calimac

The problem is that there are people who really believe that sort of thing. I see it in Puppy rhetoric all the time. You can't count on the reader to know that it's ridiculous. The rest of the article is full of Puppy mouthing off without any indication that it's flawed in this regard, particularly egregiously the quote from the unnamed rank&file Puppy who calls some non-Puppy SF "unreadable", a judgment endorsed by the author ("a certain academic torpor"), without any suggestion that there might be an argument that what the Puppies inflicted on us in its place was truly awful. I was not very inspired by the short fiction the year I last voted for the Hugos (2011), but even I thought that 11 out of 14 Puppy-sponsored short fiction nominees this year were far worse, entirely unworthy of any award. I don't believe the article refrained from expressing such an opinion merely because the author expected the readers already to know that.