I present y'all with a beautiful, exquisite irony: Camestros Felpatron, complaining that a Hugo nominated story is too nassssty to be read.
Don't read the John C. Wright story in the Hugo PacketI appreciate that is rather like saying 'don't stick beans up your nose' but I am seriously suggesting people don't read it. It is (I assume unintentionally) a nasty violent sexual assault fantasy with overtones of child abuse.
This is of course completely different from the -intentional- violent sexual assault fantasies to be found elsewhere in the Hugo packet this year. Much worse.
Reading Mr. Flopatron's description, the story definitely sounds like something I don't want to read. In exactly the same way that his description of N.K. Jemsin's work sounds like something I don't want to read. In exactly the same way that I didn't want to read the Ancilary Whatsis, by Ann Leckie.
Nasty, brutish, and horrible, in short. The type of grey goo that leaves you listless and depressed. Frankly, I can be listless and depressed on my own, without paying for a book to make me more that way. It isn't a state of mind to be desired.
Now, naturally if you ask El Flopo about it, he will -staunchly- defend Jemsin's and Leckie's work, but not because it isn't nasty. He defends those stories because they are either written by a non-white person and therefore are Important, or include stuff about Gender and are therefore Important. Still nasty as hell, but its okay because Reasons.
John C. Wright, being a white dude and a religious conservative, he's not allowed to be nasty. There are no Reasons for him.
But the awesome sauce on top of the exquisite irony is, Mr. Flopper is advocating Hugo voters should vote something down without reading it.
Somebody get this Floppy Camel a wooden assterisk. He can wash it down with a cup of delicious SJW tears.