SF/F Corruption: Part I

SF/F Corruption: Part I

the-quantum-roseWhy Amazon is Correct to Ban Author Reviews

There is word of a backlash against Amazon’s policy of preventing authors from reviewing certain books on its web site. The Telegraph reports: “Critics suggest this system is flawed because many authors are impartial and are experts on novels.” However, speaking as the first nationally syndicated game review columnist and a longtime professional reviewer for publications such as the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Chronicle Features, Computer Gaming World, and Electronic Entertainment, I can assure those who find this policy to be unjustified and unfair that it is absolutely and completely necessary due to the corruption, both professional and ideological, that is rife within the publishing industry in general and the SF/F industry in particular.

The problem isn’t merely one of authors sockpuppeting and heaping praise upon themselves under false identities. I am a member of the SFWA, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association, and I have had the dubious privilege of sitting upon three of its Nebula Award juries in the past. More importantly, I have had access to the SFWA Forum, and its updated list of Nebula Award nominations, for more than ten years. And one of the things that rapidly became obvious to anyone who attempted to participate honestly in the system between 2000 and 2010 was that the Nebula Award is, first and foremost, a means for various small groups of people to shamelessly and dishonestly promote the works of themselves and their friends.

You need not take my word for it. Anyone who is a member of the SFWA can peruse the back issues of the Forum and quickly see exactly what was happening behind the scenes until the 2010 rules changes. No sooner were works from certain authors published than they were immediately recommended for the award by the exact same group of authors who had recommended the author’s previous books. And, in most cases, those recommendations either had been or would be reciprocated by the author whose new work was being recommended, in some cases almost surely unread due to the timing involved concerning the publication date. Because it only took a small number of recommendations — ten, if I recall correctly — to get a work on the initial ballot, this “logrolling” repeatedly put the same names forward for the various Nebula awards at the expense of other, much more deserving authors.

Jason Sanford, who favors the new rules, described the process thusly:

The old Nebula rules encouraged [logrolling] by making it easy to both nominate friends and supporters for the preliminary ballot (by letting members nominate so many stories) and to verify that these people were returning the favor, since all nominations were public.

There is some reason to doubt that the new rules are any better, especially given section 11(b), which states:

Nominations shall be treated as confidential information and only the names of the works and numbers of nominations will be available for viewing by eligable members after the awards ceremony.

This takes the old problem and makes it worse by allowing the logrolling to take place behind closed doors and hidden from public scrutiny; limiting the nominations to five apiece will only serve to concentrate and streamline the incestuous activity. One SFWA member already noted a consequence of the post-2010 rules: “During the final week, I was barraged with pleas via LiveJournal, Twitter, and Facebook to help get stories onto the ballot at a volume far above anything I’ve ever experienced before.”

The past logrolling is why there are so many undeserving Nebula winners in the recent past. Catherine Asaro’s The Quantum Rose, which won the Best Novel award in 2002, is perhaps the most egregious example; Asaro was the SFWA President at the time, a pleasant and popular woman by all accounts, and the author of a book that in no way merited being even mentioned in the same breath as George R.R. Martin’s A Storm of Swords, published in the same year. Asaro won the Best Novel award for what was the sixth book in an entirely forgettable space romance series about strong independent women and the handsome men who find them irresistible… in space. It is worth noting that while George R.R. Martin was nominated for each of the first three books in A Song of Ice and Fire, he never won a Nebula for Best Novel. Other excellent authors who inexplicably failed to win Best Novel awards include Neal Stephenson, Charles Stross, and China Mieville.

vonda-n-mcintyre-the-moon-and-the-sunContrast with them some of the authors who did win the awards for Best Novel. In addition to Asaro’s embarrassing award, (she was also nominated for best novella that same year), there is 2012 winner Jo Walton, whose banal Among Others somehow beat out Mieville’s brilliant Embassytown. (Read my Black Gate review of it if you are unfamiliar with it.)  Vonda N. McIntyre’s The Moon and the Sun beat out Martin’s A Game of Thrones, and Nicola Griffith’s Slow River beat out The Diamond Age. If you haven’t heard of these award-winning books despite being a hardcore SF/F reader, there is a reason you haven’t. They aren’t dreadful, but they aren’t particularly good either, their Nebulas notwithstanding. And the fact that Charles Stross couldn’t even make the final ballot for Accelerando or any of his excellent Laundry novels is alone enough to demonstrate what a complete travesty the Nebula Awards have been for more than a decade. Perhaps the new rules will fix the problem; I remain extremely skeptical as I suspect they will actually make the problem worse. Regardless, the need for the change is sufficient to prove at least the past existence of the corruption.

Note that Black Gate itself suffered as a consequence. I recommended several deserving short stories and novellas; they were completely ignored in favor of much lesser stories by the usual small pool of suspects. In most cases, my recommendations were the only ones given to very good stories such as “The Haunting of Cold Harbour” by Todd McAulty.

In light of the subject, I was vastly amused, while writing this post, to learn the name of a reviewer who produced the most helpful five-star review for The Moon and the Sun, which contrasts greatly with the many reviews complaining the book does not live up to the hype:

***** Shimmering lyricism December 11, 1999.  By Catherine Asaro

After discovering this, I checked all 14 of Asaro’s reviews. She has never given less than 5 stars to anyone, and most of the books reviewed are in her genre.

So, the critics are incorrect. Any reasonable examination of the SFWA’s history will conclusively prove that most authors who involve themselves in the reviews process are extremely partial, heavily prejudiced, and grant ratings that are deeply questionable from an objective perspective. Amazon is correct to ban authors from reviewing books published in their genre; indeed, the bookselling giant would be more than justified in banning them from posting any book reviews at all.

And speaking of reviews, I recently finished reading Charles Stross’s The Apocalypse Codex. I will be posting a full review here in the near future.  In summary, I found it to be the best and most ambitious of the four Laundry novels.

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is an awesome expose, but entirely unsurprising. As Erik S Raymond notes, the hot white core of real science fiction continues to be 1950s American engineering culture, which is inherently libertarian and/or conservative…but the social aspect of science fiction has been captures by the 1970s left wing (as happens with almost every organization, given enough time).

If one would prefer a single image to replace 1,000 words criticizing the inbred self-satisfied left-wing orthodoxy of the modern SF community, one could do no better than any JPG of John Scalzi handing out Hugos.

Dave T

Theo is correct when it comes to the inbred logrolling. As SFWA Bulletin editor from 1999-2002 I can attest to this first hand. A small clique and their “in” friends control quite a bit of what goes on in SFWA (at least it did back then and I have no reason to doubt that things have changed).

This is why the Hugo, to my mind, is the more desired award and better represents the feeling of genre readers. Vote-trading, at least to some small degree, always occurs, but Nebula Award voters have honed this aspect to a fine art.

Amal El-Mohtar

I would be very curious to know what, in your view, constitutes “ideological corruption,” since that implies that you place some value on ideological purity.

Wild Ape

Great article Theo and I agree with the comments by TJIC and Dave T. A Nebula award used to carry weight for purchasing with me. I read some of these recommended novels and after a couple of bombs I look at the award more like a warning label. I’m just sick to death of the left wing bias from the major publishing houses. Do the editors have to pass the Al Gore litnus test or something? The integrity of the system is compromised and you won’t get a review from a reliable perspective.

One of the reasons that I come to Black Gate is to read the reviews. I’ve bought several books because of recommendations from this site. I know the people here read the same thing I do and have similar tastes. I wish they had a Black Gate award.

Allen Snyder

When I first read a story about this–in the New York Times maybe?–my initial thoughts were, “Eh, I don’t care one way or the other.” But when you mentioned being a game reviewer, I thought about game makers reviewing other game makers’ games, and quickly realized what a bad idea that would be. (Used to subscribe to the late, great “Computer Gaming World”, and still follow Jeff Green on Twitter.)

All that said, I disagree with your disagreement for Catherine Asaro’s win. Just because you believe something is forgettable doesn’t make it so. I’ve read many of her stories in that series, and still remember them years later, and remember them as being strikingly good.

Similarly, just because you believe something is banal doesn’t make it so, and I disagree about Jo Walton’s win. Undoubtedly, a reviewer’s beliefs about an artistic work are useful (and in this case, allow me to place your book review’s on my scale of being less trustworthy *for me*), but attempting to extend your beliefs to the beliefs of others–in this case, award wins–is illogical and speaks more about the ego of the reviewer.

Surely, Neal Stephenson, Charles Stross, and China Mieville should all have wins, though not necessarily in those years. And while I like GRRM’s works, I’m not particularly perturbed that he hasn’t won, yet anyway.

Allen Snyder

Also, while I can’t comment on “The Moon and the Sun” specifically, as I haven’t read it, your contention that her review “contrasts greatly with the many reviews complaining…” contrasts greatly with reality. There are 17 five-star and 13 four-star reviews, and much smaller numbers of lower-starred reviews (only two one-star reviews). And the “most helpful” tag is simply an indication that the greatest number of review readers found that review helpful. From my experience, the reviews that often end up with that designation are often the best written or give the most information, and that appears to be the case here. Now, would I trust an Asaro review: That’s an entirely different question! (And the answer is “probably not”.)

I also feel like you’re equating how good something is with popularity when you state, “If you haven’t heard of these award-winning books despite being a hardcore SF/F reader,” when if fact, as we all know, the opposite is often the case. And in this case, I’ve heard of them all, even if I haven’t read them all.

Despite all that I’ve just written, I agree completely with your conclusion. And as I think more on it, given how big a fan I am of Stross and especially Mieville (if he’s not in my top 10 list of authors, he’s certainly in my top 20), it’s probably more accurate to say that *for me* your negative reviews are less trustworthy, but I will still take note of the positive.

Allen Snyder

“Her own fans don’t consider Quantum Rose to be the best novel in the series.” Well, that’s more a condemnation of awards in general, as I’ve heard the same type of contention about many Emmy, Oscar, and Tony awards. It doesn’t mean the award is deserved, in general, it just might not be the best work. And in this case, the award is well deserved, even if the process to get there was flawed–and I agree completely that it was.

As to your other contentions:

Her books don’t have very good reviews: I have seen many good reviews of her books, and not only at Amazon (in fact, not primarily at Amazon).

Don’t sell very well: Again, the popularity versus good debate, but in addition, I could very well say the same thing about Stross, and even Mieville.

Practically no on who reads SF/F has ever even heard of her aside from her Nebula award: And where is your polling to back up that contention? I don’t even really follow the awards, and I’d heard of her long ago. It is perhaps more accurate to say that those who don’t read the SF/F magazines and Years Best books haven’t heard of her, but while that may be true, I’m not going to attempt to state it as fact without evidence of any sort. And again, we’re back to the popularity versus good debate.

Allen Snyder

Huge Tanith Lee and Tolkien fan here, but I can’t comment on your contention as I haven’t read either Rowling or Meyer. That said, considering how *all* SF/F is not considered literary by many (not me, I completely think it can be), that’s a dangerous road to go down.

Allen Snyder

Ha, ha, quoting a reviewers words as proof of the badness of the author in question: Completely lame. I could quote large portions of Tolkien that sound far worse, and I’m sure even you would agree.

Allen Snyder

And I should add, saying that I publicly question the trustworthiness of your reviews is completely (and I fear, disingenuously) taking my words out of context, as I specifically highlighted the fact that they’re not trustworthy *for me*. No two people have exactly the same tastes, and it is incumbent on any review reader to determine who hews closest to one’s own.

I do the same with movie reviewers, and would consider Richard Roeper to be my most trustworthy critic. The “trust” in this case has nothing to do with whether one believes the reviewer is “helping out friends”, or angling for good reviews of their own works, but with how well one believes the reviewer’s tastes will coincide with one’s own. If you took it any other way, I apologize for not being clearer.

Carl V.

I think your argument that it is embarrassing that Asaro won during a year in which she was president for a later novel in a series could be held up as valid on the face of it simply because it *looks* shady, independent of what anyone actually thinks of that book or the others nominated that year. I don’t think your inclusion of Jo Walton’s win bolsters your argument simply because the brief mention looks more like a case of sour grapes over the novel you prefer not winning. Where is your evidence that anything untoward happened with Walton’s win? It did not just win the Nebula, it won the Hugo and was nominated for a world fantasy award and it is also a novel that has been reviewed favorably not just by critics but by book bloggers all over the internet since its release. It is one of those rare genre books that actually reached outside of the genre community and connected with readers who “don’t normally read science fiction or fantasy”.


I gave up paying attention to author reviews, or awards (either nebula or hugo) a years and years ago…

When I started paying attention to what people were writing on blogs. Call me a cynic, but I just don’t think most people can give a honest public opinion of a “friend’s” work.

When I realized how incestuous the nebulas were, and how much idealogical orthodoxy (and being “one of the family”) was important to the Hugo’s.

Carl V.

I understand, just pointing out that whether or not you found Among Others exceptional does not appear, TO ME, to have anything to do with corruption in the SF/F awards community, instead it seemed like an unrelated comment about which novel you should have felt won the award that year. I personally think it weakens the argument (or if not weakens does nothing at all for it) if it is placed in there with no context about how your Among Others vs. Embassytown opinion relates to corruption in the voting/promotion process.


I’m not entirely sure how this article, entirely about perceived corruption in the Nebula awards, warrants the headline or intro about Amazon banning author reviews. I’ll try and briefly address both subjects separately.

On Amazon banning author reviews: I fail to see the point in them doing this. Authors can most certainly be biased in their reviewing choices, but then so can non-authors – much of the various recent surfacings regarding fake/purchased reviews have NOT involved fellow authors, but specific reviewers/reviewing sites. So there’s no reason to trust authors any less than… any other reviewer. I’d be happy for Amazon to flag up a review and say “this review came from another author”, but banning is an absurdity unsupported (so far as I am aware) by the facts on the ground.

But enough on that, since nobody seems to be discussing the issue, and instead have leapt on either the perceived corruption of the SFWA/Nebula process, or on the nature of awards/reviews and the age-old, never-to-be-solved, arguments over whether quality is intrinsic, and how it intersects with popularity (it should always be noted that both change over time – some artists who were unsuccessful in their own lifetimes become popular – or are granted the numinous accolade of being “great” or “important” – long after death, and vice versa. Fashion exists both in popularity and in judgements of quality, which alone should imply that quality is not an absolute). I therefore have nothing further to say on the “popular vs award-worthy” debate.

I am not a member of SFWA but I know many members. There is no doubt that many people do canvass their fellow professionals when it comes to Nebula time (just as happens in any other society that gives out awards amongst its own). I personally find that canvassing uncomfortable, but that’s largely because I have a British upcoming and in the UK, it’s deemed socially incorrect to blow one’s own trumpet. In America, less class-ridden (though by no means exempt), it’s considered much more acceptable. To conflate that to “corruption”, however, is something of a leap I’m not ready to make. Corruption implies the buying of votes, rather than simply persuasion (for example, is our political system corrupt by allowing campaign advertisements? Is asking someone for a vote an inherent sign of corruption? The definition being used seems uncomfortably broad). To baldly state that Catherine Asaro’s win is a sign of corruption is a bold move. It is one thing to accuse her of only winning the award because she was SFWA president; it is another jump to deem that “corruption”, and for me it would require fairly stringent proof that people had voted for her novel entirely in the hopes of receiving some form of recompense. If there is evidence that Asaro gave out good reviews in exchange for votes, bring it on: if there is not, then we are in the territory of slanderous innuendo.

And as a final note, I would love to know if it is a coincidence that every “unworthy” winner excoriated in the above post (by these “objective” standards that the rest of us apparently fail to reach or understand) is a woman, and every unjustly slighted great is a man? Is this just a piece of embittered nostalgia for the semi-mythical days when White Men Ruled SF – even though the author of the piece wasn’t born when that statement would have been true?


If you were not targeting women, perhaps you might have found, somewhere, one male example of an unworthy award winner, or one female example of a writer unjustly overlooked.

I did not miss that this was “part 1”. However, this article makes accusations WITHOUT supporting evidence. Until and unless that evidence is forthcoming, I repeat; we are in the territory of slander and innuendo (which you also dive cheerfully into with your “me and one other guy” “research” on Amazon reviews).

In internet parlance, “pics or it didn’t happen”.


I’m fairly surprised it took so long for the “OMG sexist” argument to show up.


Apologies. I meant libel, of course, not slander.

TW – if every single cited example happens to be “a woman got this award and a man deserved it” then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to highlight that fact and suggest that the person picking the examples should examine if they might have some unconscious (or, indeed, conscious) bias.

Meanwhile, Theo, I await your proof.

Dave T

I’d like to make it clear that I have purposely NOT commented on any author or their novels. I have merely concurred with Theo that there are shenanigans going on re the Nebs voting process that I think are deplorable. There are cliques who stick together (as in most organizations), and some of them even go so far as to purposely avoid voting for certain types of SF they don’t like (i.e. the perceived Analog _stereotypical_ story, for but one example). But again, this happens in all organizations, whether book or film or whatever. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s not unique to SFWA.

I personally got fed up with the cliques, in-fighting, nastiness, politics, and all the rest of it, which is why I resigned my Bulletin editorship in 2002 and let my membership lapse a year or so later.

SFWA turns (too many)inherently pleasant people into snarky, mean animals after awhile and I found myself turning into one such and decided I’d had enough, that I didn’t like who I was turning into.

There are a lot of terrific folks in SFWA too, wonderful people, but the bad outweighed the good for me. The only thing I really miss (aside from the nice folks I can still correspond with or see at cons) is the Directory. 🙂


I am not a member of SFWA and never have been.

I think that disposes of your accusations of my logrolling for a Nebula.

Jo Walton

C - Foxessa

I have served on Neb juries too. And the Election Committee. I used to be a member of SFWA.

Trust me on this, I have never been as pressured and log-rolled for a nomination as I have been by male authors. Right down to almost in person physical arm twisting. Women hardly did anything at all, other than send their works to me. And everyone does it.

These are among the many reasons I used to belong to SFWA. It was ALL ABOUT THE AWARD and who was allowed to be or not to be a member.

You are being a total sexist here, buddy.


“Wait until you see the evidence…”

Well, you’ve actually already provided the evidence. You mentioned three authors who didn’t deserve awards, all female. You mentioned five authors who deserved awards but didn’t get them, all male.

If you put this in a 2×2 table (0, 5, 3, 0) and apply Fisher’s Exact Test, this yields a p-value of 0.0179, i.e. well below the 0.05 that is widely regarded as the basic scientific standard of evidence to reject the null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis is “the sex of the author has no effect on your choice of whether an award is deserving.”


As an aside, the Amazon 5-star hand-off I found with just a cursory 5 minute look was by Jon Sprunk.

Now, for all intents and purposes the reviewed book is in the same genre he writes in, and he may have genuinely liked it; but it’s pause-worthy that both he and the reviewed are under the same publishing house.

This is also assuming that his books didn’t receive 4 or 5-stars in kind from the author/s he reviewed. I’d figure one is smart enough to have a separate Amazon account for purchases that is named differently than their author’s page.


Looking at the Amazon author’s page that Theo linked, I figure what Amazon ought to do is give authors a “My Book Reviews” page linked to from their author’s page.

That would give authors a place to review other’s works, a place where readers who like a particular author could go to get ideas, and it would also maybe discourage any review-based logrolling since if an author’s reviews dissapoint their readers, it will reflect poorly on them. OTOH, if readers feel like the reviews are good and reliable, it should help out the author.

Transparency – shine the light of day on things.


First of all I’d like to second JMHawkins idea. It allows authors to still share their opinions but adds some accountability. To use an example that Theo mentioned, if people saw all 14 of Miss Asaro’s 5 star reviews in one place it might give people a better idea of the quality of her critique.

As to chrislawson, this is not a science experiment and so scientific standards of evidence are hardly appropriate, but even if they were you have it backwards. The “hypothesis” here, null or otherwise, is Foxessa’s wherein she accuses Theo of being sexist in this article. When someone makes an accusation it is their responsibility to prove it, it is not the accused to disprove it. And just because the authors that Theo is praising are male, and the ones he’s criticizing (which is not exactly, or at least not all, of what he’s doing as his primary target is the process itself)are female is not sufficient evidence to prove the point.

That said there is something that bothered me about the article. In it he described Jo Walton’s book Among Others as banal. This gave me the impression he had read it. After reading the comments I see this isn’t so. Now after what I’ve said I’m certainly not going to accuse Theo of intentional dishonesty, but I will say at the very least it was sloppy writing.

As to the rest of it, I am withholding judgement until Theo has presented more of his case.

James Enge

This piece, and many of the comments on it, are dense with non sequitur.

Sometimes, some books who some people think should not win the Nebula, actually go on and win the Nebula. This is proof of nothing, really, except that people like to grouse about awards.

And Theo’s assertions about Asaro add up to this not-terribly-severe crime: she did a really good job of self-promotion. Every author has to give some thought to that these days, and different people have different methods. Some people, for instance, drum up ridiculous controversies in the hope that people will pay attention to them and their work. Despicable, really, but whole careers have been founded on this kind of rage-baiting.


Well, incest in some cultures is seen as a preferable arrangement, with wall-eyed no-neck children as the pinnacle of beauty.


I haven’t all those books, so I’m not in a position to offer a personal opinion on their worthiness as winners/nominees. But I would point out that Jo Walton’s book has won the Hugo (which you yourself indicated was a reliable award), the British Fantasy Award, and is one of the current nominees for the World Fantasy Award. It is also true that Walton has never been an SFWA member so has never been in a position to do any log-rolling for the Nebula. So regardless of whether you liked AMONG OTHERS, your essay is a spiteful piece of character blackening based on the fact that your favourite writers, who all seem to be male, don’t win every award you’d like them to, whereas writers you don’t like, who all seem to be female, are undeserving winners.

You’re not going to find me defending the early Nebula balloting process, which seems a lot like horse-trading to me, but your insistence that anyone who won an award for a book *you* didn’t like is undeserving makes you egotistical, and the fact that all of your poor under-awarded writers (almost all of whom have won multiple awards in other years) are male, and all of your manipulative, log-rolling, underserving winners are female (even when one of them turns out not to have ever been in a position to log-roll the Nebula), well that makes you sexist.

I also find it the height of hypocrisy that you can demand readers wait for “evidence” before deciding that your article is sexist when you obviously did f-all research before publicly smearing a group of writers (all of whom happen to be female).


I’m wondering if there’s any possibility that those claiming sexism would admit that in fact sexism played a part in the award-granting situation if a recognizable trend (i.e., logrolling in favor of a certain brand of writers) were clearly shown.


“I intend to read all of the winning works that the pattern suggests are questionable, then compare them to the works they beat out. If I am incorrect, I will admit it. If I am not, will you?”

No, because the point isn’t that awards often generate winners that you (or anyone else) disagree with. That’s the nature of awards. Your accusation was that these books you didn’t like were only winners because of corruption. For that you need to actually prove corrupt practices, not just prove that you didn’t think the winner was a good book. After all, you’ve already completely fucked up by accusing Jo Walton of log-rolling when it is *impossible* for her to log-roll the Nebula and yet you haven’t even had the courtesy to retract the accusation and correct your post.

Secondly, I don’t for a second trust your judgement on whether a book is a worthy winner. Your whining about AMONG OTHERS being an unworthy winner when it has won the Nebula, the Hugo, the British Fantasy Award, is on the nominee list for the World Fantasy Award, and was Amazon’s Best SF/Fantasy Novel of the year should alert you to the fact that you are a shit reviewer. Not because you don’t like the novel, but because you think your opinion as a reviewer is so pure that a book you don’t like can only win awards through corruption, even when the author was in no position to corrupt the process. And I especially don’t trust your judgement now that you have the tattered remains of your credibility on the line.

Michael Capobianco

The Quantum Rose won the Nebula Award for best novel on April 27, 2002. Catherine Asaro was not an officer of SFWA at the time. She was VP of SFWA from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 and President of SFWA from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005. Catherine was running for VP at the same time as the Nebula vote, so you could argue there was some correlation, but that’s a stretch.

The Nebula rules change was instituted not because of the perception of corruption, but to change it from an award with multi-year rolling eligibility to an annual award coinciding with calendar year.

Michael Capobianco

Theo, the Board couldn’t resist tweaking the rules to lessen the possibility of log-rolling, which the membership does see as a problem, but that wasn’t the reason for re-writing the rules from scratch, which you were implying.


Mr Enge hit the nail on the head. The traffic on your own blog may indeed be higher than this site, but the world net daily crowd is more concerned with proving that people and dinosaurs coexisted, or North Korea’s ability to destroy Murica with killer satellites, than your trolling some authors they never heard of.
Any bets part two reveal John Scalzi at the heart of all this? Anyone?

C - Foxessa

Theo, you made the accusation that women are corrupting the Neb and dragging it down.

On Black Gate and on your blog present frequent preposterous statements and declarations about gender, about books and about genres. From the perspective of someone who has a trained and experienced critical acumene, you don’t know what good writing is — you are the one, after all, right here on Black Gate, that praised as brilliant writing a passage from a male writer’s fantasy that included the sound of lowering a drawbridge as a soft click — something equally unlikely (I am not about to indulge your childish tantrum throwing self in going back and looking.)

Again, it is to laugh, that the same people who release and praise sexist and other phobic drivel also believe women are so powerful they have corrupted the holy body of SF/F and its organizations.

If the Neb nom process is corrupt, that is one thing, but then to state the corruption is caused by women who write sf/f — while lying about even what you have read and not read — that is something else. And what that is, is sexist. It’s yours, all yours, you did it. Own it, buddy.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x