Tor Books, Puppies, and Boycotts

I haven't seen anything posted here about the kerfuffle over the Hugo awards, and I'm curious to hear what opinions folks around here have on the subject. (If the reason it's not being discussed is that RFC has asked that it not be, please let me know so I can flag this to be removed by the moderators.)

The latest bit of the drama involves the rather inflammatory remarks made by Tor's creative director Irene Gallo. (If you haven't heard about it, this is a pretty good summary: http://cedarwrites.com/fear-and-loathing-at-tor/. If you've never heard of Sad Puppies and have no idea what's going on, check out Larry Corriea's blog at http://monsterhunternation.com and search on Sad Puppies 3. He's got a long detailed explanation somewhere on there.)

So with more and more hatred coming out of Tor executives, a lot of people are calling for a boycott of Tor entirely. This would obviously have an impact on the Safehold series, though I have no idea how much and if it would affect David financially. I suspect that the Honorverse is his bread and butter and it's published by Baen.

Personally I think a boycott is a bad idea, and not just because I want to read Hell's Foundations Quiver. I think that guilt by association and collective responsibility are bad ideas in general, and public shaming is something that bullies do. If the purpose of the boycott is to blame everyone at Tor for the actions of a few, and pressure them into reining in those outspoken editors, then I'll pass. Yes, what Ms. Gallo said was pretty awful, and yes, she's not the only one there acting this way. But that's Tor's problem, not mine. I have a much lower opinion of them as a publisher than I did before, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. If Tor cares to improve their reputation, great. And if they don't, over time they'll get less of my business. No boycotts, no demands. But when I'm looking for new books I won't be giving their's the credit they once got with that Tor imprint on the spine.

So what say you? I have no doubt that we can keep the discussion civil, or at least to a higher standard than certain Tor editors.

Eric Flint has a number of discussions on his web page concerning Hugos, Nebulars and Sick Puppies.

http://www.ericflint.net/

My not very well informed opinion is that all of this is irrelevant to the mainstream readers, who get their literary advice from all over the web now rather than some dusty old in house awards, and in groups.

Nick wrote:The latest bit of the drama involves the rather inflammatory remarks made by Tor's creative director Irene Gallo. (If you haven't heard about it, this is a pretty good summary: http://cedarwrites.com/fear-and-loathing-at-tor/. If you've never heard of Sad Puppies and have no idea what's going on, check out Larry Corriea's blog at http://monsterhunternation.com and search on Sad Puppies 3. He's got a long detailed explanation somewhere on there.)

No matter what the ancillary drama is, I find Correia's (and Torgerson's, and Beale's) basic assumptions to be flawed.

Here's some relevant analysis by George RR Martin and Matthew Sturridge.

Interesting how "liberals" wish to stifle intellectual freedom with boycotts, the Spanish Inquisition is thus reincarnated in Political Correctness. Shades of George Orwell's "New Speak."

Poker

pokermind wrote:Interesting how "liberals" wish to stifle intellectual freedom with boycotts, the Spanish Inquisition is thus reincarnated in Political Correctness. Shades of George Orwell's "New Speak."

Poker

Please. Do not pretend that conservatives are unwilling to ban or suppress speech they disagree with. They will do that just as happily as these liberals you speak of.

Sadly true, however currently it looks more like a left wing tactic to me.

The E wrote:

pokermind wrote:Interesting how "liberals" wish to stifle intellectual freedom with boycotts, the Spanish Inquisition is thus reincarnated in Political Correctness. Shades of George Orwell's "New Speak."

Poker

Please. Do not pretend that conservatives are unwilling to ban or suppress speech they disagree with. They will do that just as happily as these liberals you speak of.

Poker

The E wrote:

pokermind wrote:Interesting how "liberals" wish to stifle intellectual freedom with boycotts, the Spanish Inquisition is thus reincarnated in Political Correctness. Shades of George Orwell's "New Speak."

Poker

Please. Do not pretend that conservatives are unwilling to ban or suppress speech they disagree with. They will do that just as happily as these liberals you speak of.

Please to both the above... boycotts are free speech every bit as much as whatever set off the boycott is.

Everyone is free to say stupid things, and everyone else is free to deny them their business as an expression of displeasure with whatever idiocy they spouted if they go too far saying them. Free speech means you're allowed to say it, NOT that you're allowed to say it without anyone getting pissed off at you.


If the government isn't stepping in and using the power of the state to compel you not to say something then your free speech isn't being violated.

gcomeau wrote:
Please to both the above... boycotts are free speech every bit as much as whatever set off the boycott is.

Everyone is free to say stupid things, and everyone else is free to deny them their business as an expression of displeasure with whatever idiocy they spouted if they go too far saying them. Free speech means you're allowed to say it, NOT that you're allowed to say it without anyone getting pissed off at you.


If the government isn't stepping in and using the power of the state to compel you not to say something then your free speech isn't being violated.

It's not boycotts per se that I'm opposed to. What I dislike is the use of a boycott to make demands that a company "do something" about an employee or toe the line on some issue. It's a tool that is used by both sides (left/right); neither has a monopoly on using them and both have a history of abusing them. When a boycott is just a method to publicly shame someone, that's when I pass on participating.

As far as the merits of Sad Puppies goes, I will say that Eric and GRRM are some of the few who are been willing to have reasonable, respectful discussions on the issue. The rest of it has been blatant lies and personal attacks. To my view that inability to participate in a polite conversation proves a lot about what the Sad Puppies are saying.

Nick wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Please to both the above... boycotts are free speech every bit as much as whatever set off the boycott is.

Everyone is free to say stupid things, and everyone else is free to deny them their business as an expression of displeasure with whatever idiocy they spouted if they go too far saying them. Free speech means you're allowed to say it, NOT that you're allowed to say it without anyone getting pissed off at you.


If the government isn't stepping in and using the power of the state to compel you not to say something then your free speech isn't being violated.

It's not boycotts per se that I'm opposed to. What I dislike is the use of a boycott to make demands that a company "do something" about an employee or toe the line on some issue. It's a tool that is used by both sides (left/right); neither has a monopoly on using them and both have a history of abusing them. When a boycott is just a method to publicly shame someone, that's when I pass on participating.

As far as the merits of Sad Puppies goes, I will say that Eric and GRRM are some of the few who are been willing to have reasonable, respectful discussions on the issue. The rest of it has been blatant lies and personal attacks. To my view that inability to participate in a polite conversation proves a lot about what the Sad Puppies are saying.

I really only became aware of this this morning so I've still got reading to do, but it seems from what I have managed to make it through so far that there's two claims the Sad Puppies are making that you might be mixing there.

1. "There's lots of people who think our favorite conservative writers are douchebags"

2. "There's a conspiracy by these people to rig the Hugo Awards in pursuit of their own liberal agendas."

The tenor of the conversation may be supporting evidence for 1, but GRRM's layout of the facts seems to convincingly refute 2. But maybe I'll come across something as I continue browsing through the issue that will refute GRRMs post. (I already read Correia's response to Martin and it seems to be an awful lot of arguing 1 and not really supporting 2.)

For anyone interested in this topic there is a lot about puppygate on GRRM's blog.

Deeper thoughts than just the usual knee-jerk reactions too.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/?skip=40