Straw men and courage; clearly I need to fit the Tinman in here somewhere.

[mrissa]

Mostly in locked posts, I've seen people talking about how badly Connie Willis handled the British setting details in Blackout/All Clear, and as a result the comments I want to point to are also mostly in locked posts: it seems that a great many people feel that the appropriate response is to say something like, "Well, when was the last time you saw a book do every detail perfectly?"

Look, people. This is not just a straw man. It's a stupid straw man. Nobody is claiming that Connie Willis's books or anybody else's books need to be flawless to be worth reading. They are claiming that the flaws they're discussing are meaningful. If you don't think they're meaningful, say so. Have the guts to stand up and say that you feel the other person is nitpicking. If what you mean is, "I don't think getting the details of how your country handles things should be important to someone from my country," say so. If what you mean is, "I think that the detail you are talking about will not mislead anyone severely, and I think the author got at some very important emotional truths," say that too. But don't wave it away with, "Well, no one's perfect!" That may be the standard we'd like, but it's not the one anyone is actually using.

Comments

Re: About treating them as one book

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I hate serials. Hatey hatey hate hate hate. I accept that many things that were serialized are really good, but I hate the initial serialization process. So saying, "It's like a serial!"...is not actually an argument likely to sway me.

Also, I accept that it doesn't seem different in principle to you, but in fact it does to me. The limit on serial short stories being considered as one published work for the Hugos is...whether they are then published as one work. Which cannot happen in the case we're talking about, at least not without Bible paper and a great deal more effort. What's the limit on series novels? Naomi Novik had the first three books of her Temeraire series come out very close together; should her publisher have made sure they all came out in the same calendar year so they could all be considered as one thing? Or Charlie Finlay's Patriot Witch series? When the publisher doesn't make sure that they come out in the same calendar year (say, October and February instead of February and October as Willis's publisher did), the work is clearly and obviously ineligible. Or do you disagree? And if you do disagree, what's the limitation on what should be eligible, since the way the Hugo rules are written would imply to me that this shouldn't have been eligible in the first place, and it appears that your take on them differs?

I am amused that your own review starts off by saying that half of the work is much stronger than the other half. When that happens normally, we nominate and award the volume we think is stronger, or try to. Why should that not have been an option here?

Re: About treating them as one book

[between4walls.livejournal.com]

I do disagree that a work would be ineligible if the publisher didn't make sure the books came out in the same calendar year.
According to the rules, "3.2.6: Works appearing in a series are eligible as individual works, but the series as a whole is not eligible. However, a work appearing in a number of parts shall be eligible for the year of the final part."
This leaves room for either your or my interpretation of whether or not Blackout/All Clear should have been eligible (is it a series or a work in parts?) but it does clear up what happens if the publisher doesn't make sure they come out in the same year.