Jump to content

Hugo Drama IV - The Puppy Parade


David Selig

Recommended Posts

This has probably been said before, but what exactly is "CHORF" supposed to mean?

"CHORF is an acronym coined by Brad R. Torgersen to describe the worst sort of fans. The term actually stands for Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics. Unlike terms such as SMOF there is no good side to being labeled with this term. "

ETA: source - http://dyverscampaign.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/wtf-is-chorf.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I find weird about CHORF is that it tends to be aimed at people who fall under the progressive banner by any reasonable definition. Sure, the type of person to use "CHORF" unironically is also likely to use "progressive" as a pejorative, but still. So where on earth does the accusation of being reactionary come in? Do they not know what reactionary means?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess that he thinks it means "liable to (over-)react to things". Wouldn't be the first time anti-progressives have tried to redefine words (or simply refused to accept the commonly-understood meanings of them - see "homophobia" for example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I find weird about CHORF is that it tends to be aimed at people who fall under the progressive banner by any reasonable definition. Sure, the type of person to use "CHORF" unironically is also likely to use "progressive" as a pejorative, but still. So where on earth does the accusation of being reactionary come in? Do they not know what reactionary means?

No, they know what it means. Remember, the accusation is that it's the elite left-leaning artsy types that have exerted effective control over the Hugos, and it's the Puppies that are the voice of the ordinary people demanding change in a moribund system. So, the people being labeled here are at one and the same time reactionary and progressive. The apparent inconsistency is part of the criticism being made: that the opposition are hypocrites is one of the major themes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they know what it means. Remember, the accusation is that it's the elite left-leaning artsy types that have exerted effective control over the Hugos, and it's the Puppies that are the voice of the ordinary people demanding change in a moribund system. So, the people being labeled here are at one and the same time reactionary and progressive. The apparent inconsistency is part of the criticism being made: that the opposition are hypocrites is one of the major themes.

Ah, that makes more sense. I still don't think I'll be able to take "CHORF" seriously as a term, but at least I'm not scratching my head over it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost sweet how he's still trying to get people to adopt his lame homemade slang words :lol:

And oh so sad that people are in fact doing so.

Stop trying to make Fetch a thing Brad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Brad Torgersen's site and file770's comments are on fire today if anyone has 6-20 hours to waste.

Brad managed to look like an understudy in a panic gearing up for his big comeback responding to George's comments. File770 is moving so fast that I still only managed to get caught up to this morning's commentary.

VD has started a spam campaign to get Irene Gallo fired. JCW has picked up the charge, claiming that he has been told by three editors at Tor that they will no longer work with him.

What a stupid pile of SH++

I found this comment to sum up some of my decisions on the short fiction categories very well: by Peace is my Middle name


One of the things most the works the Puppies have nominated for the Hugos have in common (apart from being damnably poor writing from Brad Torgersen’s personal circle of friends) is that in those stories where females actually appear, they are all flat and thin characters who conform to tired stereotypes: bitchy wives making dumb decisions about custody of the children, whiny sexually demanding shopaholics, warm nurturing unquestioning mommies, harlots and nonentities.

The rage, wrath, and vindictiveness with which the Puppies react to any pointing of this out does not give any confidence that they are actually sincere in their oft-repeated shouting of how much they respect and love women.

This about sums up my problems with the stories by female authors on the slate. I'm sure there are women out there who think (literally) of nothing but children, baking, cleaning up cat puke, their friend's girlfriends and puppies. I don't know any that are also surgeons. There are a couple of stories that use the beloved post-apocolyptic enderverse slang where they have "degenerate" language terms for women as an elbow-dig hee-haw. :eyeroll: and plenty of vapid heroines. In dialect, Flow uses "wen" for "wench" and Journeyman uses "babe". Tired of this stupid device, this has been done before and better.

Let's just nevermind the JCW, people who are much better at writing reviews than me have already handled that, but just read for yourself. Stay awake for the longer stuff. Dare you.

I already talked about most of the other short fiction. The exception was Earth to Alluvium. This story wasn't a world-shaker for me, but at least I was interested and didn't get up 5 times while reading it, just twice. It didn't feel like a homework assignment from a teacher I absolutely hated.

After much thought, reading, re-reading, irritation, pissiness and finally reading the novel category I think I have nailed down my votes for the short fiction categories. No Award did very well.

For the novels, I'd be very happy to see AS, TBP or TGE go home with the award.

I'm working on the "very late in the middle of a series" novels right now. They're both a good sight better than any of the short fiction, but tough to get into. I feel like I've missed a lot as I am unfamiliar with both series.

Very pleased with the selection for graphic novels and have two more comics to read in that category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's not unusual in the literary world. When an author makes a toxic, public spectacle of himself like John has--repeatedly--the less willing editors and publishers are to work with him or her. It was a topic actually addressed in a book I have on how to get published. Simply put, don't throw epic temper tantrums like John C. Wright does or people in the publishing business won't want to work with you anymore. Especially when they have other authors that probably sell a lot better than you.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...