Hugo & Nebula Awards: Best Novels discussion
Random Chatter
>
Saving Retro Hugos
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Alright. My following post comes with a caveat or two. First of all, and this is not me putting my foot down as a mod, I think the discussion has strayed far enough from the topic of books and maybe it's time we reel it back in or abandon it altogether.
Secondly, I do not want to read a thesis from you on how my points are not backed by data, this is a book club and I'm not professionally debating a point here. If you want to learn more, shoot me a private message with the points you want me to expand on.
So here are the main points I would like to make even though I do not understand whether you ignore their existence or you just happened to miss the majority of the counterarguments and only picked up the facts that support your point of view.
1) I'm not originally from the states, so there's that. I've lived on four continents and I just happen to live in the US at this moment.
2) Your reply somewhat baffled me, "where in American society there is ingrained racism that affects people's lives?"? So you are trying to tell me that you are so well-versed on the topic and have pages of text to cover the downside of leftist aggression, but you cannot think of a single instance where racism is alive and well and is strong enough to affect someone's life? I'd be more accepting to the argument of "yes it's there, but it ain't that bad" argument, but it's okay, I'll bite.
Racism has never ceased affecting people's lives (when it doesn't actively end them), so has homophobia, sexism and all the other failures of society to grow as human beings. I honestly do not know where to start. I will give you the least controversial example, one which does not have a comeback of the police shootings (yeah, but they resisted!), the employment policies (not educated enough), the discrimination when purchasing property (must be the drug money), the conviction rates and the gravity of sentences (yeah, but they commit the most murders), pay gaps (there are 10 states that have a pay gap of 30% or higher), I can go on but it makes me wonder how were you able to miss a single one of these that I have to point it out to you. Anywho, the least controversial example that has no other explanation but for the deep-rooted human ignorance when it comes to race and racism. There were multiple serveys in the medical field ranging from pre-med to practicing physicians and doctors. A large percentage of all of them believe that African Americans feel less pain and that their skin is somehow thicker. There is a similar trend against women, their reporting pain is considered their being hysterical. That affects both groups in how they receive treatment, this affects how many people get misdiagnosed and left to die because their doctor was not the same color or had a wee-wee, preventing them to think straight.
3. Racism affects people's lives daily, it permeates all levels of their being to the point where it is just a part of life and they don't even think about it anymore. Which to me is terrifying. In New York they had to pass a law which allowed black people to wear natural hair in a work place without fear of harassment (in sodding year 2017!). So just to make it sink in, you've got your own hair, but you had to either cover it with a wig, braids or whatever when in a workplace so that it would still be considered kosher by the higher-ups. Is that daily life enough?
4. Your argument that there has never been a better time to be alive, blah blah to me is preposterous in itself. Going back to my analogy of midwives and their sage water, any medical specialist would be jailed for incompetence had that happened in the modern day. The same analogy can describe racism, homophobic tendencies, sexism and everything else. Given how much we know now, it should be criminal to allow the same level of ignorance. Anti-LGBTQ hate crimes are on the rise for years, even though we've learned so much about the subject and how little to no different we all are.
5. The bottom line is that it is a fact that many are still struggling, trying to beat the system that is working against them, whether you accept it or not. I do not care about personal attacks, which while horrible do not matter in the long run, everyone will keep hating one another for any sort of reasons. The problem is that the progress is constantly stifled by the arguments like "yeah, but it's not that as bad as in the '50s". Would you be satisfied by anything less than the basic human rights, were they denied to you?
6. To answer your question yes, considering that there was a time when people were racist, homophobic and sexist out of sheer ignorance, I believe we live in the darker times. Even though we know the right from wrong, we choose to do the wrong thing or the evil thing or the cowardly thing. That makes it so much worse.
If you want to know more about any of the most common points I raised but did not cover in my point 2., feel free to shoot me a PM and I'll try looking some links up for you. As for now, we've polluted the bookclub forums enough.
Mod
Yes, I agree, Gini index is up significantly - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SI...
from 35 in 1980 to 42 in 2016. Close to Turkey among our neighbors
However, from what I recall it was not so much middle class but poor, who had no increase in incomes while rich were getting richer. I have to check though
Ed wrote: "Yet, racism is alive and well in the USA. It is less overt than in the past. Some people,"All right then, I guess we agree on practically everything, but we phrase it in different ways.
I believe bias is alive and kicking, but is now mostly motivated by differences in class and income. And when one racial minority has vastly divergent indicators in both, well, then you see the problem.
But cracking down on every demonstration of bias, however slight it is, controlling speech, going on mass demonstrations, none of this solves the original problem - which is a vast disparity in income and quality of life. It can only alienate a number of other people who'd otherwise be supportive of solving (what I consider to be the original problem).
Oleksandr wrote: "Yes, I agree, Gini index is up significant..."
I think everyone below the top 10% has been sliding down from the end of the 70s, roughly since the beginning of Reaganism, and the working class has been hit the hardest.
Art wrote: "I think the discussion has strayed far enough from the topic of books and maybe it's time we reel it back in or abandon it altogether."I actually agree, this is why I'm still searching for moral strength (and time) to respond to the comments in the other topic. We are again discussing "everything" - but don't you point a finger only at me, everyone has made their contribution, including you.
Art wrote: "Your reply somewhat baffled me, "where in American society there is ingrained racism that affects people's lives?"
I think here you have been angry, which I get, but we are not getting into a productive direction.
Do you perhaps - maybe, just maybe - think that perhaps both things are right? Instead of answering, I can point you to any random podcast by Joe Rogan, who, whether you like him or not, is probably the only one over there who, even being despite being a Democrat, seems to have kept a non-partisan and unbiased look on life in general.
And you don't need to be sarcastic, I have never said racism/sexism/homophobia (go on the list) does not exist in some places, in some segments of the population and in some people, in various degrees. But explaining every single inequality with racism/sexism, whatever and blaming everyone who questions that as racist/sexist/homophobic is dumb, it is not true, and, most of all, it does not help anyone. It blurs actual cases of racism/sexism, whatever, because if racism is everywhere, all the time, then it is the same as it being nowhere.
And everyone should really get some understanding of Critical Postmodern Theory, because this is exactly the postmodern narrative: everyone is racist, etc. in every interaction, all the time and so racism, sexism etc. permeate society in such an extent as to permeate society and become a system, i.e. systemic. Objectivity doesn't exist, because everything is subjective. So if someone experiences racism subjectively, then it exists, and no one else can ever question it, including by objective criteria (because such do not exist). Etc. etc. etc. I get that postmodernism wouldn't have had such a grip on society, if there weren't actual problems in it, but there should be at least some alarm bells when the narrative is so close to that of a theory which dates back to France in the 1960s.
- So now I finally finish your message (sorry, it was like a block of text and it was easier to go segment by segment). For 3, 4, 5, 6, I absolutely don't agree with your assessment, but I agree that there is not much point to go on with the visual pollution. We see the world in a completely different way. But I stand with the recommendation of Critical Theory (and its critique) - at least you can understand better where I, and plenty of other people, are coming from.
Mod
Plamen wrote: "I have never said racism/sexism/homophobia (go on the list) does not exist in some places, in some segments of the population and in some people"
and
Plamen also wrote: "So tell me, where in American society (as I assume you speak your country) there is deep, ingrained racism that affects people's lives? ""
🤔
I gave you multiple examples of ingrained structural systematic racism. You told me to go watch Joe Rogan (which I already do). Good banter.
Plamen wrote: "It blurs actual cases of racism/sexism, whatever, because if racism is everywhere, all the time, then it is the same as it being nowhere."
Nobody is saying there is racism everywhere, what you would benefit from understanding is the fact that some systems are broken and stem from prejudices. Your denying it doesn't make it any less true.
***
All I did was answer your question and refute the incorrect statement you made earlier. It's not about the differences of opinions, there are facts and data that provide sufficient degree of objectivity that would allow a person willing to look at them to learn from it and change their mind.
Alright, I'm off to watch Joe Rogan. Cheers.
Plamen wrote: "...Joe Rogan, who, whether you like him or not, is probably the only one over there who, even being despite being a Democrat..."A small correction: Joe Rogan does not consider himself a Democrat. In the past he has endorsed Libertarian and Republican candidates. In the current election, he hasn't endorsed anyone to my knowledge, but has been very critical of the Democratic candidate.
In the news today, he has offered to host a debate between the top two candidates, and it appears the Republican one has accepted. (I doubt it will actually happen, though.)
Mod
Plamen, you said that you needed help finding that "ingrained racism that affects people lives".
Racism dynamic can be broken down to the dynamic between the person or institution in power that acts upon a prejudice they have, which in its turn has to be strong enough to affect people's lives (to complete your thought exercise). A clear question with a clear answer(s).
I gave you an example how ingrained racism affects people's lives and you are telling me about postmodernism. That is not how it works. You can also disprove my point or concede it, this way at least either of us will learn. It is a clear a + b = x equation. Tell me how my 'a's and 'b's are wrong, because the reality of 'x' is undeniable.
I don't want to join this discussion and haven't been following it religiously, but I thought it might be helpful to just drop that So You Want to Talk About Race very succinctly and eloquently addresses all of Plamen's questions and Art's explanations. At the very least, it might provide a common frame of reference.
Ed wrote: "Plamen wrote: "...Joe Rogan, who, whether you like him or not, is probably the only one over there who, even being despite being a Democrat..."A small correction: Joe Rogan does not consider hims..."
Hmm, really? I have only watched his podcasts from the last 2-3 years, and though he looks really centrist, he has definitely been leaning more towards the Democrats.
I'm also following The Hill (don't know if you are aware of them, they are not a major thing), and they have described him as a Democrat. I obviously have no idea where he stood 10 years ago or 20 years ago. If he changes his mind as much I do, he must have been all over the place.
As for these elections - which are the first American elections I'm following closely - he was with Sanders until he dropped out and afterwards said he'd vote for Trump as he thought Biden is too frail and generally unfit to be president. I can't argue with the logic of any these choices.
Anyway, sorry if I've been repeating information that is not new for:)
Art wrote: "Just for the record, my comments may appear to have an emotional side to them it is not due to the topic of the discussion, it is the dynamic of people moving goal posts that drives me up a wall...."
Postmodernism = Critical Race Theory = Identity Politics = BLM = the identitarian part of the Democratic Party.
I am telling you again to read Critical Postmodern Theory and all of its offshoots: Postcolonial Theory, Critical Race Theory, Postmodern/Intersectional Feminism, Standpoint Theory, at the moment you are in a fog and are shooting random arrows at me, in the hope that somethings hits.
Art wrote: "I gave you multiple examples of ingrained structural systematic racism. You told me to go watch Joe Rogan (which I already do). Good banter.."No, you gave me a list of generalisations, including how women are told they are hysterical and treated for hysteria. In 2020? Please.
As for any actual cases, in particular, of hate crimes or objectively verifiable discrimination, or anything of the sort, you don't need to "give me sources" - anything of this magnitude must be prosecuted immediately, and no one is arguing otherwise.
Art wrote: "Nobody is saying there is racism everywhere, what you would benefit from understanding is the fact that some systems are broken and stem from prejudices. "
No, you are just repeating talking points of Critical (Postmodern) Theory. But only some of them - which is pretty much like saying you are half-pregnant.
And btw, saying: "if something is broken, it needs to be fixed" is the liberal principle. So, if we say that "the police and criminal justice system in America are broken (which is incidentally something I agree with), yes, they do need to be fixed".
But you are not saying that, you are saying "everything is horrible, we live in dark, dark times, much worse than before", and this is something else, this is the postmodern/Critical Theory/Social Justice way of thinking. And they don't say, "we'll fix what's broken". They say, "everything is broken, society is broken, so let's bring it all down". Well, good luck with all that, Art. You are either talking trash to me because I'm annoying you or you actually believe them and you are being used = well, fine with me, either way.
I really don't have to put my hands into the viper pit and try to convince you otherwise. If y'all want to malign your country and say everything there is horrible and bad and broken, then go ahead.
Europe, on the other hand, is wonderful - I think pretty much all Europeans in the forum agree with that (and are incidentally the only ones who've tried to bring some sense to discussions of "how all men are bad" and "how all whites are bad").
I am very dissatisfied personally with how things are going with homophobia in my country and generally in the Eastern Bloc, but this is again mostly due to critical gender theory - which adds yet another gripe I have with it.
So anyway, if you put a big X on the map of America and say "here be racists and sexists and crazies and generally horrible people" , you got it, buddy:). I'm all with you guys.
I'm not discussing America any more. Which also means I'm cancelling all notifications in this thread. Thank you all for the sometimes fruitful discussion:).
Mod
*sigh*
Plamen 2.0 wrote: "...Hmm, really? I have only watched his podcasts from the last 2-3 years, and though he looks really centrist, he has definitely been leaning more towards the Democrat..."Yeah, well what you think or what I think or what "The Hill" thinks doesn't change the fact that he himself does not consider himself to be affiliated with any political party. He has endorsed people on all sides and criticized people on all sides.
Art wrote: "Wow, that was a waste of time. .... " Indeed.
He claims to not be listening here anymore. Fine.
I can agree with him that "Postmodern Theory" is pretty much insane. (Not to be confused with postmodern literature or postmodern architecture or many other things called postmodern.) But can't agree that it matters much or has much to do with anything else we are talking about.
It has a strong foothold in humanities departments in universities, but pretty much nowhere else. Those people write meaningless articles in academic journals that are read by no one outside their own group and have very little influence on anything. They are criticized both by far left (Chomsky) and far right (Shapiro) and everyone in-between.
I very much enjoyed the take-down in Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. I'd probably even like to read the book Plamen has been touting Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.
But the claim that Art has been saying "you are saying "everything is horrible, we live in dark, dark times, much worse than before"" is bonkers. None of us has said that. It is just a repeated attack on things nobody here has said.
Ed wrote: "Or maybe they'd all be absolutely lovely people except when drunk backstage after performing on Ru Paul's Drag Race."This is an alternate future-past I can get behind.
Plamen 2.0 wrote: "There has never been another time when people have been less racist (or sexist, homophobic, etc. etc. etc.) as now."
I'm reading The Color Purple at the moment. It's a solid reminder of this fact.
It's not really that simple though, is it?
We can find reasons and excuses for poor behaviour of the past. We can chalk it all up as hermeneutical/epistemic injustice; I am a strong believer that many historical perpetrators of sexism, racism, etc. are also themselves victims of epistemic injustice. Maybe Lovecraft, Campbell et al were actually nice guys, victims of their time and place, and the lens of postmodernity is doing them a disservice.
What's different now is that, as a result of our privilege and luxury, we should know better. We have the tools to educate ourselves and other people. Information has never been so free, at least in the west. So why is there still so much venom in the world? Being a bigot in 2020 just makes you a bad person. Full stop. Racism is worse now because the purveyors of it are without a doubt wilfully ignorant.
Plamen 2.0 wrote: "I'm cancelling all notifications in this thread."Oh lol never mind.
Ed wrote: "None of us has said that. It is just a repeated attack on things nobody here has said"
I guess I've said that now. Have at it :P
Mod
Sarah wrote: "...Ed wrote: "None of us has said that. It is just a repeated attack on things nobody here has said"
... I guess I've said that now'..."
No, you didn't. Here was the quote from me:
... the claim that Art has been saying "you are saying "everything is horrible, we live in dark, dark times, much worse than before"" is bonkers. None of us has said that. It is just a repeated attack on things nobody here has said. ...
Art did not say "everything is horrible, we live in dark, dark times, much worse than before"
And neither did you, Sarah, unless I missed something.
Mod
I slightly disagree with you in regards to how you phrase the ignorance issue. That aspect of it has multiple sides to it. One of the major ones would be how the age of information is slowly but surely is turning into the age of disinformation. The culture of echo chamber, social media algorithms favoring topics you like, division in the media and click bait culture all contribute to the ignorance. It is becoming a plague because it is getting harder and harder to see a point of view different from your own. Therefore if you join a group which talks about the Earth being flat, there will be pages and hours and hours of reading material backing that point of view. You will meet hundreds of people who are feeding of one another's ignorance, reinforcing the "alternate" facts even further.
We are in need of many systems that would prevent ignorance from spreading. That is why I believe many countries could benefit from having basic morality on their curriculum as early as possible. We already know that many companies embrace diversity, social awareness seminars, etc. Something which I consider to be only marginally productive for various reasons. Besides the fact that some of the things they teach seem medieval to me. "We're all human, blah blah", really in 21st century you have to point such basic stuff out?
And not all ignorance is automatically malicious. There is a whole culture surrounding people posting on Instagram and TikTok about how nobody knows their culture and that they are always confused for people from neighbouring countries. Usually it's teenagers just competing for attention. I was born in a country half the people I met never heard of and another 90% would not find it on the map. In the states there have been instances when people flat out accused my grandparents of owning slaves even though my country has never waged a single war and was under foreign rule for six or seven centuries (history buffs, if you guess it keep it to yourselves!). I don't personally give a damn whether you understand my culture, but wait I'm white so many people think I don't have one to begin with.
Mod
Mod
Absolutely
Ed wrote: "I can agree with him that "Postmodern Theory" is pretty much insane. .... But can't agree that it matters much or has much to do with anything else we are talking about...."I finally got around to reading "Cynical Theories", the book that Plamen was plugging heavily. (I've read back through this thread. I think some posts have been deleted because I think he plugged it several times that are not up above.)
What I really mean is I finally got around to finishing it. I started it months ago but found it tough to get through. What is called "Theory" is so odd to me, and is written in intentionally ambiguous ways, that it tires me to read about it in detail. My eyes glazed over much of the time.
It did change my opinion a little bit in the direction of believing that the spread of "Theory" has gone further than just humanities departments at universities. But I still think the influence is less than the authors of that book believe.
The final chapter of the book was my favorite. It talks about alternative ways of dealing with the many real problems that exist in the world. Basically, there are real facts, science and logic can help us find what they are. Utopia is probably impossible, but incremental positive changes are possible and should be pursued.
One point where I disagree is on systemic racism. The authors state that racism exists, but deny that systematic racism does. We might simply have different definitions, but I can think of no way to describe, for example, the Chinese government mistreatment of Uighurs as anything other than "systematic". Likewise for Jim Crow laws in the USA. Those don't exist any more here, but less extreme systemic racism still does.
This is off topic for "Retro Hugos", but the book was mentioned here a lot. I'm not sure I want to post an official "review" of it on my timeline.
Mod
Mod
re: retros value, for me they are important as a genre history highlights for readers. But I just like history...
message 78:
by
Kateblue, 2nd star to the right and straight on til morning
(last edited Mar 08, 2021 08:00AM)
(new)
Mod
But back to the retro hugos, I agree that they are only important to help spotlight the history of SF/F. On the other hand, I also think this Hugo division by year artificially makes current Hugos overlook dark horse candidates and is basically a popularity contest. That is one reason I have become less enthused about the goal of reading all of them. Even so, I continue to try, but I have changed my goal. if I don't like them, I quit reading them, or just skip through them. I just refuse to trudge through them anymore for the sake of reading them all.
What I am more interested in, is this. There are so many great books that have been overlooked by Hugo and Nebula in years where they will never be found because the year has already had Hugos awarded. It could be nice to find some of those. But I cannot think of any way to do it. Except maybe recommendations from all of you.
Examples, you say? OK. Rosemary's Baby and This Perfect Day. And Alas, Babylon. And for alternative history, since this seems to have been a legitimate type to be nominated, King and Joker
Anyone else have books they love that should have been nominated? I would be glad to try them all
Mod
It is an idea in progress - to give Hugo to novels which were published after the award has started in 1953. Now Retro Hugos are before that date
message 80:
by
Kateblue, 2nd star to the right and straight on til morning
(new)
Mod
I know you liked Heinlein, but are there any others that were not nominated that you think should have been because you loved them? I would like to maybe read them. Though I know our tastes are often different, I would like to get a discussion going about non-nominated books that everyone enjoyed.
There are tons and tons of resources for finding good old books, including lists on this site, and elsewhere.For example this list, and the many other lists it mentions in the introduction:
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/5...
Also lots of blogs, including the one by Jo Walton.
My problem is more that I find too many recommendations!
Mod
https://www.worldswithoutend.com/list...
Another interesting one that WWE just added:
https://www.listchallenges.com/scienc...
Long before GR, I used my hard copy of Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia to make reading lists.
I started making my own "unheralded classics" list but it quickly grew out of proportion, so I default to the many awards and best-of lists now. Right now, I am reading Ubik and Life During Wartime from these lists.
Mod
WWE also has lists of "Defining SF Books" for each decade, 50's-90's, like this one:
https://www.worldswithoutend.com/list...
It lists up to 15 books for each year, so 100+ for each decade.
Kateblue wrote: "Examples, you say? OK. Rosemary's Baby and This Perfect Day..."I've twice nominated "This Perfect Day" for my own group. But, alas, I don't have the power to force people to vote for it.
message 85:
by
Kateblue, 2nd star to the right and straight on til morning
(last edited Mar 08, 2021 09:46PM)
(new)
Mod
I've twice nominated "This Perfect Day" for my own group. But, alas, I don't have the power to force people to vote for it..."
Well, I guess you could tell me the next time you nominate it, and I could come and vote for it. I'm about ready to read it again.
And thanks for all the great suggestions, everyone!
Mod
While true, just like this group reads H/N nominees and not just best books of a given year, awards guide readers to books, so they are an addition to all those great lists
Allan wrote: "Those lists and more! I use WWE in conjunction with GR to find things, starting with this list:https://www.worldswithoutend.com/list...
Another interesting one that WWE just adde..."
Nice list! I read 15 out of 100. I do like old sci-fi, tough at times it is difficult to read due to the now and then included misogyny. With old sci-fi I often try an author and go on reading his/her books if the author's voice is nice. I read almost all Asimov this way, while Heinlein's books aren't for me. Clarke is fine, tough a bit dry at times. I also read the whole Dune saga and loved Brave New World, and some of the books in this list are in my TBR still too.
Hugo & Nebula Awards: Best Novels
Books mentioned in this topic
Ubik (other topics)Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia (other topics)
Life During Wartime (other topics)
King and Joker (other topics)
This Perfect Day (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Bradbury (other topics)Hugo Gernsback (other topics)
John W. Campbell Jr. (other topics)
H.P. Lovecraft (other topics)
I'm aware of that. You have been clear in your opinion.
"There has never been another time when people have been less racist (or sexist, homophobic, etc. etc. etc.) as now."
That is probably true. (At least in more developed countries.)
"It is a privilege and a luxury to endlessly deconstruct someone's tweets for a remark that is off-colour or to comb their personal history for that picture from the 90s where they have a blackface...."
Agreed. And I don't do that. Nobody on this thread or in this group has spoken in support of that. This thread started because some people are saying essentially that we should "cancel" the old SF authors. Nobody here has supported that.
"I don't see how the current obsession about this, and especially the outrage culture that has developed around it, will help anyone or anything, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on it."
We do not have to disagree on that. I said nothing that disagrees with that, because I don't disagree with that. We agree.
Yet, racism is alive and well in the USA. It is less overt than in the past. Some people, mostly public figures, do face consequences when they are overtly racist. Occasionally excessive consequences, but that isn't as common as some pretend.
But it still goes on.