Meet the… *snort* …”competition”

Ever since Kate, Sarah, and Amanda announced Sad Puppies 4, the usual suspects started crawling out from under their rocks, excoriating the project, accusing it of being an ego trip, and implying that the project is the “same old, same old,” meaning white/cis/hetero/insert evil privilege here males trying to get themselves an award and take back science fiction from those poor, oppressed, victimized *insert victims of the month here* who are finally getting their shot at glory…

…or something.

But despite the impotent condemnations of the Sad Puppies cause, at least one social justice warrior extraordinaire has decided that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.

Just kidding.

Our favorite pedo-apologist Phildo Sandifer has decided to start his own version of the Sad Puppies campaign in a blatant ripoff he calls “Weird Kitties,” (’cause that’s not obvious or anything) and I call “Peculiar Pussies,” both for the cowardly hypocrisy of blatantly stealing an idea from those you publicly condemn, and the weird criteria Phildo is apparently using to nominate works for the Hugo Award.  Well… “criteria” may be an overstatement.

You see, Phildo doesn’t think actually READING the work is important. No, I’m not kidding. If your eyeballs are threatening to explode out of your head right now, I don’t blame you. But here’s proof!

reading a book

Yeah, I know. It left me scratching my head as well. That’s like saying eating is a terribly inefficient way of finding out whether a dish is good. Ain’t nobody got time for that! A feeding tube is much more efficient, right?

Seriously… If you’re going to nominate a work of literature for an award, wouldn’t it make sense for you to READ THE FUCKING THING FIRST??

Apparently, Phildo doesn’t think that’s necessary, which left even some of his SJW buddies scratching their pointy little heads.

no reading part two

So how should a work of literature be judged? Does Phildo believe it’s sufficient to just take a look at the author’s bona fides? And would those criteria be? If K. Tempest Bradford had her way, it would be anyone but white cis hetero males. So much for quality, right?  How about a blurb? A review? Is it sufficient to judge a novel or a short story by something someone else wrote about it without experiencing the joy (or revulsion) of reading the work yourself?

Amanda S. Green – one of the Sad Puppies 4 chairs – has a good discussion here about how one is to judge the quality of a work.

My next thought was to wonder how, if reading a book wasn’t the most efficient way, we are to determine if a book is any good. Best sellers lists are artificial lists based on pre-orders of a book. Pre-orders. That means only reviewers, beta readers, a few lucky fans and editors and agents have read the book. Oh, wait, maybe I’m starting to see something here. Maybe we should pay attention to what the so-called gatekeepers say is good. Hmm, the problem with that is it leaves out so many books that are either small press or indie published or aren’t being pushed as much by the traditional publishers.

Maybe we should wait to see what our teachers tell us is good. The problem with that is it means we won’t be reading much that doesn’t already qualify as “classic”. And what about those of us who are out of school? Are we supposed to just stop reading because we don’t have an educator guiding our reading?

Reading should be joy! Fiction stories should stimulate imagination and take the reader on an adventure. It should make one think. It should evoke emotions – fear, joy, sympathy, hatred. How can one get that from a review? How can one experience all the richness that literature has to offer, if one judges the work by the color, gender, sexual orientation, or sexual preference of the author without reading the book?

Apparently, that doesn’t matter to Phildo. And that to me is the basic, but crucial difference between the Sad Puppies campaign and whatever Phildo and the Progtard Crew try to vomit up in response: The Sad Puppies are dedicated to promoting quality work – work that speaks to readers. Sad Puppies don’t care who submits the work. Sad Puppies don’t care who wrote it.

Anyone can post any number of recommendations (obviously not for the same work – one recommendation per person per work), and there is NO political test. The only criteria is that you’ve read it/watched it/seen it and you think it’s one of the best in its Hugo class published in 2015.

Meanwhile, Phildo is yammering about his cheap ripoff and soliciting submissions – based on… who the hell knows?

Well, if that’s what the progtard crowd is now throwing at us (much like angry monkeys flinging poo), I don’t think the Sad Puppies have too much to worry about.

29 responses

  1. This guy is a caricature… just when you think he can’t get more ridiculous, he does.

    Like

    1. Agree totally Rob, but his post appears to be a symptom of what’s become toxic in this country. He claims he has no problem with people voting for a candidate, platform or issue they don’t know a thing about, and who find researching it to be just too much trouble.

      People if his ilk care more about reality program “stars” then they do about their, and our, rights, and would gleefully vote them away. His post illustrates why the fucktard vote can, and does, usurp the votes of those who give an actual shit.

      While I understand Nicki’s post is about voting for quality written work in a specific format, the douchebaggery you busted rings large, and in the macro is pretty scary to me. See, for example, Mark Dice videos…

      Like

  2. Sooner or later, they slip up and tell the truth.

    Like

  3. This guy is a classic example of why “Poe’s Law” exists. He reads like the most over-the-top possible satire. But he’s for real.

    Like

  4. […] by Bod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported […]

    Like

  5. — If you’re going to nominate a work of literature for an award, wouldn’t it make sense for you to READ THE FUCKING THING FIRST?? —

    Not if what matters to you is the identity of the author — i.e., the author’s sex, race, politics, sexual orientation, and attitude toward freedom or capitalism. And that, I posit, is the inescapable implication of the little pervert’s statement.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. When your criteria for what makes a “good” book don’t involve the contents of the book, it’s quite easy to make your choices based on anything but the content.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Another one in the YGTBSM category… Sigh…

    Liked by 1 person

  8. You are the grown-up. He’s stuck at 14.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. My son was much more mature and intelligent at 14 than PedoPhil is currently.

      Like

      1. Of that I am sure. Mine sure was. Sadly, I suspect our sons are outliers these days. When the wolf shows up at the door, PedoPhil will be under the fainting couch with the children demanding the adults protect him.

        Like

  9. This is why I don’t Twit. 95% of my responses would equate to: “Please attempt aerial fornication with a rotationally transiting toroidal pastry lined with broken glass”.

    But rather harsher in vernacular.

    Hell that’s already 80% on my FaceFuck posts….

    Like

  10. […] ONLY THE POLITICS COUNT, COMRADE:Meet the… *snort* …”competition. […]

    Like

  11. […] ONLY THE POLITICS COUNT, COMRADE:Meet the… *snort* …”competition. […]

    Like

  12. Just wish to make a comment from the outside in. I’m not a SF fan but very interested in the Sad Puppy Saga and the ever devolving hysteria of the SJW descent into INSANITY.

    This Phildo character is as weird looking as his idea that it isn’t necessary to read a book to make a judgement on its worthiness as a work of “literature”, SF or other genre. Almost like saying “no need to view the Sistine Chapel; it isn’t all it’s cracked up to be and really quite ostentatious. That God thing is really overdone.”

    LGBT xyz

    Like

  13. Since the use of pen names are still prevalent, it would be fun for writers to create new persona’s that meet his criteria, such as a Black Lesbian, which writes conservative fiction. This would make the poor guy’s head explode.

    Like

  14. I can hardly credit that someone actually said reading the freaking book is a less efficient way of evaluating its merits than … what? Peering at an author’s orifices for signs of political incorrectness? Studying bloody rabbit entrails? Dancing naked under a cold, rainy sky to see if that results in something other than a bad case of exposure?

    These “social-justice” idiots should be put into little cages and observed for rabies before being put down anyway for public safety.

    Like

  15. Isn’t Phil on record as asserting “Politics is a form of quality” so you are voting for authors whose politics you think are “quality”?

    Mind, if efficiency is your goal you probably aren’t reading anything but twits.

    Like

    1. That does follow; after all if reading is inefficient, you wouldn’t want to read reviews from people who’ve actually READ the work, would you?
      Taken to its logical end, there’s nothing left to influence your vote but a tweet listing a bunch of authors some random person (who you’ve decided to accord “expertise” authority to) says he “likes”.

      Like

      1. Oh sure — it is much more efficient to let others do your thinking for you. The government has experts who are certified professionals capable, enabling a few thousand people to do all the thinking for over 300 million Americans er, citizens uh … occupants, which is far more efficient than letting just anybody off the street think they can think.

        Like

  16. Isn’t Sandifer on record asserting that “Politics is a form of quality” so you are voting for authors whose politics you think are “quality”? So I suppose he firsts screens for politics, then looks for a review at The Nation or perhaps the Wobbly paper?

    Looking into his publication history I note his limited number of books are all Pop Culture related, terribly derivative excursions into Dr. Who and They Might Be Giants, so I can understand why he might think reading an inefficient way of telling if a book is any good. Of course, watching a TV show is also a terribly inefficient way of finding out what it is about and if it’s any good.

    Like

  17. Holy Crap! So I just found this blog today and saw this post. I actually went to college and lived in the same program dorm with Phil Sandifer!

    He was pretty much the same way when we graduated in ’01. This is the same guy who tried to argue that reading about how to do physical activity from a book was just as good as actual physical training. So, in his mind if he read a book on how to run a marathon he was just as good as a person who has actually run a marathon.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Holy crap! That’s one of he most hilarious things I’ve seen all day!!!!

      Like

  18. […] Cornell Seeks Diversity Ph.D., Qualifications Irrelevant. This is up there with reading being the least efficient way of deciding if a book is good.  You’ve heard of jumping the shark?  These people are jumping entire […]

    Like

  19. To be fair, this attitude is common in academe. When I was doing Ph.D. work in history at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, one assistant professor assigned a stack of books for the grad students to review, but pointed out that we didn’t have to read any of them.

    As long as we read several reviews of the books, that would be sufficient for us to write our own reviews. I left the program shortly thereafter.

    Like

    1. I’m just floored by that Maybe I’m getting old, but that would NEVER have been tolerated when I was doing my undergraduate and graduate work!

      Like

  20. I can kinda imagine a Soviet book reviewer saying exactly the same thing.

    I find it interesting (but NOT amusing) how much that is going on in society these days has exact analogues in Soviet society 1920s through 1980s.

    Like

    1. Having grown up there in the 1970s, I can say I remember a lot of black lines where the censors manually crossed out text in books.

      Like

  21. […] Your mediocre work doesn’t get any play or sales? Must be because you’re transgender, don’t conform, non-binary gender, different, not because your work really sucks, and since you’re obviously reviled because of your gender choices, you’re a victim, and therefore virtuous, and therefore everyone must love your work – without even reading it. […]

    Like

%d bloggers like this: