SF Writers Sting Supposedly Traditional Publisher 474
deeptrace writes "A group of SF writers all submitted purposely awful stories to a publisher that purported to publish only selected high quality works. They created the worst story they could come up with, and it was accepted for publication." Their press release is pretty funny -- and if you'd like a sample of their insane prose, it's available through the book's Lulu site. (Where, Yes, you could also buy the whole thing.)
Editorial quotes... (Score:3, Informative)
Precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Some people I know (Score:1, Informative)
This is due to a realization that a lot of "science fiction" doesn't really contain all that much science.
Interpret this how you like.
Vanity publishers (Score:5, Informative)
I always felt bad, though, because he put together a book and found some vanity publisher to publish it for him. He apparently didn't know how the publishing business worked, though, because he was convinced that he was being published for real, and that the book would be his ticket to fame and fortune. I remember him being very excited when they "accepted" his book, and would publish it as soon as he came up with $4000. He then started hitting up everyone he knew to "invest" in his book, which he was sure would be a bestseller. I never had the heart to explain to him that real publishers pay you when they put out your book.
Naked Came The Stranger (Score:5, Informative)
The funny thing was that the book was published and then became so popular and the money grew so much that they spilled their guts and told the world about the hoax.
preview (Score:3, Informative)
Whispering voices.
Pain.
Pain. Pain. Pain.
Need pee--new pain--what are they sticking in me? . .
Sleep.
Pain.
Whispering voices.
"As you know, Nurse Eastman, the government spooks controlling this hospital will not permit me to give this patient the care I think he needs."
"Yes, doctor." The voice was breathy, sweet, so sweet and sexy.
"We will therefore just monitor his sign's. Serious trauma like this patient suffered requires extra care, but the rich patsies controlling the hospital will make certain I cannot try any of my new treatments on him."
"Yes, doctor." That voice was soooo sexy! Bruce didn't care about treatments. He cared about pain, and he cared about that voice, because when he heard the voice, the pain went away, just for a few seconds, like.
Re:Weird acronym use (Score:3, Informative)
more information (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Weird acronym use (Score:5, Informative)
To understand, think "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux".
it dosen't hold a candle... (Score:2, Informative)
PublishAmerica is a Known Fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great preview, but (Score:3, Informative)
http://critters.critique.org/sting/ [critique.org]
Re:Nothing new... (Score:5, Informative)
I think parent is thinking of the Sokal hoax, in which Alan Sokal [nyu.edu], a physicist at NYU, wrote a completely non-sensical physics paper and submitted it to Social Text [jhu.edu], the leading journal of postmodern pseudo-intellectuals. Social Text accepted the paper and published it, thereby demonstrating their complete ignorance of modern science, which they purport to understand and be in a position to critique. Sokal then exposed their foolishness in a piece in Lingua Franca (sadly defunct). He has links to the hoax article, his Lingua Franca article, the statements by the editors of Social Text, and much other material here [nyu.edu]
Re:Here's the whole thing: (Score:1, Informative)
ftp://ftp.sff.net/pub/people/doylemacdonald/sting
Re:Here's the whole thing: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Weird acronym use (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nothing new... (Score:3, Informative)
A more accurate characterization is that Sokal, through deliberate fraud,and playing on his legitimate reputation within physics, got the _Social Text_ editors to publish an article that they themselves did not think was of high quality. But the editors felt that allowing a professional physicist to publish positions--which they presumed he was expressing, because he said exactly such--informed by his background in Physics.
It's true that LitCrit professor are not physicists. Nor do/did they claim to be. They deferred to someone who really was in a position to share expert knowledge, and put it in a context of postmodernist theory.
I am a legitimate expert in a number of things, for example. I could certainly get journals or magazines concerned with other subjects to publish my deliberately misleading characterizations of those subjects I know, particularly if they were journals in other areas that had an interest in cross-discipline discussion. So what? You can lie and deceive, and still get published. Big deal!
It's true that Sokal doesn't really understand modern science studies and postmodernism. But the crude caricature he's formed of the area is unlike his simple, traditional and positivistic notions of science. And for whatever reason, it was easier for him to get a big chip on his shoulder than it was to learn about another area of knowledge. Hence the whole affair.
Re:My wife is writing a fantasy novel (Score:5, Informative)
You have to scroll down a bit, and there's a lot there to read, but believe me, it's worth it. Teresa knows what she's talking about.
preview part deux (Score:1, Informative)
"Yes, Dr. Nance," said the sexy voice.
A door closed, and Bruce heard breathing, and smelled the enticing smell of shampoo, and perfume. It was Chanel Number 5.
He opened his eyes.
All he saw was the roundest, firmest pair of tittles he'd ever seen in his life, all enclosed in a crisp white nurse's uniform.
I'm in heaven, he said. No, he tried to say, but his voice wouldn't work, his mouth was dry, and there was some terrible tube thing in his nose--and hey, what's that thing in his dick? It hurts!
The tits bounced like Aunt Alice's molded jello back at home, and then moved away. Oh. She was just straightening the covers on the bed.
Bed.
Bruce realized he laid in a bed, his left arm being strapped down, with something sticking an up-a tube--on the top of his hand.
Bruce looked up. The tits belonged to a beautiful face carved out of ice and whipped cream, with a pair of glowing emerald eyes. Around that perfect face was brown hair like one of those super models, all puffed up.
"Oh, you're awake, Mr. Lucent," said the sexy nurse.
Bruce worked his lips, but couldn't speak.
"Well, Mr. Lucent," the sexy voice went on. "You are probably wondering what you are doing here, honey chile." He realized the voice had the accent of a sexy Southern peach. "You were in an auto accident, Mr. Lucent, but don't worry. You'll be jess fine. This here is the finest hospital in Atlanta, and you are in the care of the finest doctor, Dr. Arthur Eastman."
Bruce tried to speak, but just moaned.
"Now, is there anything I can get you?" Nurse Eastman asked, moving around to the other sides of the bed, and fluffing the pillow.
Bruce wanted to feel those titties, that was what he wanted. Not that he could do much else, he realized. Everything hurt, right down to that thing, whatever it was, in his dick.
"Uh," he said.
Nurse Eastman's eyes lit up like Christmas tree light's. "Now you're talking! Oh," she gave a girlish giggle. "You are recovering jess fine! I have to go tell Dr. Eastman, right away."
"Wait . .
She paused, giggling again. A frightened giggle now. A childish giggle. As though a little girl on Halloween, going door to door, instead of seeing a paper Mackay witch or goblin suddenly was grabbed by the real thing.
"I don't remember . .
"No," she said, shaking her head vehemently. "You don't remember a thing. Now, you jess rest!"
She went to the door, her hips swaying like palm trees in a Hawaiian hurricane.
Bruce lied there in the bed, trying to recover his memory. All he could remember was the screeching of tires', like a steam engine gone crazy, and then there was just all that pain. Hell. Hell on wheels, that's what it was, yeses.
Hell.
On wheels.
Re:Great preview, but (Score:3, Informative)
I think we're cheating 30-odd authors out of their hard-earned five cents or so of royalties each if we get the PDF instead of buying the book. Think how many milliliters of Starbucks Coffee that represents, and buy a copy or ten to support pranks everywhere.
And Starbucks.
Re:Nice spin. (Score:3, Informative)
I wish this were always the case. Unfortunately, there certainly are cases where the senior author is famous and/or well-connected and can get a publication because of his name or connections. These articles range from very good (but might not have been high-profile without that extra little push) to sketchy to awful. Alternately, a high-profile result can get published despite major flaws, if it's something everyone wants to see.
The point of Sokal's hoax was that postmodernists wouldn't bother to check on the "science" as long as the article's conclusions were what they wanted to hear. This is sometimes true of scientists as well, but scientists have rules and standards for hypothesis-driven science. They also tend to sneer at pure theorists, and are so fiercely competitive that they'll shred anyone who leaps to conclusions without good solid evidence.
it demonstrated to me precisely why I'm going for a Ph.D. in a discipline where rigor and peer review actually mean something.
Amen to that. Although some of the pre-meds I had to teach last semester have a very postmodern approach to answering test questions.
Re:Nothing new... (Score:5, Informative)
I think you are referring to the Sokal Hoax [wikipedia.org]. The Sokal Hoax was more important, IMO, because it took place in the heart of academia, and was an attack on the abuses of post modernism, or at least on some of the people who practice such abuses. In the words of Alan Sokal (a physics professor at NYU):
If for no other reason, this hoax is important because it points to the deep cultural divide between the Sciences and the Humanities. I think that it's also a terrific flame war, taking place on the pages of the New York Times, newspapers around the world, as well as academic journals. (Sure, the Empire of Meow is great, but did they ever cross post to the NYT?)
ATLANTA NIGHTS: Details From a Contributor (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I am one of the thirty-odd writers who collectively make up "Travis Tea," a pseudonym (and a pun -- say it outloud). :-)
Here is some background on this wacky collaborative sting project [critique.org] that we cobbled together.
Several months ago, in response to a claim by a certain publisher that writers working in the SF/F genre believe it "does not require believable storylines" or "does not need believable every-day characters," genre writer James D. Macdonald [sff.net] got approximately 40 mostly science fiction and fantasy writers to cobble together an intentionally horrendous monstrosity of a novel (read it here as an FTP download in RTF [sff.net] and PDF [critique.org] format) and then submit it, in order to display the less than discriminating tastes of that same certain publisher in regard to the kind of work they accept for publication.
Earlier last week, the sting has been revealed, the publisher fell for it (retracting the acceptance as soon as news spread, of course), and I proudly own up to having authored Chapter 13 of ATLANTA NIGHTS by Travis Tea [lulu.com].
Here's a bit of an excerpt from my chapter:
Yes, you can even buy your own copy at Lulu.com [lulu.com] to read for gut-wrenching hilarity and educational purposes (lessons on how not to write can be derived from the perusal of this book). Here is the stellar lineup of blurbs [veranazarian.com] from the back cover. And that's just the ones that fit the back cover. There are twice as many additional blurbs inside the front matter of the book. Some of them are truly classic....
I predict this will replace THE EYE OF ARGON [dyndns.org] as midnight panel reading material at science fiction conventions. This book, is purely and genuinely bad. So bad that it's great. In all seriousness, The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest [bulwer-lytton.com] should give it a special achievement prize. :-)
For more detailed coverage, including a list of contributors, of the ATLANTA NIGHTS atrocity -- or should we say, travesty -- see the Cold Ground blog [typepad.com], and Tor Books editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden's Making [nielsenhayden.com] Light [nielsenhayden.com]. ..
Also, looks like the LA Times has picked up the story [calendarlive.com].
Vera Nazarian
Re:Slashdot editoral process ? (Score:1, Informative)
After this article and the resulting flame thread was published on Jan 16 Michael threw a 'hissy fit' and banned a bunch of users. The next day he gave his 2 weeks notice that he was quitting.
Re:Nice spin. (Score:3, Informative)
Never heard your PhD supervisor saying, "We'll submit it to *****, because my friend $friend is chairing it and they're bound to approve it"? It is a very common occurence. Pretty much the only person I know who doesn't do that is my current PhD supervisor, who's too bright to need the help, the smug git
Peer review is also a bit of a laugh, even anonymous peer review; there are a lot of niche fields of research out there. After all, if you get an article on using [massive bit of experimental equipment] in order to examine [question], it isn't too much of a leap to associate it to its author. A few weeks of peer-reviewing papers for my incredibly lazy ex-boss, and I was recognising papers based on a combination of topic, specialist vocabulary, 'concepts' [assumptions made, cited ideas] and characteristic errors in spelling and grammar.
The grandparent is right that physics suffers less from this... but he/she would be wrong to assume that it doesn't happen in physics. It does. Go look up the Bogdanov [ucr.edu] affair...
Disclaimer: I don't dislike the concept of peer review. But in practice it's all a bit more complicated than that, and much more political. Peer review just makes one imperfect assumption, the same as those who originally believed that the Internet would 'democratise society'... it assumes that your writing is untainted by identity.
Why so angry? (Score:3, Informative)
it's pretty clear that postmodernist attacks on science are just penis envy from a pseudofield which has no purpose except to give people jobs.
You are clearly defensive about what postmodernism has to say regarding science. You need not be because a deeper understanding of what most postmodernist philosophy has to say about science cannot be characterized as "attacks on science." In particular, the postmodernist assertion that all human systems of knowledge, science included, are affected by dogma and cultural bias is simply a fact. However, science has a system of evaluation that endeavors to correct for those effects that involves non-humans to an extraordinary degree. Bruno Latour, for example, discusses this in both Science In Action and We Have Never Been Modern.
Non-scientific systems of human thought also have mechanisms of correction. Law, philosophy, psychology, art theory--all of these have means of offsetting the bias inherent in human systems. This is not news. Even what you charge to be a "pseudofield" has a means of achieving consensus.
Postmodernism has many facets in the different branches of human endeavor. It is different in architecture, painting, sculpture, literature, and music (the humanities). It is generally misunderstood as saying that nothing has any meaning, perhaps deservedly so. But postmodern philosophy in its best forms recognizes distinctions between fields and reveals that all fields are prone to error.
I agree, also, that there are criticisms of scientific studies that "have nothing to do with privilege or dogma," critiques which require "literacy" (what I also would call expert knowledge) to deal with. So your argument with me is what?
There is some real beauty in some of the postmodern philosophers. People like Derrida, Foucault, Irigary, Barthes, and Baudrillard have startling, provocative things to say about the world we live in. They often don't understand science very well, and I definitely would not turn to them to understand the value of a scientific report qua science. That doesn't mean their writing is without value.