Jump to content


Board Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About mormont

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/10/1972

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

38,348 profile views
  1. Are you seriously going to tell someone else, a stranger to you, what their culture is or is not? Are you going to label their culture as a 'subculture' when you don't even know what culture they're talking about? As for the rest, you can't just pick out high level abstract elements shared by several distinct cultures and say that's a culture. It's like saying mammals are all the same animal because they're all warm blooded and feed their young.
  2. This is a good illustration of an important thing to remember about parenting - kids at every age are exposed to and influenced by stuff you don't know about and can't control. Your job as a parent is to equip them to respond to those things. For that situation, I'd be explaining calmly that that is not an OK word to use: it didn't upset you but it could be hurtful to someone else, so please don't use it. Don't quiz her about where she heard it, as she might not actually remember and in many ways it doesn't matter anyway. What matters is that she knows not to say it.
  3. Hadn't seen that, but if true it makes sense, despite being a complete reversal of his prior position. Alba are after the fundamentalist wing of the SNP, after all, the people who don't want to bother with inconvenient things like political reality.
  4. I stand corrected. I should've realised that about Elliott, but the buzz around that novel (in WSFS-adjacent circles) does still make a case for me that it's an omission on par with any of the male authors in the conversation. There are some... unrelated reasons why Bear hasn't had a Hugo nom recently, of course, and again, her release this year being SF probably didn't help. I do think there's a backlash involved here, but my point, I think, is that it's more of a carry-over of the backlash from Puppygate. That saw a lot of female authors nominated to annoy the pups. But then those authors became part of the (well-established by this time) insularity of the Hugo these days, the tendency to nominate the same people repeatedly for a few years in time. I would guess there'll be a shift back in a year or two. Meantime, it's not an awful thing to see someone other than cishet white male writers get a turn in the sun.
  5. On the plus side, Alba seem to be around 2-3% in the polls and show no real signs they're about to become relevant. The thing about Salmond and Alba is that he doesn't really seem to have faith that the 'little Scotlander' pitch is going to work, and he knows it's not a good fit for him anyway. So he's leading a party that's significantly to the right of his politics, but trying to pitch it as basically the SNP mark II - liberal, environmental nationalism. But his candidates and campaigners are largely TERF warriors, defectors at a dead end in their career and people who've mistaken watching Braveheart once a week for a lifestyle. As this incident shows, they want red meat. It's an unhappy marriage that is destined to fail, I think.
  6. There was certainly a time when a new William Gibson, an Alastair Reynolds, a Kim Stanley Robinson, a Cory Doctorow or even a Walter Jon Williams would have been expected to be on the Hugo list. But that time has passed, and with the probable exception of Doctorow I think that's less to do with gender issues than the type of books these are. Notice that the Hugo list has only one of the novels from the Locus SF list, but four from the fantasy list. And, if we're talking notable omissions from that Locus list, you could also be listing VE Schwab, Katherine Addison, Elizabeth Bear, Alix Harrow and (as others have noted) Kate Elliott: I'm not attesting to the quality of these books but they're all authors who regularly make the Hugo lists.
  7. Anyway, in other news. The government have announced that universities in England can resume face to face teaching... from 17th May. I've been whiling away the time picking random universities to see if their teaching timetable actually extends past 17th May. Haven't found one yet. ETA - oh, apparently Oxford does. That explains a lot. Also, remember what I said about the Alba Party, starting a new party and the difficulty of finding non-problematic candidates? https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/04/13/alex-salmond-alba-party-stonewall-age-consent-margaret-lynch/ We now have the unedifying spectacle of a man who was just cleared in court of rape, having spent weeks denouncing his female accusers as politically motivated and who is even now threatening legal action to get the most senior female civil servant in Scotland fired, claiming to be 'furious' because, er, women are being threatened, and insisting they be allowed a 'safe space' to say whatever they want without consequences. So it's perfectly OK to falsely accuse Stonewall of trying to lower the age of consent, but not OK to accuse Alex Salmond of improper behaviour.
  8. DS: is there a notable omission from the ballot by a male writer? Is there a work on the list whose presence is 'suspicious'? Is it not relevant that pretty much all of the nominees are writers the WSFS community really likes and has a history of nominating? (With the possible exception of Tamsyn Muir.)
  9. It's hard to compare the two IMO. Diana's death had several aspects that would have justified rolling coverage - it was untimely and sudden, it was not initially clear exactly what had happened and who was responsible - and it took place nearly 25 years ago, when the media landscape was very different. Which really reinforces the point that there really aren't many objective measures of whether the coverage of Philip's death was proportionate.
  10. I mean, the viewing figures for that weekend (ITV had some of its worst ever for the slot: BBC down significantly: Channel 4 very strong) suggest that while people did care about Philip's death, they didn't necessarily regard it as something that should interrupt their Friday telly. Which I think probably about sums up public reaction and indeed public sentiment to the Royals at the moment - broad support but in most cases, not that deep. People like 'em, they'd go to see the Queen, but they largely don't care to watch hours of coverage.
  11. Hard to imagine or not, that did happen in the letter columns of various magazines I was reading at the time. (Ah, letter columns... fandom of three decades past.)
  12. Well, really the main reason I think Jezal's death is fishy is Bayaz' reactions. If we take those away - as we must if someone else is responsible, and Bayaz doesn't suspect - there's no real reason to think that Glokta or anyone else killed him, and he didn't just die. So for me, that's a pretty moot question. But yes, of course Glokta would be on the list of suspects if Bayaz were suspicious. Bayaz isn't the trusting type. Bayaz has to deal with his troublesome siblings regardless of who, if anyone, killed Jezal so that's no mystery.
  13. Yes, we get confirmation in the text that Glokta hired Zuri. I'd have to go look up the exact quote, but it's established. It would be astonishingly bold for Glokta to have killed Jezal while Bayaz was in Adua. The risk of discovery is significant and all would be lost if that happened. What if Bayaz had decided to look into the death himself, or had Sulfur do it instead of Glokta? You'd need a very strong reason to do it. Jezal isn't that popular. Nowhere near. In fact, Orso realises that his father was under constant pressure trying to cope as King. Also, there's the exchange I noted above, and the final words of 'A Little Hatred', at Jezal's deathbed: Strong suggestions that Bayaz is not unhappy with the turn of events - nor surprised by it. One theory might be that it's Bayaz who's undermining the throne. Maybe he's decided a new age needs a new form of government? One he still controls, of course. But one that satisfies the people that their concerns have been heard and they have a stake in the business of ruling.
  14. The canonical answer to this and other physics-defying feats of shield-slinging performed by Steve (and now John) is that they practised. A lot.
  15. Yeah. In the closing scene, Orso and Bayaz discuss Jezal's death. Orso says he's been thinking about his father's death and asks if it doesn't seem 'strange' to Bayaz - 'the manner of it?' Bayaz responds that Glokta 'conducted a thorough investigation' and 'there were no indications of foul play'. This doesn't completely reassure Orso but Bayaz waxes philosophical about death and how it can come even to the great in random ways that have no deeper significance. Which, coming from Bayaz, is surely a huge red flag.
  • Create New...