Paul Constant, book critic at Seattle’s Stranger, posted this:
John Scalzi’s sci-fi novel Redshirts won a Hugo Award over the weekend. On his Facebook page, military sci-fi author John Ringo posted this (links added to the post are mine, not Ringo’s) in response:
If anyone has been wondering why Scalzi has been picking the rather stupid fights he’s been picking lately:
That’s why. There’s nothing wrong with Scalzi’s writing. This is a reasonably good novel (from what I’ve heard) with no real SF or literary merit beyond being a reasonably good novel. But he’s been speaking truth to power about the degradation of women in SF along with other idiocracy and so he’s beloved by all the hasbeen liberal neurotics who control the Hugo voting and balloting. Look to many more in the future as long as he toes the Party line…
There are at least a dozen things wrong with John ‘Bitter Much’ Ringo’s statement, so I’ll go with one of the minor ones: “no real SF or literary merit beyond being a reasonably good novel”? Because, what, it’s not skiffy enough?
Thanks for giving the mundanes a(nother) reason to believe that within the sf/fantasy community, it’s not about the quality of the work, it’s about handing out awards to properly salve all our junior high social disappointments, Ringo.
(Side note, for those of you who could not care less about speculative fiction, yes John Scalzi is the guy who wrote Being Poor.)