The Latest on the current Genre Debates

Two debates are currently raging across the online SFF sphere, namely the debate about the appropriateness of awards eligibility posts (see my previous posts here and here) as well as the debate about “masculine stories” initiated by Paul S. Kemp (see my post here).

Let’s start with the masculinity debate:

At Dreamwidth, Ithiliana responds to me responding to Paul S. Kemp and points out that gender debates have been with us since the beginnings of SFF fandom and that we’re still not much further than we were approx. ninety years ago. Ithiliana also makes a very important point, namely that all responses to Paul S. Kemp so far are still stuck in the same straight, white, cisgendered, able-bodied paradigm with all the attendant problems.

Kameron Hurley (who is one of my picks for best fan writer BTW) has a great post in which she explains how gender-switching the stereotypical lone wolf hypermasculine action hero shows how problematic such characters really are and that in order to be fully human, people should embrace both their traditionally masculine and feminine traits regardless of gender.

At The Bathroom Monologues, John Wiswell breaks down Paul S. Kemp’s characteristics for masculine characters bit by bit and concludes that nothing is exclusively masculine. Bonus points for pointing out how harmful the stereotypes of men having their emotions in check are to young boys who are emotionally crippled by being told to “man up”.

Teresa Frohock responds to Paul S. Kemp by pointing out that she wrote a character who ticks all the boxes of a manly man according to Kemp. Unfortunately, that character is a woman – oops. Teresa Frohock also points out that rigid gender stereotypes and honour culture hurt both men and women.

At Fangirl, Lex wonders what Paul S. Kemp’s views on gender mean for the future of the Star Wars novels, since Kemp is still under contract for further Star Wars novels.

This post is very illuminating, since it sheds light on where Kemp, a writer whose name was vaguely and whose work not at all familiar to me, is coming from. Apparently, one of his Star Wars novels has no significant female characters at all, while another fridges the lone woman, so that the men can escape (whatever happend to women and children first, as extrolled as a manly virtue by Kemp?). And there is even more problematic stuff.

Fangirl also points out that Paul S. Kemp’s ideal of hyper-masculinity as virtue does not really fit into the Star Wars universe as it’s been portrayed in the films and many of the novels. Because for all its gender issues such as the fact that in all of the Star Wars films men vastly outnumber women or that the original trilogy fails the Bechdel test with flying colours, Star Wars doesn’t really present hyper-masculine and ultra-feminine characters. Luke, Anakin, Obi Wan, Lando, Qui Gon Jin, etc… are not the sort of manly man Kemp prefers. Han Solo comes closest and he is hardly Conan either. As for the women, I have been suspecting for a while that the fact that Leia was so damn awesome was a lucky accident, but none of the few Star Wars women are wilting flowers.

Now I have never read any of Paul S. Kemp’s novels and I gave up on the Star Wars novels years ago. And a large part of the reason why I gave up on the Star Wars novels (and indeed rarely bother with tie-ins in general, even if I love the franchise) was that the Star Wars universe presented in the novels was not the Star Wars universe I had fallen in love with. For starters, most of the writers focussed far too much on the Jedi, while none of them seemed to get that the Jedi aren’t a good thing nor are they really portrayed as one in the films. Indeed, Kemp’s “masculine virtues” as practiced by the Jedi order, e.g. stoicness, having one’s emotions in check, an emphasis on honour, contribute to the downfall of the Old Republic and are directly responsible for the fall of Anakin, since none of the Jedi are willing or able to recognise how the conflict between the (impossible) demands of the Jedi order and Anakin’s feelings for his mother and Padme are tearing him apart, until he goes totally off the rails and becomes Darth Vader. Anakin practically begs for help at several points during Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith and is blown off with Jedi platitudes.


Meanwhile, the debate about awards eligibility posts is still raging as well. But first of all, if you are a Hugo nominator and have problems deciding whom to nominate in the art categories, the Hugo Award eligible artists tumblr might help.

Larry Nolen declares genre awards irrelevant in general at the OF Blog, since only very few people bother to nominate and vote and the financial advantage is likely to be small to non-existent, particularly in the short fiction and fan categories. And besides, writers and publishers don’t behave in nearly such an undignified way regarding nominations for the literary awards that really matter according to Larry Nolen, namely the Booker Prize or the National Book Award.

Reading through this post, I couldn’t help but be struck by the privilege on display. Because apparently, Larry Nolen cannot even fathom that for many women or writers of colour or international writers or GLBT writers, being nominated for a genre award, even if it’s in a fan category, is an affirmation that they belong here and are part of the genre, that their books and stories and other contributions to the genre are welcomed and recognised. Never mind that he does underestimate the impact winning a Hugo even in the short fiction categories can have on a writer’s career. Because editors are a lot more willing to look at your work, when you are a Hugo or a Campbell winner. Especially, if you aren’t a straight white cisgendered man.

On a similar note, Martin Lewis at Everything Nice explains in great detail why he considers awards eligibility posts selfish, destructive and counter-productive. The post is a bit of a mess, but apparently awards eligiblity posts disenfranchise readers (How? People posting lists for their eligible works doesn’t force me to vote for them and indeed some of the writers I will be nominating have not made any posts) and don’t help diversity of shortlists, because people should be nominating based on the literary merit of the work in question and not because the author ticks a certain demographic box. I do agree that nominations should be based on literary merit, but if the only works of literary merit are written by straight white men, there is something wrong. Though to be fair to Martin Lewis, his own recommendations for awards worthy works include at least two women as well as an artist of colour.

At Jenny’s Library, Jenny Gadget has a thoughtful response to Martin Lewis and explains how writers talking about their own works on the internet helped her find speculative fiction that she could enjoy, often books by female authors that were not on any of the officially approved “best of the genre” lists, books that were not reviewed and pushed by booksellers and the genre press. She also points out how awards eligibility lists by women and writers of colour and other marginalised writers are less about genuinely expecting to be nominated or believing their own work to be one of the five or six best works of the year and more about pointing out, “Hey, we exist, too, and it would be nice if you could remember and maybe read our work instead of erasing us.” Post found via Radish Reviews, a great site operated by Natalie Luhrs who would coincidentally also be a good pick for best fanwriter.

Jenny’s post really resonated with me, because my own journey as a speculative fiction reader and fan was very similar down to having books I found hugely problematic recommended to me over and over again before stumbling into a vast realm of SFF books by mostly female authors which were neither discussed nor mentioned at all.

Coffeeandink also weighs in and points out that it’s easy for straight white men to say that awards eligibility posts are tacky and that the market a.k.a readers will automatically find and nominate the best and most worthy works, when it’s known that works by men are more reviewed and generally given more attention.

Take this post by Jaime Lee Moyer, who wrote a wonderful Edwardian set fantasy novel called Delia’s Shadow, for example. Jaime Lee Moyer points out how there are many great books written by women, but when you check out “Year’s best” lists, it’s always the same handful of male names. Indeed, I quickly gave up looking at “Year’s best” lists for SFF, unless the list was compiled by a woman or to be found at a notable women-friend site, because how many times do I need to see Doctor Sleep or A Memory of Light or The Ocean at the End of the Lane or NOS4A2 extolled as the best books of the year? I already know about those books. However, it would be nice to find some new to me books on those lists.

While on the subject of A Memory of Light, apparently there are attempts to nominate the entire 15-book Wheel of Time series for a best novel Hugo. Leigh Butler at is pleased (understandable, considering who the publisher is), Damien Walter at the Guardian less so. I’m inclined to agree with Damien Walter on this one. Whatever one thinks of the literary merits of the Wheel of Time series (I can’t comment, because I’ve never read the series), if there is one speculative property that does not need the attention boost of a Hugo nomination, it is Wheel of Time. Yet the series is familiar to a whole lot of people and may well end up on the shortlist. Which would put me as a Hugo voter in an unpleasant situation, because I honestly have no idea how to vote on Wheel of Time and there is no way I am reading a whole series of 15 very thick books I have very little interest in.

If there were no recommendation and awards eligibility lists, we would probably see even more examples of people nominating the familiar, simply because it is familiar. And is this really what we want?

This entry was posted in Books, Film, Links and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The Latest on the current Genre Debates

  1. Martin says:

    The post is a bit of a mess, but apparently awards eligiblity posts disenfranchise readers…

    Where does the post say this?

    …and don’t help diversity of shortlists, because people should be nominating based on the literary merit of the work in question and not because the author ticks a certain demographic box

    Or this?

    • Estara says:

      Probably here:

      “But the ubiquity of such posts and their vociferous defence means they become actively harmful.”

      I would conclude they can only be harmful in your estimate if the readers’ choice is in some way obstructed/influenced by the “ubiquity of such posts and their vociferous defence”.

      What left me more headscratching was this bit though:

      As a point of principle, a vote for yourself can never be a noble act; as a point of practicality, eligibility posts are an incredibly poor way of making your voice heard. If you are worried that someone has got a megaphone, cupping your hands together and shouting is not going to get you far.

      a) What has your argument to do with nobility in the first place?
      b) Does that last sentence mean it is better for the one without megaphone to give up and stay silent, so the “people who are asking you to keep it down” will only take notice of the person with the megaphone?

      If, on the one hand, you think your story is one of the six best published last year then say so. If, on the other hand, you don’t think your story is that good but, for what ever reason, you still want the kudos of an award then say that. If you can’t or won’t say either, perhaps you shouldn’t say anything at all.

      c) Only if your ego is big enough to think that your story is one of the best six published last year are you allowed to make people aware of it? Did I read that last bit right? And if you don’t have the ego, please be quiet?

      • Martin says:

        Obviously I do think that reader nominations are influenced by such posts. But I don’t see how this could amount to disenfranchisement, nor is there anything in my post that implies I might, so I find it a strange characterisation.

        a) What has your argument to do with nobility in the first place?

        Well, it is right there in the title of the post. This is my response to the general tenor of the discussion which has been to paint eligibility posts as a virtuous social good. If they were virtuous, they would be about someone else’s eligibility; since they aren’t, they are inherently selfish.

        b) Does that last sentence mean it is better for the one without megaphone to give up and stay silent, so the “people who are asking you to keep it down” will only take notice of the person with the megaphone?

        As my whole argument – including the final sentence of that paragraph which you cut – makes clear, I totally reject the premise. The black and white distinction of a minority group with megaphones who will never change and a majority group with no voice who don’t really want to lobby for awards but are forced to in order to counter-act the minority is just a convenient fiction. I think – as I say in the post – that, as a purely practical measure, eligibility posts are not a good tactic for countering those with megaphones and that “complaining about those people asking both of you to keep it down is just going to entrench the existing problem.” This is because what we are talking about is lots of authors engaging in the same behaviour and the only way to change that behaviour in some individuals is to address it collectively.

        c) Only if your ego is big enough to think that your story is one of the best six published last year are you allowed to make people aware of it? Did I read that last bit right? And if you don’t have the ego, please be quiet?

        You’ve just quoted the answer to this. I clearly set out two scenarios where I would be happy for an author to post their eligibility: if they say they think their work deserves the award or if they say they just want the award. For each of these, there are multiple reasons why an author might say them. So, for example, an author might think their work was the best of the year because of either considered judgement or misguided egoism. You seem to be suggesting the latter is more likely and I’d agree.

        So I think you are sort of heading towards my point (authors won’t actually want to meet my challenge) but the phrase “allowed to make people aware of it” suggests that additional confusion is being caused by failing to distinguish between eligibility posts and other forms of self-promotion (which is set out in the same section of my post that you’ve just quoted from).

        Similarly, this posts ends by referring to recommendation lists and eligibility lists as if they were the same thing. These distinctions are pretty basic but both keep being used interchangeably which really muddies the water.

        • Estara says:

          So virtue = nobility, aha.

          Hmm “minority group with megaphones who will never change” – considering the fact that at least in the so-called 1st world slavery is illegal these days, and women have the right to vote and you supposedly can’t be discriminated against legally with regard to your race and creed, I’d say that it might take a long time to change that minority group, but it does happen, speaking historically. This is a sweeping statement, but I think so is your metaphor in your post.

          I personally don’t think that “the only way to change that behaviour in some individuals is to address it collectively.” is a tactic with an expectation of success, since writers aren’t a school class expected to fulfill certain standards, and even then when the teacher tries to treat them all objectively the same, there are usually kids who don’t respond to that – not to mention the teacher who can never be completely objective.

          To me your choice of images comes across patronizing. I doubt that will help the situation and I’m actually quite happy to browse through various eligibility lists – I’ll especially be using the Hugo Artist Tumblr, because I rarely check which year a book cover was released.

          • Cora says:

            As I said to Martin below, I also find eligibility lists useful, simply as an overview of what was published in a given year. Doesn’t mean I have to nominate for it, even if I like the writer in question as a person.

            I was also happy to discover the Hugo artist tumblr, simply because the art categories are difficult for me to nominate beyond a few familiar big names.

            • Martin says:

              The Hugo artist tumblr is extremely useful. Can you spot the key ways in which it is not an author eligibility post?

              • Estara says:

                Probably a poor choice of example from my side – the posts by my various favourite authors pointing out what was published last year and is therefore available to be nominated are included in my happiness – especially as I sometimes find work mentioned I hadn’t realised had come out that year – niche stuff, short stories and the like.

                • Estara says:

                  To clarify: “what was published OF THEIR OWN WORK last year”

                • Cora says:

                  Ditto here. Quite often I’m simply happy to find a short story by a favourite author that I didn’t even know existed via such a post. For example, I recently found a great short story by Carrie Vaughn via her “work published in 2013” post that I missed the first time around.

              • Cora says:

                I never said that it was.

        • Cora says:

          I don’t think anybody is confusing recommendation and eligiblity lists. However, recommendation lists are often heavily biased towards straight white cisgender men and the sort of fiction they write and enjoy with whole subgenres and groups of writers left off the list (also see the post by Jaime Lee Moyer that I linked to). Luckily, there are some recommendation lists specifically set up to counter this tendency. However, eligibility lists can and often do include works ignored by the more mainstream recommendation lists.

          As a reader and Hugo nominator, I appreciate both types of lists equally. Particularly with short fiction, I tend to forget what was published when and particularly with online stories, it’s not always clear into which category the story falls. So I’m grateful for a handy overview, whether it was compiled by the author, a magazine or a third party. With regard eligibility posts, I am more likely to check out the eligibility list of an author whose work I have enjoyed in the past. But my nomination decisions are still based on the merit of the individual work. For example, I recently read a short story which ticked all the demographic boxes (international author of colour, non-western setting, fluid gender roles), but I still didn’t care for the story itself and thus won’t be nominating it.

          As for your claim that people should only put themselves forward, if they genuinely believe that their story or novel is one of the five or six best works of the year, I believe that this is highly counterproductive, because impostor syndrome, as mentioned by Jenny Gadget in her post, disproportionately affects women and minorities, who are often socialized not to put themselves forward and not try to stand out in general. Larry Correia, to pick one example of an extremely aggressive self-promoter, probably genuinely believes that his Monster Hunter novels are among the best ever written, whereas e.g. a woman who really has written a brilliant short story or a writer of colour who has written an amazing novel would likely remain silent.

          Personally, I don’t think that eligibility lists are an ideal solution either. But if we only had to rely on recommendation lists as well as the loudest guys with the biggest megaphones and most fervent fanbases, we’d probably end up with a best novel slate consisting of Doctor Sleep, A Memory of Light (or the entire Wheel of Time, heavens beware), The Ocean at the End of the Lane, Monster Hunter Whatever and The Human Division. And that’s not really a selection I want to be voting on.

          BTW, I deleted your double posts which ended up in the spam folder for some reason.

          • Martin says:

            I don’t think anybody is confusing recommendation and eligiblity lists.

            The last words of your post are: “If there were no recommendation and awards eligibility lists, we would probably see even more examples of people nominating the familiar, simply because it is familiar. And is this really what we want?”

            No one has ever talked about getting rid of recommendation posts. So either: a) you are mistakenly treating recommendation and eligibility posts interchangeably or b) you are deliberately mischaracterising the arguments again to make them seem less persuasive. I’ve gone for a) as the explanation, you seem to have gone for b).

            • Cora says:

              Maybe a poor choice of words on my part.

              But many recommendation lists – while extremely valuable – are nonetheless weighed towards a particular type of book. If you happen to be a writer who doesn’t write that type of book (which doesn’t mean that those books are bad, because there are some excellent books that never got close to the Hugo or Nebula shortlist because of voter tastes) or a reader who doesn’t much care for that type of book, recommendation lists aren’t all that useful. Eligibility posts can offer some balance here.

      • Cora says:

        Yes, pretty much this.

    • Cora says:

      I understood

      This year, we have seen authors accelerate the trend of taking ownership of the space by actively erasing readers.


      The conversation has entirely shifted from readers to authors, from voting for awards to winning awards.

      plus Estara’s first quote as awards eligibility posts disenfranchising readers and Estara’s second quote as well as your entire point three and four as eligibility posts don’t help diversity and besides, people should be nominating based on merit rather than demographics, a point BTW I agree with.

      If I misunderstood your meaning, I’m sorry.

      • Martin says:

        Okay, I can see where you are coming from. But there are two issues here: an individual’s vote and the environment in which this vote is cast. The chief voice in that environment has, in recent years, shifted from community activists to politicians (the ownership of conversation that I refer to). Within this environment, individuals are still free to vote as they wish but they are more susceptible to influence from politicians. To me, describing this as “disenfranchisement” is an attempt to recast my argument in a stronger version to make it seem less persuasive.

        Likewise, whilst I don’t think eligibility posts will increase diversity, I clearly state that this is on the grounds of practicality, not “because people should be nominating based on the literary merit of the work in question and not because the author ticks a certain demographic box”. That is the stereotypical thoughtless response men make when asked to think about the diversity of cultural institutions so I can only assume it was a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise my argument to make it easier to dismiss. If you are saying you actually agree with your mischaracterisation then that’s great but they are your words, I’ve never used them.

  2. Okay, Cora, I have an embarrassing admission. You made me look up a word: cisgender.

    You got me.

  3. Pingback: What Star Wars Doesn’t Need Right Now «

  4. Pingback: More Thoughts From Women On Expanded Universe «

  5. Daniela says:

    I’m still trying to read through all the interesting blogs you linked to but thought I should comment as well :-).

    The whole manly man debate is kind of hilarious if it weren’t this serious. Good point about Star Wars. I never really saw any of the men as excessively manly or fitting the stereotype of the manly man. Same with the few (far to few) women. Point in case would be Luke and Leia. Luke is the sensitive one who uses the force (aka magic) while Leia is the diplomat, politician, and leader, very take charge. She’s the one involved in all the political maneuverings and plans, while Luke is the one confronting the emotional situation of dealing with their father. I always saw Luke as the emotional one (Anakin to) while Leia (and Padme) were far mor incontrol of their emotions and were able to set them aside to make political decisions.

    As for the eligibility-lists, I like it when authors post them or when they open a post where lesser known writers can point their works out. I went through the post on John Scalzi’s blog and found a few books I’m interested in reading. Books I probably wouldn’t have found otherwise.

    I also wouldn’t mind if authors post a list at the end of the year where they list everything they’ve published that year and maybe link to that post on their bibliography-page. It’s so easy to miss something, especially short stories or novellas as they usually aren’t this strongly pushed and marketed.

    I think as a writer you’re a doomed either way, no matter what you do. If you don’t market your sales might suffer and people blame you because you don’t tout your on horn and if you do, people come down on you. Especially if you’re a woman.
    I’ve seen the very same behaviour in the workplace. Women get told to be more active and don’t hide their skill, but when they do? They are viewed as arrogant and too forceful.

    • Estara says:

      Did you see that great Pantene commercial which highlights exactly that attitude? Well worth a look

      • Daniela says:

        Yes I did. It’s brilliant, except it’s for shampoo and they kind of negate the positive message with the last scene.

        • Cora says:

          Totally agree. Love the idea and concept, but in the end it’s still an ad for a hairstyling product.

          • Estara says:

            I think it’s okay that way, too – maybe the Barbie generation will think about the message for a second while they’re watching the commercial for the product. Aware young females probably don’t have to be shown that message, I would think.

            Or maybe I’m just so grateful for small favours, heh.

            • Cora says:

              Yes, I think we’re not the target audience for that commercial, but rather girls and young women like my students (both school and university). And some of them definitely need to hear that message.

    • Cora says:

      Leia is a take-charge person all the way. She comes up with the plan to send the all-important Death Star blueprint in R2-D2 to Obi Wan, defies all of Tarkin’s interrogation attempts and grabs a gun and starts giving orders within a minute of being rescued. Leia is also usually the one with the plan, whereas Luke and Han tend to rush in and make things worse. As for Padme, when Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan are thrown into the arena towards the end of Attack of the Clones, Padme manages to deal with her monster better than the two Jedi knights with theirs. And while Jedi are supposed to have their emotions in check, neither Luke nor Anakin nor Obi-Wan are all that good at it, with disastrous consequences in the case of Anakin. Never mind that Obi-Wan is strongly implied to be gay in the prequels, though many male Star Wars fans are in denial about that. And though Samuel L. Jackson made a career out of playing badass characters, Mace Windu isbn’t particularly badass. Finally, let’s not forget that Jango Fett, the badass bounty hunter, is a single dad who deliberately had a son cloned for himself. So there’s not a lot of traditional masculinity on display in Star Wars.

      As for self-promotion and eligibility lists, there’s definitely a double standard involved there. During last year’s Hugo debate, for example, people – including some of the same people involved in this discussion – came down a lot harder on Seanan McGuire for allegedly excessive self-promotion than on John Scalzi, even though she probably did less self-promotion than John Scalzi had done and certainly has a smaller platform.

      • Estara says:

        Did you see that Martha Wells did a tie-in novel featuring Leia last year? Razor’s Edge.

        • Cora says:

          No, I didn’t see that. Like I said, I gave up on the tie-ins ages ago, since so many of them proved to be disappointing. But this one sounds actually good and like the Star Wars I once fell in love with. Plus, you usually can’t go wrong with Martha Wells.

      • Daniela says:

        I think some people only see what they want to see when it comes to certain franchises. And of course Obi-Wan is gay ;-). Fandom knew that he was deeply and firmly in love with Qui-Gon. But weren’t Jedi supposed to be asexual? I admit I’ve blanked out a lot of II and III.

        There weren’t many women in SW but the ones that were there didn’t fit the Western idea of femininity. There Lucas was definitely some steps ahead of others.

        Have you seen this?

        The ad is from the 80s!!! It feels as if we are doing massive steps back when it comes to the ideas of what women and men are or shoudl be. I always find it kind of amusing but also very frustrating that according to some of the lists of female “character-traits” I’m not female despite being very obviously female.

        I read Seanan’s blog-entry last year and I was going “Huh, what self-promotion? She hasn’t done any sef-promotion.” John Scalzi is a good example. He does a lot of self-promotion but in a way that doesn’t come across as too annyoing.
        Coudl also imagine the reaction if a female blogger/writer came up with something like the “Mallet of Loving Correction”? Or was as snarky and self-assured on her blog as John or Chuck Wendig are on theirs?

        • Cora says:

          Interestingly, almost every female Star Wars fan agrees that Obi Wan is obviously gay and was in a relationship with Qui Gonn (who was bi, since he is clearly interested in Anakin’s mother). Meanwhile, male Star Wars fan tend to have heart attacks at the mere suggestion. Ditto for the question of Anakin’s paternity. Male fans accept the virgin birth hypothesis at face value, while railing about how silly it is. Even though it’s kind of obvious that there was no virgin birth. There was a male human Jedi who came to Tattooine and spent the night with a beautiful slave girl. The next morning he pulled his Jedi mind trick and told her, “You never saw me. I was never here.” Nine months later, little Anakin was born. When I once explained this to a male fan, he got a very shocked look and said, “Oh no, a Jedi would never do that.”

          And yes, Jedi are supposed to be celibate, at least in the prequels. Doesn’t mean they actually are. And Yoda is obviously breeding Jedi much like Hetty in NCIS LA is breeding agents. Why else deliberately put Anakin and Padme together, when it’s bleedingly obvious what would happen?

          I agree that the women of Star Wars are no more stereotypically feminine, not even mother figures like Aunt Beru or Anakin’s mother, then the men are stereotypically masculine. I just wish there would have been more of them.

          That ad is lovely and it captures very much how children actually looked at that time. That easily could have been me in 1981, down to the braids, though I never much cared for Lego. On the other hand, I can also guarantee that I would have been all over the pink Lego friends line, had it been available back in 1981. I actually made princess gowns for my dolls, because there were none available in the 1980s (and I never was all that girly either and just as happily played with toy cars and action figures). But pretty in pink toys for girls (and rough and tough in blue for boys) should no more be all that’s available than the unisex stuff should have been all that was available in the 1970s and early 1980s.

          I have no idea why Seanan McGuire was singled out for excessive self-promotion last year either beyond the fact that she was nominated in several categories. For at least as far as I could see, she did no more than dozens of other authors did and was nowhere near the level of John Scalzi, let alone Larry Correia (who definitely crosses the line into “too much”).

          As for a female blogger using the same snarky and profanity laced tones as John Scalzi or Chuck Wendig, she’d be inundated with rape and death threats within two weeks or so.

  6. Pingback: The Legendary Star Wars Expanded Universe News: One Week Later «

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *