- 8% - Other
Yep, one of my friends since sophomore year in high school! I cannot stand the way she disciplines her kids. Like she screams things like I'm gonna beat your effin ass if you do that again, or get the f*ck over here! One time she drug her kid by his feet to the bathroom at my house because he was potty training and he said he didnt need to go but she was sure he did. There is so much more, but she is really mean to them. I know she would never talk to my kid like that but still, its just mean. We alternate the days we take our kids to school b/c our girls are in the same preschool class, well I give mine hugs and kisses before she gets in their car and she (my friend) laughs at me and says "see thats the difference btwn you and me! I dont have time for that stuff! I'm in a hurry!" I was like sorry, I will always make time for hugs and kisses. But I guess shes the momma!
*edit* we do not hang out like we used to, I anly see her now when Im picking up her kid. I just get uncomfortable around her. Sad, but true
it would not affect my friendship with them, I have my way to parents my kids they have there's. Actuallywe can help each other out, by giving helpful advice. maybe something they do works better then what your doing.
It all about respecting each other choices and not making the other person feel like there way is wrong.
I think the decisions you mentioned don't affect my friendships however there are other parenting issues that have.
We had one friend who's son was always hitting, biting and being destructive - she refused to discipline him because he was too young at 2 and shouldn't be stifled. I occasionally chat with her on facebook but we don't go on playdates anymore. Its not fair to my son for his toyes to be destroyed and to have another child hitting him - while the childs mother sits back and laughs. so yes her parenting did affect our friendship. even if she couldn't stop it completely at least acknowledging that this behaviour is acceptable and having him apologize would have been better than just saying "thats boyes for you"
Unless something directly affects my family, you can do what you want with your kids with the exception of abuse. I did have a friend that just let her son be a brute & if he was beating up on my kids she never said a word. I finally had enough & quit talking to her. I won't be friends with someone at the expense of my child.
Yes it has. Even though I don't personally care what your parenting style is (we all do what is best for our OWN children), so many people do and I've had to just start ignoring some women because they were so nasty to me. I don't particularly like to hear that I put "heroin" into my baby by using epidural during labor and I couldn't have bonded with my child because of my unnatural labor...especially from someone who is still pregnant and has yet to give birth themselves.
P.S. this girl who said this to me ended up BEGGING for the epidural!
No. I am a non vaxing, homeschooling, non cio, sahm, and most of my friends arent! lol. We all get along the same as we did before we had kids (of course, we spend less time with each other, but thats because we have kids and husbands and some have jobs now! lol) I think we all learn things from each other, and we respect the way each other raises their own kids.
yeah it kinda affects my friendships. like my friend smokes and curses around her DD. she has never watched my son. i have watched her DD but i refuse to let me son around that with out me there. when she comes over she knows there is no smoking or cursing in my house or around my son or me.
my DH stopped talking to one of his friends because he does not want our son around him and his kids. he is the same way my friend is and he also teaches his son to fight with other kids and be mean.


text:
State Government in Gandhinagar
State government directory of India provides detailed information on the state governments of India. Get valuable information such as history, activities, departments, profile, institutions, press releases and travel information related to the various state governments of India. View a website listing of Indian state governments under the web guide on Indian state governments.
Latest Website Listings
- Industrial Extension Bureau, Gujarat Provide information about industrial policies of the Government of Gujarat and the business opportunities available and also helps in aiding the industries of the state.
- Roads & Buildings Department, Gujarat Engaged in planning, construction and maintenance of roads, government owned buildings, bridges, flyovers and highways.
- Forest Department, Gujarat Engaged in the protection, conservation and development of the forests and wildlife of the state.
- Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board An official website of govt. of gujarat, offering information about gujarat infrastructure development board.
- Industries Commissionerate Industries Commissionerate functions under the Industries & Mines Department of Government of Gujarat and implements industrial Policies of the state and central Governments. The office of the Industries Commissioner continues to play pivotal role in the industrial development of Gujarat &improving the delivery system.
- Investor Facilitation Centre The Investor Facilitation Portal is a single window facilitation mechanism for investors. The portal is a rapid medium of information for investors on Government policies, incentive schemes and the availability of infrastructure. It provides manuals to help investors understand the application process for proposed investment projects.
- Gujarat Ecological Education and Research Foundation An official website of gujarat government, offering information about gujarat ecological education and research foundation.
- Directorate Of Employment & Training, Gujarat Providing skilled manpower to the industries, training to the youth in industrial skills & craftsmanship and employment/ placement services to the job seekers of the state.
- Forests & Environment Department, Gujarat Providing information on department, funtions, organisation setup, environment, forests, wildlife, projects and photo gallery.
State Government - ALL INDIA
@ All India (637)
© SurfIndia . All Rights Reserved.


text:
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Un Autre Faux Pas (#201)
Oo! Oo! I know! Pick me, teacher! Pick me!
Go ahead, Frankie.
Why, it's shared experience, of course. We all know what's it like to be angry, sad, joyful, scared, excited and embarrassed. Especially embarrassed. We can relate to each other in a more meaningful fashion because we've all experienced similar feelings. Especially embarrassment. I mean, everybody says or does something dumb once in a while, don't they?
Longtime readers may recall the story of my Grade 10 French teacher's buttocks finding their way into my hand. Tres embarrassment la, I must say.
And perhaps you remember the day I was Christmas shopping and my elbow was assaulted by a woman's bosom. Not my fault of course, but still a tad embarrassing.
Well, I did it again. And it involved a woman again. Well, a girl/woman, of 18. And it sort of related to body parts (but not naughty bits this time, thank goodness).
Son #2 was having a few friends over one evening a couple of weeks ago. They were gathered in the basement wreck room. Sounds of high hilarity and video game crashes and explosions prevented anyone but me from hearing the knock on the front door.
I got up to answer, expecting one of #2's urchin friends. Instead, I saw nothing, nobody. For a second. Then, in the deepening evening gloom, I saw a pretty young woman kneeling - actually, on her knees but leaning backwards, sitting on the backs of her calves - and smiling up at me. I didn't recognize her but figured she must be one of #2's friends or a friend of a friend.
I smiled down at her. Obviously, she was expecting someone she knew to answer the door and was preparing to play a little joke on them.
"Hi. Is Son #2 home?" Only she called him "Jake," which is his name.
About then Devon, one of Jake's buds, arrived from the wreck room. I guess someone else heard the knock, after all.
"Hi April," he said.
"Hi Dev."
"Well," I grinned and held the door open. "Come on in. And no need to crawl."
"Actually, I have to." Without a lapse in her smile, she tossed her head to indicate behind her. "I had to leave my chair at the end of the driveway."
I peered and could just make out her wheelchair behind my car. Since I rented the large dumpster, there was no room between my car and the lawn to negotiate her chair closer to the house.
I stood aside, laughing ruefully and shaking my head at my dunce-osity, as April set her hands on the ground, then lifted and swung her knees into the front hall. Laughing off my apology and rocking forward on her hands and knees, she made her way along the hall. I asked if she needed help with the stairs and she cheerfully refused. It seemed she had no use of her legs below the knees. But there was nothing wrong with the rest of her and her confident good nature was a balm to my embarrassment.
But sheesh. I mean, holy mackerel. What a maroon.
Muttering to myself, I walked to the end of the drive and carried her chair closer to the front door. I didn't want to leave it so close to the street. Darn thing was heavy. Jake or one of his buds could carry it back for her when she needed it. I recalled him mentioning a friend named April from time to time, but he'd never talked of her disability.
Later, when the kids had gone home, I asked him why he'd never mentioned it before. He shrugged, saying it never occurred to him. It was no big deal. April was just April.
Which, of course, is exactly right.
April is April and Frank is Frank and faux pas (pases?) happen to everybody.
21 comments:
- Hilary said...
Right.. but how come they're so much more amusing when they happen to you?
You should "repost" the two previous faux pas(es) from your early column days. I still have them all if you need 'em. :)
Very funny, Frankie. And good for April for having such aplomb. - 1:32 PM
- bobbie said...
A very refreshing incident, actually. And I'm sure that April is going to be just fine in this life.
- Travis Erwin said...
Says a lot about your son that he never mentioned it.
- Thumbelina said...
And I'm with Travis on this one. Says a lot about his father (and mother) too, that he is brought up that way. - 6:00 PM
- Leah J. Utas said...
Must agree with the above. It says a great deal about your son that it never occurred to him to point that out to anyone.
Another amusing story, Frank. The personal ones are the best, and you told it in a gentle way as opposed to being overly harsh on yourself. Most effective. - 9:06 AM
- Frank Baron said...
I might do that one of these days, Hil. In fact, I looked for them and found the French teacher story quite easily but couldn't find the other one. Of course, the last resort of the burned-out writer is the reprint.... ;)
Bobbie, I'm sure you're right. Thanks for the visit. :)
Yeah, he's a pretty good kid, Travis. (Don't tell him I said that - there'd be no living with him.)
Thanks Thumbelina. :)
Thanks Leah. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that folks seem to be taking that away from the story, rather than my cluelessness. - 10:37 AM
- Skunkfeathers said...
I encounter "April" -- or at least her spirited peers -- at work. They are polite but very determined to refuse help and make their own way. Now, if one of them does ask for help, I go with it. If they don't, I respect it. Either way, I don't react with embarrassment any more; just respect for some genuine human courage.
- Chicago Mary said...
Not to worry, Frank--we've all done things like this once or twice or more!
- Charlie said...
*remains conspicuously silent*
- Karen Fainges said...
It's a better wrl when people can just do whatthey want and terss let them. I have to agree, great tale.
- Frank Baron said...
I agree Skunkfeathers. Many of us able-bodied folks could learn plenty about life by watching folks like April go about their business.
True enough Mary. But I'm waiting to hear a few details from others....
Like Charlie.... ;)
Thanks Karen. :) - 3:20 PM
- Dianne said...
she sure sounds like a remarkable person
one of my son's friends, many years ago, showed up at the door. Jeff was in the shower and I was on the phone
I paid very little attention until his friend knocked over the trash can that stood in the entryway
I muttered "what are you, blind?"
and he said "yes, yes I am"
my face still starts burning when I think of that one - 4:24 PM
- Frank Baron said...
Finally! Thank you Dianne! I've gotten a couple of emails with pretty embarrassing stories but yours is the first to rival mine in the blush-inducing department.
Godblessya. :)
And commiserations. ;) - 2:08 AM
- Kappa no He said...
I agree, I really want to hear the Butt Story. And honest, I'd never heard a Rec Room called a Wreck Room. How clever!
- Frank Baron said...
Kappa, trust me, the name is apt. And maybe I'll reprint/post that piece about ma professeur's derriere one of these days. :)
- Grayquill said...
That was hilariously sad. I am so glad it happened to you and not me. Us men seem to do those misspeaks just a little more often than the ladies. I have always wondered about that especially since us men supposedly only have about 10,000 words a day to say and a woman has 25,000 words to say a day on average. It just doesn't seem fair.
- Frank Baron said...
Grayquill, I think it's just that most women of the female persuasion refuse to fess up about their boo-boos. We guys are more open and honest.
That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it. ;) - 7:59 PM
- The Things We Carried said...
I like Mike's view and agree with him on this one. But, I feel for you!
- Jenna said...
April sounds awesome. :)
- David Streever said...
thanks for sharing frank
- Frank Baron said...
Thanks Meredith. I'm not one to refuse pity. :)
That she is, Jenna. Good to see you. :)
Thanks for visiting, David. And for taking the time to comment. I appreciate it. :) - 3:35 PM


text:
2007 Comedy Rated PG-13 86 Minutes
In Theaters | N/A | |||
On Blu-ray | Not Available | Alert Me | Remind Me | ? |
On DVD | May 29, 2007 | Now Available | ? | |
When Announced | When Released |
Having been burned one too many times by cheating husbands who claim to be single, Rylee plans an elaborate payback scheme. She meets a married man, gets him drunk, makes him think he's had a successful one-night stand, and then shows up with a baby in tow twelve months later, asking for blackmail money.
This works well until she meets Max. Max really is single and really wants to keep "their" baby. Now Rylee has a problem, and the game of cat-and-mouse begins.
Released by Monarch Entertainment. See more credits.
Copyright © 1999-2017 VideoETA, Inc. All Rights Reserved.