Gun Runner wins Dragon Award

ByJohn Brown

I was very happy to receive news that GUN RUNNER, the novel Larry Correia and I wrote together, just won the 2021 Dragon Award for Best Military Science Fiction or Fantasy Novel.

The Dragon Awards are a set of literary and media awards presented annually by Dragon Con in Atlanta, Georgia for excellence in various categories of science fiction, fantasy, and horror novels, movies, television, and games.

And the cool thing is that these awards are voted on by fandom, meaning thousands and thousands of folks voted.

Past winners have included authors such as Terry Pratchett, Brandon Sanderson, Rick Riordan, and Stephen King.

As stated in earlier posts, the seed came from Larry’s eleven-year-old son, Joe.

When Larry and I sat down to develop an idea for a workshop we were holding for Life, the Universe and Everything, a large annual writer’s conference in Provo, a number of years ago, Joe was listening in on the stairs.

We settled on a genre, and then Correia asked, “Hey Joe, what’s cool?”

Joe immediately popped up and said, “Giant robots, bandits, and murderers.”

“We looked at each other and said, ‘Dang, that IS cool.’”

Forty minutes later we had the key elements we needed for the story we’d use in the workshop. A number of years after that workshop, Baen Books wanted a collaboration from Larry, and that story was one of the first he thought of.

Larry and I are both frequently asked to present at writers conferences. And one of the tips each of us shares to new authors is to loosen up and have fun. One of the keys to writing an entertaining story is to simply ask, “What’s cool?” And go from there.

I’m thrilled and honored that those who voted selected Gun Runner for this award.

Share

Similar Posts

  • Good Stuff! Factfulness by Hans Rosling

    ByJohn Brown

    Are things really bad as they seem on the news?

    Are they getting worse?

    Do we actually have an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world?

    The answer is no. Not even close.

    The normal American’s view is completely skewed. And negative. And that’s because the news is prone to be overly dramatic.

    We think we’re learning what’s going on by watching the news, but we actually getting an incredibly skewed view. And that view is wrong.

    In his book Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World and Why Things Are Better Than You Think, Hans Rosling identifies a number of things we get wrong, but also the 10 reasons why, and how to avoid our tendencies to skew the data.  

    It’s a fascinating book.

    For example, Rosling wanted to see how well we understand the scientific projections of how our population will grow. After all, a lot of people think we’re headed for an overpopulation nightmare.

    In 1950 there were fewer than one billion children (aged 0-14) in the world. By 2000 there were almost two billion. How many do UN experts think there will be in 2100?

    1. 4 billion
    2. 3 billion
    3. 2 billion

    What do you think the right answer is?

    If a bunch of chimpanzees had to answer the question above, each would choose an answer randomly. And 33% of them would get it right.

    But when you ask humans the question, most of them get it wrong. Most of them, in fact, do worse than the chimpanzees. It’s not even close.

    Rosling asked 12,000 people in 14 countries were asked this question, among others. Here’s how many got it right in various countries.

    To be clear, no chimps were tested. That bar is in there just for comparison. But if they were, that’s how they’d do.

    So how is it possible that humans do so spectacularly worse than the chimpanzees?

    It’s not because chimps are secretly studying world population stats and hatching schemes. It’s because we humans think we know something, but, in reality, what we think we know is wrong.

    And in this case, we think they know that the population is going to keep growing and growing and growing.

    But it’s not.

    The right answer above is C—there are 2 billion children now, and there will be 2 billion in 2100.

    The world has hit the peak number of children it will ever have at any time.

    There are around 6 billion people on the earth today. As those 2 billion children get older, the UN experts project the total population to fill out and grow to 11 billion in 2100 and then level off.

     That means there is no overpopulation nightmare on the horizon.

    Can this be true?

    Read Rosling’s book.

    Well, what about literacy levels? Poverty? Racism? Wars?

    And what about the news—don’t we see the world going to pieces every night?

    If you want an eye-opening experience, read Rosling’s book. He delivers all the insights with clarity, expertise, and humor.

    Best of all, when you’re done, you’ll have a set of tools to help you correct the picture.

    And while you’re waiting for the book, why not watch Rosling in action in this TED talk where he shows the data on population.

    Share

  • Good Stuff! La Brea, Bingham’s, Aggie Lemon Custard

    ByJohn Brown

    I have cut my consumption of bread to almost nothing. And so when I want a slice, I’m not going to waste it on run-of-the-mill sandwich bread. I want something delicious. And the best bread we’ve found is the La Brea Bakery bread that’s sold at Smith’s and other Kroger food stores.

    Our favorites are the cranberry walnut loaf, the toasted sunflower honey loaf, and the pecan raisin loaf. These breads are made the old-fashioned way with a substantial crumb and a crackly, chewy crust that’s a joy to eat. And unlike the bread from a chain bread company that will remain unnamed, these loaves are actually fully cooked.

    We just got two loaves today on our trip to Logan. We came back home, cut a few slices, popped them in the toaster, buttered, and ate with some chicken noodle soup. Pure bread heaven.

    #

    With that bread you might want some bratwurst. Not grocery store brats. Real brats. If so, I found the spot to get them (thank you, Larry Correia). There’s a gem of a butcher’s shop in Morgan, Utah called Bingham’s Custom Meats. It’s clean, well-lit, and nice-smelling. The people there are friendly. And they have over thirty different flavors of brats.

    Bratwurst, by the way, comes from German. It’s made up of two words. “Brat,” which means finely chopped meat, and “wurst,” which means sausage. At Bingham’s they don’t add nitrates or any other preservatives. Their recipes are pork mixed with various sets of spices.

    So far I’ve tried nine of their flavors, and they’ve all been delicious. They’re great for a low-carb diet. A Bingham’s brat and a bunch of cooked vegetables makes an awesome lunch. If you want, you can also just slit the casing and cook the sausage patty or stir fry style.

    #

    I’ve also cut my consumption of sweets. Which means if I eat something, I want it to be worth it. And so it gives me great pleasure to report my discovery of a wonderful flavor of Aggie ice cream at the USU Creamery—it’s called lemon custard.

    I know. Lemon ice cream?

    And when I say ice cream, I mean ice cream. This is not a sherbet. And let me tell you right now, this ice cream is amazing. It’s amazing all by itself. It’s amazing with a banana, which they sell at the creamery. Furthermore, for a little fun, if you combine it with the regular Aggie chocolate, the two together taste like a Tootsie Roll. No lie.

    I had it last month, and the month before, and I can’t wait for another date with the wife to go enjoy another scoop.

    Share

  • Federal Spending 1972-2011: What The?!?

    ByJohn Brown

    Last week a chart made the rounds, ranking the Presidents since Reagan on spending.  Look at Reagan.  That happy man is a freaking profligate. Obama, on the other hand, heck, he’s doing better than Bill Clinton.

    Except there are a few problems.

    First, I can’t tie this data out to the official CBO numbers.

    Second, it does a bit of apples and oranges because the numbers are based on each president’s whole time in office.  What does it mean when Obama increases the debt by 35% over three years, but it takes Bill Clinton almost EIGHT YEARS to increase the debt that much?  A better measure would be an average per year.

    Third, some have suggested this chart monkeys with the numbers, allocating the first year of each president’s first term to the previous president.

    Fourth, the president isn’t the only one in Washington. Senators and Congressmen also have responsibility.

    Finally, while a % increase in debt is a helpful measure, it’s not the only story. And it can be misleading if viewed on its own. For example, if we have $1 of debt, and I increase that to $10, I’ve increased our debt by 1000%. Holy Schnitzel!  But if we have $500 million of debt and I increase it to $600 million, I’ve only increased it by 20%. Which is worse?

    So I went out to the CBO and took their numbers from 1972 – 2011.  You may get the XLS file yourself: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911. Then I made sure to identify who was in charge when and marked it with spiffy colors (Red is Republican, Blue is Democrat). Here are the results. Click on it to see it in its full size glory.

     

     What does this tell us?

    First, there was only ONE four-year stretch in the LAST FREAKING FORTY YEARS where the folks in Washington did not spend MORE than they took in. That was the four year period from 1998 – 2001.

    What the?!?

    Look at that chart again. There is a serious and systemic spending problem in Washington.

    What happened in 1998 to change what had been going on for almost three decades? That was when the citizens got fed up with Washington, threw out a great number of the Senators and Congressmen, and bought into the Contract with America.  This was when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. This was when Clinton was getting pounded for all sorts of stuff and worked with those particular Republicans in Congress to balance the budget.

    Second, the deficit, the purple line at the bottom, tripled when Obama took office.  And stayed!  Who put that first chart together? Oh, yeah. It was Nancy Pelosi.

    You might say, well, raw dollars is good.  But what’s really important is how big a percentage that spending is of our nation’s GDP. If you’re spending 100 billion when the nation is producing 1 trillion, that sounds big, but it’s actually not as big a deal as when you’re spending 100 billion and the nation is only producing 200 billion. Okay, let’s look at these numbers as a % of GDP.

    Again, 1998-2001 were good years. On a % basis, the folks in Washington during that time did better than anyone else in not spending the nation’s wealth.  There’s no doubt that Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton during his fist 3 years and the Congress during those times were all happy to be big spenders.  Look at the debt burden during their years. But Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress since 2007–drunken sailors compared to those guys. And then the Republicans come in and it doesn’t change. Gridlock?

    Let’s look at our presidents since 1972 and see how well they do on an annual basis. Those numbers in the first list, BTW, are stated in billions.

    Seems to me the most fiscally responsible groups were those in charge during the latter part of the Clinton years, the Nixon years, and the year when Nixon resigned.  It appears that during that year the folks in Washinton were so busy with the Watergate scandal they forgot to feed their spending appetites.

    Bottom line: as I said before, Washington has a serious and systemic problem with over spending.

    And when I say “systemic” I mean it appears the whole thing is rigged to produce over spending. We don’t just need new people out there. We need a system that prevents the overspending. We need an ammendment that requires a balanced budget and caps the size of the government in relation to GDP.

    We also need to find a way to incentivize Congress to pass a budget each year.  No budget, no pay is a good idea. The current House has indeed passed a budget. But the Democratic Senate has not, preventing us from having a budget at all. Obama submits budgets, but not a soul in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, will vote for them. It’s only the Republican House who seems to want to actually do their job. How can that be? Read It’s Deja Vu All Over Again with National Fiscal Policy for more info.

    This November we need to get a bunch of folks like those in 1998 back in Washington. A President AND a Congress who will actually finally tame the nation’s out of control spending.  Let me suggest you look at your Congressman’s and Senators’ records.  How have they voted? As for President Obama, well, I’m looking at the numbers above.

    Related Links

    Share

  • Billenkoek

    ByJohn Brown

    netherlandsSo I lived for almost two years in the Netherlands and Belgium and learned the Dutch language, which is full of delights. Today’s delight is billenkoek.

    Now koek means cake. A koekje (small cake) is a cookie. Boterkoek is butter cake, this delicious sweet, to-die-for Dutch version of shortbread.

    So what does billen mean?

    Back in the day when I’d visit various Dutchies (the people, not political territories), they’d always ask if I was thirsty. And very frequently when I’d ask for water, someone would say, “Water? The frogs wash their billen in that.”

    Billen means bum as in behind, butt, buttocks. Bil is singular, one half of the full billen, if you will.

    So what do you think a billenkoek is?

    No, not that.

    It’s a spanking.

    “Honey, you’ll clean the dishes, or you’re going to get a little bum cake. What will it be?”

    Gotta love the Dutch.

    Share
  • |

    Writers of the Future, the Church of Scientology, and Killing Puppies

    ByJohn Brown

    Author Jim C. Hines recently posted a thoughtful blog about connections between Writers of the Future and Scientology. There are a number of folks who have issues with Hubbard’s metaphysical claims and the church he started. Some folks claim that supporting Writers of the Future (WOTF) in any way supports the Church of Scientology (CoS) and the abuse of the young, the innocent, those who are vulnerable, and the stupid.

    I won a first prize in the Writers of the Future. I received $2,000 cash for the prize and subsequent publication. I also recieved a paid trip to Cocoa Beach, Florida to workshop with the other winners and pro writers. I tell new writers to submit to the contest all the time. I do not feel I’m supporting any wickedness. Let me walk you through this. You tell me if I’m killing any puppies.

    A. What underlies the continued operation of WOTF?

    1. Hubbard wanted it (I don’t know why, although he states it was to help new sff authors and illustrators).
    2. The folks who run it have a very HIGH esteem of Hubbard and so have huge motivation to make it successful.
    3. A trust was set aside, although without looking at the books we can’t know exactly if it’s an independent thing or if money is being funneled from other CoS holdings.  You do not pay many to enter the contest, so all of the money to run the contest and pay prizes etc. comes from this trust, sales of the WOTF anthologies, and perhaps other CoS holdings.
    4. It’s used for positsive PR for Hubbard’s brand name.
    5. The judges, who don’t give a fig about CoS, want to help new writers.

    B. What are the effects of the contest?

    1. No documented writer conversions to CoS.
    2. No documented WOTF anthology conversions of young skulls full of mush to CoS. Someone please show me some evidence of the WOTF antho being a gateway to anything, despite the rumored statements of some Scientologists someone’s uncle overheard.
    3. No documented donations to CoS that I know of.
    4. New writers get paid a whole bunch of money, get to network, and receive instruction from pros for a week.
    5. The winners, on average, think better of Hubbard, as do their friends and family.
    6. Most winners report it was a great experience and encourage other new writers to submit.
    7. WOTF sells some anthologies and makes a little bit of cash to offset expenses. I can’t imagine they’re ever in the black, are they?
    8. WOTF tracks winners and uses those who have done well as PR shiny for . . . WOTF and the Hubbard brand name.

    I was a first place winner. I had a marvelous time. This was the one held in Cocoa Beach, Florida. One night I needed to go to a convenience store to get something (tooth paste?). One of the WOTF folks drove me there. A nice woman. It was raining. It was just the two of us in the SUV.

    I’m a VERY CURIOUS guy. I’ve read most of DIANETICS. I stopped by a Scientology place in Seattle to chat. I like hearing people talk about their faiths, about their lives, about whatever. If you spend any amount of time with me, you will tell me your life story. You will. It just happens.

    I tried my dangest to get something out of that woman, but she was as tight as a clam sealed in four feet of concrete.

    Nobody talked Scientology. Everyone involved went out of their way to avoid it. End of story. I’ve talked to many other winners. They report the same.

    On the other hand, they did have a PR guy there.

    Mr. PR intereviewed us about the contest and Hubbard’s works and took footage. Our one-on-one interviews were on camera. We took still photos. He asked us in our acceptance speeches to thank Hubbard by name.

    He was a PR guy.

    It was very clear his job was to generate PR content for WOTF and Hubbard. How do I KNOW this? Because his questions all centered around WOTF and/or Hubbard. But never CoS.

    Some of the winners did not like his solicitation for a mention of Hubbard’s name. There was some reality show behind the scenes grumbling and scheming, and they did not mention Hubbard in their thanks at the awards event.

    That’s fine, although it didn’t make much sense to me. Maybe they felt gratitude needs to be spontaneous, not asked for. And I can agree with them on that. At the same time, why would I take $2,000 cash for the prize and publication, and the paid hotel, and workshop, and airfare and then slap the folks who gave it to me? I was indeed grateful. So I mentioned Hubbard in my thanks (oh, look at how noble I am; somebody should saint me).

    What did the contest do for me?

    1. Gave me some cash.
    2. Validated that maybe I had some chops. No, I wasn’t competing against pros. But I was competing against all those wanting to break in. I talked to Wolverton, who was a coordinating judge for many years and was the first reader, about the numbers of submissions they received. Hundreds upon hundreds each quarter. Huge boxes full. Were some drek? Of course. Who cares? Others weren’t. I won.
    3. Planted an idea in me that maybe I could do this.
    4. Gave me great connections with some pros and other authors.
    5. Allowed me to tell people I won a big international award for my writing. A little PR for my own brand. Who doesn’t want to engage in a bit of puffery now and then (and so you see, Fred, I am a little fabulous, aren’t I . . . )?

    So the contest, as far as I’m concerned, is a GREAT contest for new writers.

    But am I supporting CoS? And is that a bad thing?

    Every time I purchase a Kraft Foods or Nabisco product, I directly fund Phillip Morris tobacco company and their efforts to hook children on smoking abroad. Some of the tomatoes I purchase in Walmart and other grocery stores are tainted by slavery that occurs today in Florida and California’s central valley with migrant workers. Some of those tomatoes end up in various restaurants like Pizza Hut or Papa Murphy’s. Every bite of chocolate you eat funds slavery in the Ivory Coast, where the vast majority of cocoa beans come from. Not a few slavers here and there, but widespread slavery and abuse. There are many situations like this.

    What do you do when you like a product or service, but don’t necessarily want to lend aid to an affiliated cause?

    In many situations, I don’t do much.

    Alas, there goes my sainthood.

    I admit that I should and should probably think more about this.  At the same time, with regards to CoS, I don’t know that it is a wicked and exploitative organization.

    I’ve seen nothing that suggests they’re into crime. Or systemic abuse. Or fraud. Or that they have a vendetta against dumb people. I don’t share one iota of their faith in Hubbard or his metaphysical teachings. But I do share other values and beliefs with them. Just as I do with Catholics, Muslims, Pagans, Athiests, Communists, and Realtors.

    Besides, I never did PR for them. I’ve always said I DISAGREED with their theology, which is negative PR, if you think about it. Furthermore, I’m fairly confident the contest DOES NOT funnel large amounts of money to CoS.

    What can they be making after taking out the expenses of the award week for all those authors, illustrators, judges, “luminaries,” etc. that they fly in and house, all in addition to the prize and publication monies? I’m confident they make nothing at all, but actually lose money each year.

    So the net net is that they get some PR for WOTF in the SFF community and some for Hubbard’s name. That’s it. That’s what I’m giving them.

    But I don’t see any documented stories of that leading to any donations or conversions to CoS. Or positive PR for CoS. Which, again, I’m still not convinced is a systemically exploitative and wicked organization.

    But even if it were, am I really supporting CoS when I promote WOTF?

    I don’t think so. I’m not giving them cash. I’m not giving them any positive PR. It seems to me purchasing one bag of Oreos or a Lindt chocolate bar does more harm than this ever could.

    I feel so much better now. I am saving the puppies.

    Of course, if you disagree, please post a comment. If you have reliable documentation, not hearsay and tabloid clamor, that can add to the discussion, feel free to share it. I’m all for good data. And if you see issues with my logic, share that as well. But no wild-eyed, Chicken Little, my mother was eaten by CoS aliens rants please.

    As for that Twix I just ate. . .

    (sigh)

    EDIT 1: I just learned the Phillip Morris spun Nabisco and Kraft off in 2007.  So that frees up my Oreo conscience, but the principle remains.

    EDIT 2: Okay, so I just learned that the CoS planned and authorized crimes in Operation Snow White. What to make of that? Comments? Talk about your corporate espionage. I know there are governments and organizations around the world and in the US that engage in that all the time. But this is the first I’ve seen from a “church.”

    EDIT 3: Read through the links on this post by Deirdre Saoirse Moen where she explains why she no longer supports the WOTF contest. Primarily, she just can’t stand some of the CoS practices.

    Of note is the link to the court report by the Village Voice at the Debbie Cook hearing. One question I have is why all those leaders were in the Hole to begin with? Was it some routine church program? Yeah, it sounds awful, but the military puts the SEALs and Special Forces through awful things. So I’m not clear on all of that.  And why haven’t more come out to complain? The unlawful detainment aspect of these allegations is disturbing. But are they really doing this? Are these isolated experiences, or SOP? I don’t know.

    There’s another one farther down that lists alleged harassment of folks posting some CoS theology documents on the internet.  I sampled the documents linked to there. Most of those are just copyright violation letters. SOP for anyone trying to protect copyright.

    Looking at Operation Snow White, the Debbie Cook hearing, and the copyright violation stuff, it’s becoming fairly clear that the CoS has taken an extremely aggressive approach against some of those who speak out against them (maybe it’s over the top) and a similar approach with protecting their materials. Although I think they’ve lost the battle about their materials on the internet. 

    Instead of trying to win public opinion with the truth, it seems in some cases they’ve instead attempted through various methods to try to silence detractors.

    Anyone have any more links to substantive material?

    EDIT 4: Here’s a letter from Joni Labaqui, a Scientologist and the person who runs the whole WOTF shooting match, to Frank Wu, who was an illustrator winner, and had posted some stuff about WOTF and CoS here: http://www.frankwu.com/illo.html (I found the letter at the bottom).

    Dear Frank,

    Hi! It’s Joni Labaqui here. Haven’t seen you since you blew me off at LA Con a few years ago and now I know why. I didn’t understand why you didn’t want to talk to me for very long. I loved your write-up on your site about the contest until you got into talking about Scientology. I know what you mean about feeling hurt when people put down your church. I happen to think you are NOT stupid because you are a Christian. I have many Christian friends and I respect their beliefs and even fight for them. But then you get into my religion on your site and putting out falsehoods, then I realized you didn’t have all of the info. We don’t sue people for bad mouthing our religion. The Church sues when there is slander and liable of considerable magnitude involved. Lets use an analogy here – lets say someone accused you of raping the girl next door, but you didn’t do it. Would you be upset? Lets say the parents then sued you or had you put in jail or both. Would you be upset? Would you hire an attorney? Gee, you’d be involved in a legal suit wouldn’t you? What if the father of the girl made sure you were lied about in the newspapers and on TV and he tried or succeeded in ruining your reputation? How would you feel? On top of that, lets say what really happened is you simply talked to the girl and were trying to help her and she turned around and accused you. How would you feel? And how about all those people who love to gossip? (I personally hate people who gossip as all they are doing is hurting others and they are basically low-life losers – lots of people fit into this category, I’m afraid). How would you feel?

    You were actually wrong in that Scientology pays for the writers and illustrators awards. The Hubbard estate (which is not the church) makes so much money on royalties from his hundreds of published fiction it would make your head spin. You were right about the fact that every one of us who works at Author Services is a Scientologist, but the judges of the contest are not. They share the same goal that Mr. Hubbard did in starting and paying for this contest – to help the new guy, just like yourself back then when you won. So I don’t understand, a nice person like you has to even bring up the subject in your write-up. You think we are interested in “converting” any of you winners just because we have you tour the Life Exhibition? The answer from the horses mouth is NO. We are simply showing you more about his life and works so that you have the facts about the other part of his life, not the bullshit and lies that has been put out by vested interests of multi-billion dollar drug companies and the psychs that can’t stand us. Have you received tons of unwanted, unsolicited mail? The answer is no. Trust me, if we wanted to convert you, you would sure know it. Believe it or not, Mr. Hubbard in founding this contest just wanted you guys to be seen and heard because he knew how hard it is to get started. Period. Its not about Scientology. That is the simplicity of this contest. Anyone reading anything else into it has their own issues and I feel sorry for them. I guess maybe you ran into someone bad mouthing us and you listened to them. If someone badmouthed you – to this day – I wouldn’t buy it. I’d tell them to take a hike. Do you know why? Because I know you are a good person. I met you, I shared some of that joy you experienced when you won, and I was truely happy for you because I like people being happy, winning in life and doing well and winning this contest. I still like you, but I’m a bit disappointed that you felt compeled to write what you did. I don’t get it. I personally put in hundreds of hours of work to help give you the event that you won your award at, so how do you think I feel?

    I hope to hear from you. Best, Joni

    Share

7 Comments

  1. congratulations!!!!John, you deserve this and there will be more recognition and plaudits in the future

Comments are closed.