That's why. There's nothing wrong with Scalzi's writing. This is a reasonably good novel (from what I've heard) with no real SF or literary merit beyond being a reasonably good novel. But he's been speaking truth to power about the degradation of women in SF along with other idiocracy and so he's beloved by all the hasbeen liberal neurotics who control the Hugo voting and balloting. Look to many more in the future as long as he toes the Party line. Huzzah.
Okay, okay. Conservatives have been whining about awards going to liberals since the beginning of time. There's nothing new here. But the thing that really bugs me about Ringo's post is the fact that he's so brazen about not even reading the damn novel before he complains about it. And what "literary merit" does a book have "beyond being a reasonably good novel," anyway? Is he talking about the book surviving for the ages? What the fuck does that sentence even mean?
Here's how you present an informed opinion: I read Redshirts. I really liked it. I've read a couple of John Ringo's books. I wasn't crazy about them. And here's a bonus opinion: Now that I know that John Ringo dismisses "the degradation of women in SF" as "idiocracy," I'm much less likely to read more of his books.