I've been to one WorldCon, the one in London, and I'm planning to go to Finland in 2017. (Yarn stall! Yay!) So when I received that membership, and with it the Voter's Packet, it was the first time I ever got involved with the Hugo Awards. I read some of the stuff and voted on the things I'd read - mostly the short stories and novelettes.

Then, this year, there was the Great Puppy Hugo Kerfuffle. If that has passed you by, a quick search will drop half the Internets on you, all with an opinion (or sometimes an Opinion, or even AN OPINION) and sometimes taking sides for the Puppies or the Non-Puppies (which are also referred to as the Social Justice Warriors, or SJWs, sometimes) and sometimes decidedly not taking sides. There's more to read about that than you probably want to read. (You could read this, for a sum-up. Or this, and make sure to read the linked stuff too.)

So why am I taking this up here, now, since the Hugos are over and both sides either say they've won, or lost, or whatever they think they did? (Puppies either wanted to take over the Hugos or destroy them, they're not very clear on that matter. Either way, they did have an impact on the award ballots.) Because I've read books by one of the instigators of the Puppy thing, Larry Correia.

I wouldn't have bought the books on their own, but somehow his Grimnoir series ended up on our e-reader. (Yes, we succumbed to the lure of electronic paper. Yes, it's nice. Yes, for some things I'll still prefer books printed on paper. But e-reading has its merits, too.) I think that the books were part of a Humble Bundle we bought a while back, so that's how we came by them.

Knowing about the kerfuffle, I was a bit unsure on whether to read the books... but hey, giving them a peek does not hurt, right? Well. I gave them a chance, and I ended up reading all three volumes, and definitely enjoying them. There's humour of the kind I appreciate, there's lots of intrigue and there's things to puzzle out (in some cases a good while before the characters do, which made me feel smug); there's lots and lots of action, there's magic that is half-explained and half-mystical.

There's also diversity in the cast - important men and important women driving the story. There's a bit of love, and a bit of bro-mance, there's a German and there's a black guy and there's a Portuguese guy. There's also a fat man. The writing is solid and, in my opinion, suits the action-driven story. There's also lots and lots of guns, and caliber mentions, and violence with blood and brains spattering, so it's not for the squeamish.

The basic story is Good vs. Evil, with the evil side being taken by the Japanese, and their Chairman at the front, at least in the first of the three books. (I won't talk about the rest here, as it may be spoilery.) It's not all black-and-white, though - there's some folks doing bad things to achieve a "good" goal, too.

So. Knowing what I knew about the author's campaign against the Hugo, and the Puppies slate, and the things said against him, or implied against him, or actually, mostly, the things he wrote that everyone from the Other Side (TM) thinks about him though they're not actually true... I was really pleasantly surprised. (Now that I'm writing this, I think that I read most of the accusations allegedly done against Correia in his own writing, where he stated them and then vehemently said that he, of course, was none of that. In a way and tone that very much made me think that there was probably a bit of truth to them.)

I did enjoy the books, but knowing about all the personal and sorta-political background story, it felt a little weird to do so, as the Puppy Thing really irked me. I cannot completely part the writing from the author. That may be a good thing for a person: I've supported artists because I like the person for their personal qualities or their way of seeing and approaching life, though do not much care for their actual art, for example. But of course it can also mean that I won't support someone because of their political or general stance on things, and, more importantly, because of the actions they take in this field.

Without the Hugo Kerfuffle, I would choose the Grimnoir books as an Xmas or birthday present for some friends of mine who I'm sure would enjoy them. But... the world is not black and white, and I will not buy these books on their own, because of the Hugo Kerfuffle and the actions the author has taken.

Yes, the Hugo Awards are a special and weird critter, and the voting process may be flawed. Awards are different, though, and all of them are a flawed and weird critter in some way. (I think of them a bit like recommendations from friends. There are some books I will not read if certain of my friends praise them, and there are some awards that make me very suspicious and usually mean I won't want to read the book.) However, just being nominated for the Hugo (which Correia was!) has proven to boost careers, or so I'm told. Not winning the Hugo, obviously, sucks more than getting the rocket, but being nominated once may also mean being nominated again. And not getting the rocket but being nominated should not suck at all, but be a reason for joy.

Larry Correia, to me, sounds very, very bitter about the Hugos and how they are allegedly given to people on political correctness basis instead of on good writing, so they're totally biased. Well.

I can get being bitter about being close, and then losing out. (Hell, it happened to me, years ago, with a stipend, and I'm still slightly bitter about it.) What I've read from Correia in blog posts and comments and so on, though, sounds a bit like bitterness is, or has become, the basic flavour of life for him. (I've met a few people who had bitterness as their basic flavour, and these were not happy people no matter how successful or wealthy they were relative to others. They also have a familiar tendency to over-interpret real or perceived slights against them, and to see conspiracies against them almost everywhere. Makes them hard to be around.)

But there's a difference between being bitter and trying to destroy a thing. Even if that thing may look crooked, or weird, or biased. There's also the basic fact that every award is biased - because choices are biased. We, as people, as voters, are biased. Everyone has a personal story that will come in. Nominating someone for an award, and voting for an award, or any other benefit means that you wish that person success - whether it's for reasons political, personal, or for the quality of their work, you're wishing them success and trying to help them get that success.

In 2014, when I voted, I was utterly happy that J. Chu got a Hugo for the Water that Falls on You from Nowhere story - I love that story (and I think the water element is sufficiently weird, and definitely necessary to the story, for it to qualify as speculative fiction), and I loved that he got recognition for his work. (Just in case you're interested in my personal taste, there were two short stories I didn't like at all: Selkie stories are for Losers, and If you were a dinosaur, my love.)

Those who are trying to destroy an award like that, making it possible for someone previously little known to persuade a writing career? I'm not wishing them success in a way that would mean I'd vote for them in the future, even if their writing were utterly brilliant. I'm fine if they are bestselling authors, and I don't begrudge them being well-paid pro writers at all, but I'll not vote for them for an award. Because that's my personal choice, and I'm allowed to make that choice, just as everyone else voting is allowed to make the choice they deem best. I hope (well, I think all those who honour the Hugo hope) that quality of writing will be a very important factor in this, but it's not the only factor. Quality of work is never the only factor in any process of choosing some person over another person.

Maybe the voters of the Hugo back then did not wish so much success to somebody pro-gun. Maybe it was just that there was more wishes of success to someone else perceived as less visible straightaway - there's no way to tell. What I can say, at the end of these long ramblings, though: If the crowd making up the (regular, pre-puppy Incident) voters for the Hugo (who pay for that privilege, by the way, so there's already a very specific selection process right at the start) are inclined to vote for the less-visible, less-recognised writers who do works of quality - I'm all fine with that.

We all make mistakes, small ones, big ones, some that are easily fixed and some that haunt us for ages. (Sometimes small, easily fixed ones can still be of the haunting sort, though.) Mistakes are not nice to make, but they are a part of life, and every one of them is an opportunity to learn, and do better next time.

Mistakes are also an opportunity to think things over, and maybe alter them to the better. There's no such thing as a perfect script, as any writer knows... finding mistakes and editing them is a process that makes the final manuscript a much better piece, since there will inevitably be stuff that is not a real proper mistake, but can do with some change for the better anyways.

You don't want to know how many typos we found in the Beast in the final big edit. Trust me. You don't.

But does that mean every mistake should remain visible? That is the suggestion of Guy Claxton, who says erasers are an instrument of the devil and should be banned from classrooms (all quotes in the following are from this article). Because, and now comes the point that makes me groan,

...schools should encourage students to acknowledge their mistakes because that’s the way the “big wide world” works...

Erm, excuse me? Mister Claxton, what planet are you living on, and how can I get there? The last time I looked around in the "big wide world" that I am currently living in, mistakes are not acknowledged, oh no. They are brushed over, or hushed up, or even rewarded with a hefty chunk of severance pay. When was the last time you heard a politician declare openly and publicly that he or she had fucked up, made a serious mistake, is very sorry and then actually did something to remedy the error? Or when did they obviously learn from a mistake?

There's massive protest against TTIP and CETA (go sign the protest if you have not yet done so, please); but do the politicians admit that it might have been a mistake? Nope - they are still trying to push it through. There's bees dying everywhere because of new pesticides, but does that lead to a ban on these chemicals? Ah no.

Don't even get me started on the EU VAT stuff. 2015 is half gone, the Digital VAT has proven to be a huge problem for small traders, many of which have closed their doors, but what is happening? Very very little, and very very slowly - and the plans to extend the new rules to all goods in 2016 still persist. (Please sign the petition if you have not yet done so, and spread the word so that others sign it, too. It's not looking good for small businesses at the moment, and that does include my own business.)

Do I need to go on? I don't think so. If we have a culture of standing up and admitting your own mistakes, and then openly correcting them and trying not to make a similar mistake in the future, I think it is hiding very, very well in this "big wide world" of ours. At least it's not the culture that our captains of industry, politicians and magnates are steeped in.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, professor Claxton said: “The eraser is an instrument of the devil because it perpetuates a culture of shame about error. It’s a way of lying to the world, which says ‘I didn’t make a mistake. I got it right first time.’ That’s what happens when you can rub it out and replace it.

Being able to fix your mistakes and make things better is not something, in my experience, that perpetuates shame about the error. On the contrary - I'd be much more ashamed about something that has to stand visibly for everybody to see. I do know that many of my colleagues feel the same about visible errors in their craftwork. If it can be fixed without trace, it should be okay to fix without trace; often enough, that is not the case anyway, because there will remain a reminder of the error that is at least visible to the person who made the thing. Life is hard enough without having to live with all your little mistakes visible to the world, too.

If you are not tired of reading about this topic yet, hop over to Another Damned Medievalist's blog, whose post in reply to the piece about erasers was the reason for this whole post. (I really just wanted to write a few words before linking to her, but then I got off on a tangent.) ADM's looking at the eraser-is-the-devil thing from a different angle and takes it apart with a little historical knowledge. (To whoever groused her at Leeds to blog more again: thank you!)

Today is International Hug a Medievalist Day!

Are you confused now? Wondering why you should want to hug a medievalist? Never mind. This piece explains it all.

I don't know if it was a medievalist who came up with the Horrible Histories song about the English kings and queens, but it's certainly in line with medievalist humour.



I might rely more on my coffee cup for that list, though, than on learning the song by heart...

And speaking of coffee, if you like either coffee or frisbee-like flying objects or stories about inventors, I recommend you follow this link to a story about the inventor of the AeroPress and the Aerobie. We have an Aeropress that we bought about 6 or 7 years ago, in the museum shop of the London Science Museum, and it is a wonderful thing - the Aeropress for making coffee, and the museum shop for buying things, not the other way around, of course.

In the wake of the Con Man campaign, I've looked at a few other campaigns on Kickstarter and Indiegogo recently, as well as at stuff on Patreon in the wake of Amanda Palmer's getting started out there. Yesterday I looked at a Kickstarter project trying to fund a video... and I realised a few things about those campaigns and me. So here's my thoughts on the subject.

I've helped fund a few campaigns during the last years, but really only a few. I tend to be very picky on where to invest my money, and a project really needs to get me enthusiastic about it before I will contribute. There are things that all the campaigns I spent money on did, however, and if they are missing, the chances are extremely high that I won't contribute even if the general idea is something I like. Here's the stuff.

1. Make sure I hear about it.
Yes, I know, that one's a Thank You Captain Obvious. However, it's important - the more people that know your campaign and speak about it, the better your chances. Ask your friends to spread the word,  and also ask those that visit your project page, whether they back you or not. If you know someone with impact on the 'web, ask them to spread word, too.

2. Make both the text and the video informative.
All crowdfunding platforms will let you post a video and a text. They often stress the importance of a good video. Me, I read the text first, and watch the video afterwards if I'm still interested. I'm most delighted if the text and video both convey the essential information but are not completely similar. A badly-made video will turn me off - it makes it seem as if you have not taken this seriously enough to part me from my money. Typos in the text and poor grammar? You have probably lost me already. Typos, poor grammar and poor layout? If you are planning to self-publish a book, you have definitely lost me.

3. Make sure I learn enough about your project.
I need a reason to get enthusiastic about your project. Concept art, design snippets, a trailer, music demos, drawings - you surely have detailed plans for your Thing, and I will want to see enough of them to let me a) understand what you are trying to do and b) become enthused about it. For you, a one-sentence description might be enough; it's not enough for me.

4. Offer me stuff for my contribution.
Whether they are called perks or rewards or whatevers, they are the backbone of the crowdfunding system for me. I'll own it right here and now: I might be generous towards my friends and colleagues, and other people that I know at least a little, but my altruism towards strangers is quite limited. Note that I wrote "invest" and not "donate" in the second paragraph of this post? Now you know why. If I'm helping fund your project, I want something back. There's always a few backers who will just want to give you money, and that's fine. Me? Sorry, but I'm not one of them. Offer me stuff. Lots of stuff, in different tiers, starting small. Digital things will work fine for me and won't be too much work for you to send to lots of people, or cost lots of postage.

5. Make your stuff attractive.
Attractive stuff, for me, is things I won't get later or otherwise, or things I will have to shell out more money for if I want them. I'll spend more on things that are guaranteed to be backer-only or campaign-only things. I'll also be more willing to contribute to a higher tier for something that I will only get that way. My decision process might be sped along if you have a limited number of early bird rewards as well - otherwise I'm inclined to ponder contributing or not for quite a while, possibly until I am sure the thing will definitely get funded. You also get me to invest if I feel like I'm getting a good deal - such as something for less than the retail price it will be sold at afterwards. Cut me a deal. I'm helping fund your idea, after all.

6. If you are funding a Thing, offer that Thing in your rewards.
I came across that one in a campaign to fund a book recently. The author was trying to fund a book... and that book was not offered in the rewards. At all. AT ALL. I read the sidebar three times because I could not believe it.
Now... if your campaign for a Thing sounds interesting enough for me to want help fund it, chances are about 100% that I am interested in said Thing. If I fund it, I want to get it. In the seriously weird case that you don't offer me a chance to get it in the funding, I will not contribute, period. To boot, it will feel as if you're laughing at me.
It's fine if you offer other stuff, in addition; it's also fine if your Thing only comes in a high tier because it is a physical object that costs a lot in production and you need to calculate correctly, and there's lots of other stuff coming before that tier. (I'm all about calculating properly, as you might know.)
If you make a book, or a film, or music, you'll have the highest probability of getting me if you offer a digital download for a low price. (I live in Europe. If I have to add shipping costs, which is usually the case, physical things that may be fairly priced will quickly escalate to "quite a lot of money".)
Tied in with this: be very clear on how your Thing will be available later. Will it be a downloadable film for free, and I get early access as a backer?  Will it only be available for a price? Or only for backers, forever? Only for backers at first, and maybe for everyone later?

7. If your thing is artsy, make sure I learn enough about your art.
Want to fund a music project? Let me listen to what you do first. Either include snippets of music long enough and not voiced-over in your video, or add links to your music that are easy to follow. I will not buy music I don't like, and I want to know if I like it before I invest in your campaign. I'm a stranger. Show me your stuff, I might love it.
Same applies to film or art. Give me snippets, give me samples, give me links to your previous work. As long as I don't know whether I like your style or not, and I can't find out easily, you won't get my support. If I like your style, I might help fund. Even if your style is not to my taste, if I like what you do on a level of crafts appreciation, I might still spread word about your project.

8. Start your rewards small.
Start your perks or rewards section with the one dollar option that buys "a heartfelt thank-you for helping make this happen" or something like that. Give me a 5$ section next with a little download or digital whatever exclusive to the campaign. And if you are doing music, art, books, I'll expect the next tier to give me access to the digital version of the Thing, and to be somewhere in the range of 10 to 25$. You have more chances on my money if it's in the 10$ range than in the 20$ + range.
Yes, it is possible to donate any amount of money without getting a perk, and that includes low amounts, obviously. However, I've seen campaigns that start with a 100$ perk as the first thing - and even if the campaign runner writes that every little bit of money is very welcome, it feels to me like anything below that sum is not really welcome, or appreciated and seen as helpful. No matter how often that is stated in the text. I look at the rewards bar very soon in my evaluation, and you have most probably lost me already if there is no single-digit option in it.
For the record: I've never spent less than the lowest tier to give me the actual Thing, and more money just as often as not (the lure of the exclusives!), but I've never spent anything on a campaign that did not offer the one-dollar option for a thank you. (Contributing anything will also give access to the backers-only feed, which might be a perk on its own if you do update there regularly. Which you should, see next point.)

9. Keep us updated.
Celebrate positive developments with your backers. Read their comments and answer them. Address their concerns. If a lot of them request something, try to make it possible (unless, you know, it's a really, really bad idea, in which case you should explain that it is and why.) They - we - are your fans and we're invested in your project. Do take us seriously. Frequent updates and answers to comments will make me feel like you are taking us seriously, and appreciating our support, and are very invested in the campaign.
If you run into problems and things will be late, tell us. Chances are very high that you will get support and understanding as long as you communicate with us. We want to support you and your idea, after all, not make you feel bad and stressed out!
Give us updates on the backer page, and if possible stretch goals. I will get excited if the digital stretch goal goods are given out to every tier of 5$ and above, or at least for every tier that gets stuff and above. It will make me spread the word in hopes to get more for the same money. Yes, I'm greedy. You can use that greed for your own purposes here.

10. Don't whine.
I've seen a few campaigns that ask for money because someone is in dire straits due to health reasons. They usually come with a list of this-and-that amount of money needed to pay for this-and-that, and with an undertone of whine. Or with an undertone of "I'm not really motivated to work for a living, so will you just hand me some moneyz kthxbye". Both of them, even if they are in there by accident and if the person is actually a kind, sweet, motivated and hard-working person will instantly turn me off. Undertones of whine sometimes occur in other campaigns, or in campaign comments, and they will turn me off there likewise. Yes, life is hard. Yes, your funding might not go as planned, or hoped. But if you start to be negative, you will probably lose more people than win.

And that, my friends, is how you get me to contribute to your campaign. If I like what you are doing, that is. Does it sound harsh? Maybe, but that won't change the fact that this is exactly what I am looking for when I decide on whether to participate and contribute... or not.

So. Anyone has a campaign they would like me to know about?

 

A friend sent me this link to a gallery of superheroes (and supervillains) re-imagined as Renaissance portraits.

In other news from hereabouts, I'm drinking herbal tea, I was just compelled by Neil Gaiman to back a music project on Kickstarter (I blame Twitter for that), and I finally took the photos necessary to update the shop with oillight wicks and hemp strick. I'm working on it now, so the things should be up and available by the early afternoon. Also there's some editing work hanging out here and calling for my attention... which it shall have. Soon.

Good thing it's Friday, and the well-earned weekend is approaching fast!

Some of the links that accumulated here are concerning books or, I should better say, manuscripts. Such as these here:

Medical textbooks from the 16th century! The article is really, really worth a look if only for the multi-layered manikin picture.

Quill Books before Print gives you a nice overview about how books were made back when they were still manuscripts. Erik Kwakkel (who did the text for Quill) also has a very nice blog that is generally deliciously picture-heavy. One of my favourite posts there is the one about bad parchment used in manuscripts. (The pictures include embroidery.)

The Sojourning Spinner has collected directions to some of the most famous spinning pictures from manuscripts.

That's it for today. In non-manuscript news, I am busy with a... manuscript, but not a hand-written one. If things go well, I will have exciting news in the near future. (Keep your fingers crossed, please!)

As the holidays are approaching, I find myself in a frenzy to finish stuff before everything grinds to a halt for the enjoyment of food, friends, and family. Which means that it is absolutely time again to post a festive musical video:



Also? Enjoy a nice cuppa.