I have a lot of respect for this. It would be so easy for him to just ignore the situation, not get involved. It is after all some controversy in a far away place in a different language/culture. Despite being "about" him, he arguably has nothing really to do with it. He does not need to be involved; he can walk away.
Instead he tries to stop the inernet mob from demonizing someone in his name who did nothing to deserve it. We should all aspire to act that way when thrown in such a situation.
John Scalzi also has DRM removed from his every book on Google Play Books (and some other ebook platforms supporting this). I always respect him for that.
(And also for someone who is not native in English, I found his book easier to read compare to some other other authors.)
1. the person tasked with introducing an author talked more about her own initiative (getting people to read more) than the author;
2. the person was criticised for this; and
3. the author wants people to know that he doesn't mind not being talked about because he likes reading too, and he doesn't feel he needs help promoting himself.
So far, so boring. There's also some mysterious implication that the criticism was due to some kind of undercurrents in Hungarian politics. Is this another tedious culture war thing?
I think he was more alluding to the possibility of a language or cultural or political barrier, one of which he was not aware because he is not from there, that could be a driving force behind Hungarian backlash toward this individual.
> There's also some mysterious implication that the criticism was due to some kind of undercurrents in Hungarian politics. Is this another tedious culture war thing?
I doubt it. I think he was just saying "I can't know whether I have all the facts or context when I say this" in the same way that I, a random person on the internet, can only assume that John Scalzi is giving me all the relevant facts in that blog post, and if there is something I'm missing that makes it more complicated, my comment here on HN does not take that into account.
From my 5-minute read of the situation, this feels similar to the quote about politics in academia, “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”
The more you get out of the mainstream and you’re dealing with status in some tiny subculture, the more you’re going to see people delve into minutiae to undercut someone achieving that status. The lower the stakes, the nastier it often gets.
Chances are that this person has people who are envious of whatever limited celebrity she has and are waiting for opportunities to criticize her. When she gave them one, they jumped on it and used the defense of this author’s feelings as their pretense. But anyone thinking it was real outrage is missing the underlying dynamic.
> There's also some mysterious implication that the criticism was due to some kind of undercurrents in Hungarian politics. Is this another tedious culture war thing?
You're allowed to regard anything as a tedious culture war thing, and be annoyed or offended by it on that basis. That's what's great about a culture war. Feel the annoyance course through your veins. You know you want to.
Mild annoyance is the path to the dark side... Mild annoyance turns to irritation. Irritation turns to outrage. Outrage turns to anger leads to hatred. And hated leads to suffering.
Yeah, it's great because it is boring. Some people got in a huff over some perceived insult, but the supposed "victim" chimes in and says there is no problem and the entire situation is defused. This is how online discussion is supposed to work, even though this is the kind of situation that the algorithm hates because who is going to engage now?
There's a comment on the blog that mentions the woman is a journalist at an independent media outlet not affiliated with the government.
I am not familiar with Hungarian politics other than there being a right-wing populist leader in charge. They often come with shill hordes who see independent outlets prepared to criticise the gov as "the enemy". I can imagine she could become a target at the slightest provocation.
I am hungarian and haven't heard of this controversy before. I tried to look it up, it hasn't been in any of the major news sources (yet), except for HVG[1] but they are only referencing an article written in a relatively small online magazine[2].
The only real problem I can see with her speach is that she was asked to give a laudation, but gave a more generic speach instead. Laudation seems to be a custom at this book festival. Also it's kind of funny that she stole the first part of her speach from "rory's graduation speach" in Gilmore Girls TV series[3].
I really enjoy Scalzi’s books, and to the point: it is nice of him to try to take the heat off of a young content creator who has helped promote his works.
Ági Szabados is a 35 year old adult woman who runs a successful nationwide book club. "Young content creator" in this context absolutely is patronizing.
Roger Ebert helped Orpah when she was young (about the same age, 32ish) just before she exploded in popularity. I can't imagine Oprah being offended in that situation or seeing it as being patronizing.
I didn't know her, so I googled her. What comes up the most: her YouTube videos and podcasts. That's the definition of "content creator".
I find 35 young. Young != not adult.
Having a successful nationwide bookclub does not stop her from (apparently) being a content creator. And vice versa, being a content creator does not diminish the success of her bookclub.
You seem to suggest that being a content creator is somehow "less worthy" than having a bookclub. Many people are super successful being content creators on YouTube. Are they less because they don't run a bookclub?
Mostly I was objecting to young more than content creator, since it has connotations of inexperience. But yes I think in some circles books are regarded as "better" than videos. There's certainly a higher barrier to publishing books than electronic content, although obviously both and contain quality or crap.
Interestingly, you are the kind of person that Agi is facing ridicule from. Someone being offended FOR others, even though, nothing of offence actually occurred.
Things can both be literally correct and patronizing. Words have cannotations beyond their literal meanings
In this case "Young content creator" can have the implication that she is not a real success but is only impressive because of her age. Since if she was on the level of a real media personality there would be no need to add the "young" adjective. She would just be a "content creator"
Similarly, content creator can have the implication you run a blog or get your fame solely from social media instead of being good enough for more traditional venues (which could be true, i dont know this person).
Is all that massively over thinking this? Probably. But i understand how the phrase could be seen as patronizing even if literally accurate.
For the note, I'm a Hungarian, I read books regularly and also read the major news outlets daily, but I never heard neither about Agi Szabados, nor about this controversy.
Author was the guest of honour for the opening panel of a book festival. An influencer was also present on the panel, and was expected to converse with the author. The influencer promoted herself instead of conversing the author. People who were there to learn about the author got outraged and demanded the influencer to apologize. The influencer apologized. The author says he wasn't offended, and doesn't think there was anything wrong.
It should be clarified that she is also a newsreader and runs a book club. There's nothing wrong with being an influencer, but to not mention the rest is incomplete.
I suppose it's not just the author who was cheated, but the audience. The author might be OK with not getting as much limelight as planned, but if I went to a book festival to see and hear a favorite author, but instead it was some random instagram goober promoting themselves talking, I'd be pissed too.
Scalzi is definitely one of my favorites right now. While I actually don't like the Old Man's War universe that much, his one-off books and smaller series have been absolute delights. They become even better when he gets Wil Wheaton to narrate his audio releases (I still smile thinking of Redshirts).
Nice to see Scalzi use what influence he has to actually help someone else like this.
I really like that he's not afraid to publish reasonably sized one-off novels. That is becoming so rare these days with so many other author wanting their first novel to be the first of a series of thousand page tomes absolutely chock full of wheel spinning and padding.
You can pick up something like Starter Villain and read it in an afternoon and thoroughly enjoy it. Other novels to check out include Androids Dream, Agent to the Stars, Redshirts, and Kaiju Preservation Society.
I read “Old Man’s War” a few weeks back, and it left me totally cold - while he’s of course attempting to reach a broad audience, it struck me as so tropeful it made me squirm. Space marines having knife-fights with giant bugs in a thunderdome was right up there. There was also a weird bit where all of a sudden all of the characters are asking each other how old they are over the course of a dozen pages, which felt like an editor had said to him “you aren’t making enough of the age thing” so he jammed in a bunch of references.
I dunno. Sure it’s for plenty of people, just not for me.
Old Man's War was published almost two decades ago and was Scalzi's first novel. It shouldn't be surprising that it took a lot of inspiration from Heinlein et. al.
His later works either lean way into tropes intentionally (Red Shirts, which I feel is more an exploration of form than a proper novel) or develop entirely new concepts, like the one way travel in the Interdependency series.
He also has a unique style. To me it appears intentional that he doesn't tend to write as realistic as possible depictions of possible futures, even allowing for the sci-fi elements. Rather, characters tend to act and speak like current day people thrust into a sci-fi scenario. Technology is highly advanced in some areas, but less so in others (which helps keep humans relevant). At times I found that took some getting used to, but it can also make the story more accessible, lends itself to humor, and can allow for exploration of how the kind of people we're familiar with would react in wildly different scenarios.
Basically, I can see how his style wouldn't be for everyone, but I enjoy his books.
I mean, i think he understands that perfectly fine. You can still engage with things that have nothing to do with you. You did it with your comment after all.
You can still reasonably feel a moral obligation to intervene on stuff done in your name or on your behalf even if it isn't really about you.
Not engaging is a perfectly reasonable choice, especially when the negatives of engaging outweigh the positives.
More selectively engaging could also work, in theory. In practice though, I suspect people succumb to industry engagement stimulation techniques and get pulled back in completely.
Instead he tries to stop the inernet mob from demonizing someone in his name who did nothing to deserve it. We should all aspire to act that way when thrown in such a situation.