“We have cleared Space Doors . . .”
By now you’ll have gotten word that Sasquan, the 73rd annual World Science Fiction Convention, has officially released the 2015 Hugo awards final ballot. It’s a done deal. Set in stone. These are the nominees selected via democratic process — with a record 2,100+ nominating ballots! — for your review, during the 2015 Hugo awards season. We at SP3 offer our hearty congratulations to all of the authors, editors, and artists included. The Hugo is the most venerable touchstone of the field of Science Fiction & Fantasy. We’re glad to see that this year’s ballot is unusually cosmopolitan in its composition, featuring numerous veteran authors and editors, as well as many new authors and editors who are adding their unique flavor to the field as a whole.
It was both a duty and an honor to be able to shine a light on the path to this final ballot. Each and every individual on this ballot has poured his/her heart and soul into the individual works. It’s refreshing to see so many names (from across the spectrum of the field) being engraved into the history of the Hugo, for the very first time. Likewise, it’s a treat to observe the many announcements now being released on social media — a celebration of achievement that is well-earned and well-deserved!
Now, obviously, no Hugo ballot ever arrives without controversy. With limited slots per category, the ballot cannot encompass everything that the field is. Each year the Hugo is a slit-lens peak at what the members of WSFS believe to be the best representative works and people, for the year prior. Many worthy works and people will have missed the cutoff. Not for lack of fan enthusiasm per se, but mainly because not everyone can vote for everything at the same time. But it’s precisely because not everyone can vote for everything at the same time, that SP3 decided to proactively and strongly suggest a roster which would — we hoped — give WSFS something different to pick from. A bit like adding a new table of steam trays at a buffet. To give people a new group of choices, from which to fill their respective “plates” during the nomination period.
“You do this, you’ll never sit in the captain’s chair again . . .”
For our efforts, Sad Puppies 3 has endured a lot of criticism. We were warned we were breaking the rules — though no rules have been violated. We were also told that we were defying the “natural order” of things, by people who consider themselves gatekeepers of the field, and deciders of what the “natural order” is supposed to look like. Now, personally, I am an Army man, so I know all about protocol and procedure. But I also know that there are times when the spirit of the law has to trump the letter of the law. And in point of fact, no law has been broken. At worst, we merely re-programmed the simulation so as to see if we could effect a different, positive outcome.
Did we blunt a few beaks along the way? You bet. That was unavoidable. Especially considering the fact that some of our critics have themselves (in the past) been very adept at operating “quiet” campaigns within WSFS. SP3’s chief difference being a) we did it honestly and openly, while b) inviting the entirety of the SF/F professional and fan world to spectate and participate.
We still maintain that the Hugos ought to not be the personal plaything of a small group of taste-makers or industry-insider personnel. We’ve been amused by the fact that some of the sharpest anti-SP3 barbs have come from a particular industry insider who recently lost her standing with a major publisher. It seems the near-predestined course of events . . . hasn’t worked out the way this insider expected them to. We understand her frustration, without necessarily sympathizing. SP3 doesn’t want to replace one set of inevitabilities, with another set. Rather, we’d like to scuttle the entire concept of the inevitable. Get rid of the taste-makers. Liberate the award. Some folks are objecting strongly to this. Others are cheering us on like crazy.
Whatever the case, SP3 is again proud to see so many deserving individuals and works on the 2015 ballot. We hope everyone enjoys reading and reviewing the voter packet which will soon be distributed! It’s going to be a great summer!
“Warp speed!”
Brad R. Torgersen 
Now we campaign to get folks to register and vote? Yes? I am game for that!
Over at Tor.com right now, they’re in a state of stunned shock. For my money, on the other hand…with the possible exception of Leckie’s “Ancillary Sword,” I’d be hard pressed to find something I *wouldn’t* enjoy reading, at first glance. Although to be fair, I’ve already read all the nominated works by John C. Wright (congratulations, sir!) and Tom Kratman’s excellent “Big Boys Don’t Cry.”
…On the other hand, and totally not in keeping with the spirit of Easter: I was eagerly anticipating the wailing, gnashing of SJW teeth, and “Scanners”-style head asplosions should anything of Colonel Kratman’s get a Hugo nomination. Seeing Voxdemort the Malevolent’s name on the Hugo nom list twice…. Hah. Ah hah hah. Hah hah hee hee ohmigod this is going to be good. Now where did I put that popcorn…? 😛
So, where’s the nominated list?
Congrats to Brad for getting us this far! Now we have to work just as hard if not harder to take this home for the win!
Gnashing of teeth seems to be the order of the day.
Funny though how much vitriol a former Tor editor and wife of a current Tor editor heaped even on writers like Kevin and Mr. Wright – both of whom are Tor authors.
It is too bad there has to be so much anger over this. The more the merrier should be the mantra of SF as a whole.
Congrats to all involved. This is a good slate and I’m REALLY looking forward to having the chance to vote. There’s going to be some tough choices in a few of these categories.
One note to Katie for next year: Make sure we have enough nominees 😀
Congrats to all Hugo nominees, and to the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies.
Congratulations to the Nominees. They are mostly yours, some categories are entirely Sad Puppy/Rabid Puppy.
I am skeptical that every nominator read every work on the Sad Puppy slate and nominated the slate on that basis. I am well aware that this is not unique to Sad Puppies nominators by a long shot. We won’t have the numbers until August, of course, but I will be curious as to the breakdown of nominator numbers.
On the subject of the slate, if you had had a list of 10-15 nominees for each category (say Locus Recommended Reading List style), my reaction to SP nominees be would be more tempered, since it would be clear without a doubt that the best of that list got enough nominations to make a list.
So how about that, Kate Paulk? Since you are already planning next year’s campaign? Forget a specific slate tailored to lock up nominees by what appears to be block voting.
Put out a substantial list of nominees for every category, and let the Sad Puppies and every one else for that matter see what’s out there. Let the nominees get nominated if enough people like them and pick them.
“I refuse to read anything by Vox Day or John C Wright. FLAT. Out. Refuse. both outspoken sexist, homophobes, racist authors.” – The Book Smugglers.
I’d certainly like to hear on what planet they define “sexist,” “racist” or genderphobic, because I’m pretty sure The Book Smugglers just defined themselves.
#FeministsLackSelfAwareness
Spokesmanatee Wendell says to gatekeepers, “Don’t call me Tiny.”
Congratulations to all nominees.
The full nominee list for the curious is available in Locus.
http://www.locusmag.com/News/2015/04/2015-hugo-and-campbell-award-finalists/
Do we have to wait for August to get the complete list of items offered for nomination? Not vote totals, but the list of ‘offered for nominations’?
Well done to all, especially Brad! congratulations to all the nominees!
As I note on my own blog (on which I reposted the list as well) HOW WILL I CHOOSE THE LONG FORM VOTE?!?!?!
Have they posted the full nomination breakdowns? I’m curious to see how some works fared further down the list.
Paul Weimer wrote:
“I am skeptical that every nominator read every work on the Sad Puppy slate and nominated the slate on that basis.”
But isn’t that true of ANY Hugo nomination/ballot? There’s always been a certain percentage who vote because the-nominee-is-a-friend or someone-asked-them-to or whatever, without having actually read the work in question.
It’s a Voter Registration drive for the Hugos. I don’t see why the SJW’s are bending over backward to support something like that.
B. E. G. ;>)
They engaged in and supported group defamation towards white men about a “white dude parade” and then got a white dude parade.
What possible connection could there be there?
Who’d they think were going to push back? The PoC, gays and women they conspicuously go out of their way to NEVER defame as a group?
Mad Genius Club has a listing of nominations.
As for reading everything actually nominated for Sad or Rabid Puppies, I can believe it. I did not even have the money to nominate, but I had still read a lot of stuff on the novel slates before they’d even been assembled. I would’ve been able to read the rest of most categories if I could’ve spared $40 from my entertainment budget for non-entertainment purposes.
The novelty pitch for SJW fiction fails the most with high volume readers. The Sad Puppies advertisement is clearly targeted towards such alienated high volume readers.
It seems pretty clear to me that if Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies voters had been in lockstep, regardless of what they had read, more Puppies items would be on the ballot.
Official list at http://sasquan.org/hugo-awards/nominations/
I hadn’t read everything on the Puppy Slates, and as a result, I didn’t nominate all of them. I added a couple of things which I had read which weren’t on the slate, particularly Three-Body Problem. I’ll read (or at least start) all the works in categories in which I intend to vote, because there’s more time for that.
I am right there with you Anthony, I read everything that I nominated and will read everything before I vote in the end.
Next year I am also in agreement with Paul,
“Put out a substantial list of nominees for every category, and let the Sad Puppies and every one else for that matter see what’s out there. Let the nominees get nominated if enough people like them and pick them.”
I would love for even a bigger reading list to devour. 😀
Reblogged this on Otherwhere Gazette.
Thank you, Paul, for being a reasonable, rational voice of disagreement. If only others would follow your example…
But I do have to take issue with this: “I am skeptical that every nominator read every work on the Sad Puppy slate and nominated the slate on that basis.”
I am not skeptical that every nominator read every work on the Sad Puppy slate, because I KNOW that not every nominator read every work, myself for one. And you know what I did? I didn’t nominate works I hadn’t read. And I also didn’t nominate some I had read but didn’t think were worthy. And I nominated some that weren’t on Brad’s slate at all. (My big disappointment is that Jack McDevitt’s “Coming Home” wasn’t nominated.)
As you say, people nominating “favorites” without reading them is not confined to Sad Puppies. It’s as old as the Hugos. Unless you have evidence, there’s no basis for assuming that it’s any more common among the Sad Puppy slate than others.
So, did Mr. Torgersen get a nomination, and turn it down?
In fiction the only Sad Puppies I didn’t vote for were ones I hadn’t read. I’m already an Analog subscriber, so I’d already read most of those stories at one time or another in the last year (I was particularly pleased to see Rajnar Vajra make it to the final round, as I’ve been enjoying his work for years). As for the rest of the ballot, I left a number of categories blank, because I just didn’t have enough opinion about any of them to want to venture a nomination.
Did people vote without having read everything? Sure. But that’s always true of all Hugo nominations and balloting, regardless of the category. I’ll bet a significant number of the non-SP items on the ballot got there in part by voters voting for reasons other than that they’d read the work and liked it. Its an unavoidable bug in the Hugo voting system, and one that won’t ever go away.
Now I have to decide if I’m going to wait until they announce whats in the Hugo Packet before buying Goblin Emperor, Lines of Departure, and Ancillary Sword.
I just put the ones I hadn’t read on hold at my library. Let’s get started reading sooner – and if Orbit does just a snippet again I’ll be covered.
Plus I suspect AS will take a bit longer for me to get through, based on AJ. I will get through it all though.
Congratulations to those who made it. Very few of my own favorites did, so I’m not particularly happy with the result. There’s a lot of stuff that probably won’t be to my liking, but we’ll see about that when the packet arrives.
In addition it had to be made about politics to get politics out of it.
One can pray that this will do so and let it just be about the damn story.
Your first picture: right before Sulu does a bootlegger reverse…
“On the subject of the slate, if you had had a list of 10-15 nominees for each category (say Locus Recommended Reading List style), my reaction to SP nominees be would be more tempered, since it would be clear without a doubt that the best of that list got enough nominations to make a list. ”
I think that’s a good idea.
For myself, I didn’t nominate at all, because most of what I read over the last year was not eligible because of when it was published. So I felt I would have been just throwing nominations around in the blind, or solely according to a “slate” without really having a good grasp on what else was out there. Didn’t seem right to do that.
Maybe a larger group of suggestions would help a person who was in my position in the future.
Tor.com has already closed comments on the Hugo thread.
From Making Light: “#21 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: April 04, 2015, 04:13 PM:
I predict that in a number of categories I will be voting for a chap named Noah Ward.
While I do not believe in cruelty to animals, I find myself wanting to kick certain Sad Puppies where it would do them some good. Is this because I am a bad person? I hope not.”
See the violence inherent in the system? 😉
The list of the nominees is at Mad Genius Club, and I grabbed some of the graphs that were shown in the presentation, as well. It was fun to watch! http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/04/04/2014-hugo-nominations/
More Making Light: “I am not a patsy put on this earth to meekly crown Sad Puppy choices “the best.”
I registered last night as a nonattending supporter, so I have my vote. Now, seeing the nomination slate today, I’m pretty sure who I’m going to vote for, though in a couple of cases it will be quite a decision. In others, pretty clear cut.
Baroness Harkonnen: “Conclusion: Contrary to their current set of claims, the Sad Puppies are profoundly elitist. They’ve made it clear that they think it’s more important to be a member of their clique than it is to write the kind of SF they claim to be championing.”
Ms. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.
“#70 ::: Alex R. ::: (view all by) ::: April 04, 2015, 06:02 PM:
“You have brought our ugly, vicious, modern American culture wars into the Hugo process. I will be registering for a supporting membership for the first time in my life and voting everything on your slate below No Award. I will be doing this because I hate your stupid, obnoxious, bullshit. I hate the nonsensical idea that people are prejudiced against your conservatism. I hate your association with Grand Master Racist Asshole Vox Day. I hate your ballot packing and your exploitation of the Hugo rules. I hate your bringing Gamergate scum into the SF community. I hate your selfishness. I hate your complete cluelessness about the history of SF.”
I hate the fact you don’t have a dictionary with the words “prejudiced” or “racist” in it.
Plus – fuck off.
Also at Making Light: accusations of conspiring with Vox, and people insisting that Jim Butcher was somehow tricked into being on the slate. Honest to God.
I need a facepalm smilie. Desperately.
“The Book Smugglers retweeted Abigail Nussbaum @NussbaumAbigail · 4h 4 hours ago
Fourth: if you choose to associate with bigots and hate groups, you will be treated accordingly. That’s how adult life works.”
And after that confession Abigail jumped off a cliff.
Having done the math I wouldn’t be making plans to ship many rockets home from Sasquan. Looking at the short fiction category, Sad Puppies got a solid vote of between 151 and 230 ballots. This is out of 1174 cast or 19.6%.
You now need to convince 944 people plus however many decide to vote between now and then (based on Loncon, that could be triple) that your favored works are worthy of a Hugo. Assuming no more people join (questionable) that’s a total of 588 or 388 additional voters.
That’s assuming it’s a popularity contest where we’re more interested in block vote packing than in promoting actual quality. Since you can’t grok that, no matter how many times it’s repeated, there’s really no wonder you can’t see that the hard part is done at this point. No need to brainwash anyone into anything, even as people line up to block-vote in opposition.
Here, I’ll try to give my political speech:
Read the works. Pick the best. Even No Award is fine if you’ve read the work.
So…. what’s the -counter- political policy to that? The current plan seem to block vote No Award, without even bothering to read the works.
Block voting is bad except when it’s good!
Read the works. Pick the best. Even No Award is fine if you’ve read the work. and if we have whole categories of “no award” because the works suck will you admit defeat or will you argue that people are just bloc-voting against you?
Well, the other side has pretty much promised to do exactly that. So… What do you think?
The key to strategy isn’t to plan a route to success. The key to strategy is to arrange to have all the viable routes lead to success.
Energized people ticked off at the nearly-inevitable block voting go into -next- year energized.
I do like the idea of picking 10 works for each category as “Worthy of consideration for nomination”. Just… I don’t expect that to work out seemingly expected manner. Either.
Chris, no, I will not declare defeat. The game isn’t the awards, after all, last year showed we won’t get a fair shake. Considering the current collection of tweets, it appears that many will give No Award without even reading the works. Breitbart’s got a nice collection of them and there are posts by Tor editors about No award campaigns. Seems like the decision making this year is going to be on politics. With the current Twitterstorm, assuming the Haydens and Wu haven’t drawn the Eye of Sauron to them, I fully expect no award to win, where Ancillary Sword or Mr. Chu doesn’t.
It doesn’t bother me. Why? Because that wasn’t my game. Do I think the nominees I voted for and even suggested are worthy? Yes. Do I think everyone will share my opinion? No. No single work is all things to all people. Did I get tired of Related Works in the vein of XXX Dig YYY fanwank? Yes. How would I change that? By suggesting works that I thought were worth the award to a forum like Sad Puppies. Turns out a bunch of people agreed with me on a couple of them.
A bunch of writers and works that I think are quality got recognition via nomination. That’s good enough for me. Anything above that is a bonus. Now I’ll just reread the nominees, vote on the final ballot, and get ready for next year.
f we have whole categories of “no award” because the works suck will you admit defeat or will you argue that people are just bloc-voting against you?
Thanks to the people declaring their intention to vote “No Award” regardless of merit, any categories that “No Award” wins we can assume will be because of politics, rather than because the works suck.
You brought Breitbart into the Hugo’s. What the hell is wrong with you? As a SF fan for decades I find your tactics despicable.
You are a disgrace.
Wow. That’s some lovely tolerance for differing political views.
I thought SF was supposed to be the field that believed that other people’s minds worked just as well as yours, only differently.
spacefaringkitten wrote:
Very few of my own favorites did, so I’m not particularly happy with the result.
*shrug* This the first time I’ve voted when more than one or two of my nominations made it onto the ballot.
*****
And as for John C. Wright getting three Novella nominations… I like his writing, but yeah, I kinda thought that was too much as well. Maybe next year restrict it to one nomination per author per category?
Gerrib still doesn’t get it. He still this is this about “winning”, even after Correia explicitly declined a nomination.
They’ve already won, Chris. You just haven’t figured it out yet.
Is the general public able to vote?
Yep! $40 for supporting membership. Tell your friends, get the packet with the nominees! Read them! Vote how you think best!
Let me help you with an analogy, Gerrib.
To expand on something I said over on MGC earlier:
This is Russia.
Your guys are Napoleon.
You’ve “won” every battle so far; the Russians just keep falling back.
You follow them further and further into the depths of the Russian heartland, sure that a decisive victory is near at hand.
It is now late October of 1812
The nearest place to buy stinky cheese and canned escargot is 1500 miles away.
Oops.
“Thanks to the people declaring their intention to vote “No Award” regardless of merit, any categories that “No Award” wins we can assume will be because of politics, rather than because the works suck.”
Yeah, that sort of let the cat out of the bag, didn’t it.
“Yep! $40 for supporting membership. Tell your friends, get the packet with the nominees! Read them! Vote how you think best!”
Yes, do. I’ll admit that I didn’t even try to participate in the nominating process because there is no way I’d have time to read that much. Life is life just now. I might not try to vote in the final part for the exact same reason. Read the nominated works. Vote for the ones that are best…. for the ones you think are *best*. Because voting with an eye to trying to get the right *people* up there accepting their rocket is what the other side seems determined to do.
Julie Pascal – Yeah, that sealed the deal for me. I’ve dealt with these kinds of people before. They’re the ones who will rage for hours about “shaming” and then turn around and so the exact same thing but exist it as “justified because of x.” After I had that argument for the hundredth time, I gave up on trying to convince these people because they are literally delusional, claiming the moral high ground despite not actually believing (usually) in fundamental morality.
So now I only try to persuade those people who actually demonstrate that they’re willing to logically consider opposing positions. I apply the Correia maxim ™ to everyone else: arguing on the internet is a spectator sport.
“We still maintain that the Hugos ought to not be the personal plaything of a small group of taste-makers or industry-insider personnel. ” – Brad Torgersen
Oh, really? Because this is exactly what you have done. I have to say that I’m rather disappointed in you, Mr. Torgersen. I’ve enjoyed your work in the past, but this kind of politicking is beneath you.
“I’d certainly like to hear on what planet they define “sexist,” “racist” or genderphobic, because I’m pretty sure The Book Smugglers just defined themselves.” – James May
Are you kidding me? Vox Day espouses every piece of bigotry we have a term for and probably a few more we don’t. He makes Orson Scott Card look like a free-loving hippie.
And, of course, we have a person up there carping about “bringing in Breitbart.” (Yawn) Wasn’t us who brought in politics, mac. You could’ve just let the chips fall, but nooooooooo…
Gerrib can be dispensed with, honestly, seeing as he is a would-be petty tyrant. More substantially, his contention that, in the current climate, “No award” means the rest of the works are awful is like saying that the number of people on trial in the People’s Court indicates that Stalin is under threat.
“And as for John C. Wright getting three Novella nominations… I like his writing, but yeah, I kinda thought that was too much as well. Maybe next year restrict it to one nomination per author per category?”
Concur. John can only win once, after all. The way it turned out this year, two other deserving people were boxed out so their works can’t even be considered.
Wright’s triple nomination is hardly unprecedented. 1999 had Michael Swanwick nominated three time for Short Story, and plenty of years and categories have had authors nominated twice. Anyway, Wright was only listed once on the Sad Puppies list. The triple nom is due to Rabid Puppies.
@Iowareader,
Vox Day isn’t on the Sad Puppies list. Take that complaint up with his Rabid Puppies group.
In retrospect, perhaps John should have refused two of the novella nominations and let to other authors have a shot, as now he is competing against himself.
But, truthfully, we didn’t even think of that until today. We were saw awed and humbled by the six nominations…we’ve just kind of been stunned and grateful.
Er…so awed. Not saw awed. Sorry.
Obviously, my typing skills are still stunned.
“Are you kidding me? Vox Day espouses every piece of bigotry we have a term for and probably a few more we don’t. He makes Orson Scott Card look like a free-loving hippie.”
And the point is that the sorts James spends far too much of his life quoting are every single bit as bad as Vox ever is by any real definition of racism, bigotry, and hate… it’s just that they hate the RIGHT people (most of the time) and everyone seems to approve of them. Also… I don’t know Card but I’m pretty darned sure that he IS the definition of a free loving hippie but that never stopped anyone from their much enjoyed hate fests. That you pull him in as an example of regular badness to illustrate VD’s uber badness says a lot about YOU.
Supposed “good” people say vile things every day and never get called on it because their bigotry and racism are *approved*. Try taking just about anything and changing out white for black or… since this is science fiction… use Grays or Martians or Vegans (from Vega)… I think you’d be utterly shocked at how much bigotry is going on. Stick “Islam” in for Christianity, “arab” for white… try it.
“Vox Day espouses every piece of bigotry we have a term for and probably a few more we don’t.”
Compared to who? Using what definition? What’s the strike zone here, and is it for everyone?
I have a list of some 70 people in one organization in SFF alone who routinely engage in what I’d call – using the Southern Poverty Law Center definition – hate speech. How do you play softball? By having 19 strikes to be called out for one side and 3 for the other? Why are we using two different foul lines based on race and sex. How can that work? How do 70 people ostracize 1 person for acting like the 70 people? That’s doublethink.
Why is one person a bigot and the other getting bravos for essentially the same rhetoric? What is the precise difference between calling a Jew “diabolical” and a “half-savage”? Why does that gap widen to a canyon when one is directed at a black person and one at all white people? Is that your strike zone? Why can N. K. Jemisin light up an entire continent as white and racist? What would happen if I did that to Africa? A sudden rules change, no doubt.
Fuck it. I’m not playing by those rules because it’s principle on one side and identity on the other. That will destroy any society it touches, large or small.
Why is one SJW who abhors Day for his “half-savage” comment sitting on Twitter today talking with a blogger who wrote “… we consider buffaloes especially stupid as animals go. The perfect analogy for white men”?
What possible rule can include hating the term “half-savage” but finding animal comparisons okay? I’d like it if SJW morons would make up some definition for racism or bigotry or hate speech everyone can benefit by. I wouldn’t even care what it was as long as it applied equally.
I voted for Mr. Wright several times with several works. This is because I believe he deserves SOMETHING for the terrific year he’s had (Book of Feasts and Seasons, City Beyond Time, AND One Bright Star? WOW.), and I thought several things he wrote were award-worthy.
I have little else to say besides that. My abundance of votes for Mr. Wright were because I think he is an excellent author who deserves it.
First of all, thank you, Brad! It was an honor serving while you held the SP banner.
“John can only win once, after all. The way it turned out this year, two other deserving people were boxed out so their works can’t even be considered.”
I read the works proposed for nomination and deemed John’s the best. Enough other members did likewise to get them all on the ballot. Sure, I could’ve omitted one of his stories in favor of something *almost* as good, but it would have meant putting sentiment before excellence.
The bemusing part about this entire process, is reading all of the arguments (if we can use that word without laughing) being deployed against Sad Puppies 3.
1 – The final ballot was rigged unfairly by a bunch of GamerGaters. Because apparently dudes who like video games are automatically excommunicated from the body of “proper” SF/F fans and should never, ever be allowed in the front door. EVER. Dirty rotten game-players who are (insert bad words here) and should die in a fire!
2 – The 2015 Hugos are borked because evil right-wingers politicized the award. Because “right-wingers” are also excommunicated from the body of “proper” SF/F fans, and oh by the way this award was never, ever political in any way, shape, or form, until the dirty right-wingers showed up. (*blows root beer out nose, guffawing*) Likewise, all the liberal authors on the slate (Bellet, Vajra, English) don’t count. Liberal authors only count when liberals push and campaign for them! (cough, Scalzi, TOR, et al. cough)
3 – The SP3 block vote was ethically unsound and should be punished with “No Award” voting. Because the best way to guarantee that the integrity of the award — as a pure judgment on the quality of the works themselves — is to immediately bork the final tally by voting “No Award” on everything, sight-unseen. That will totally prove that everyone voting “No Award” loves SF/F and just wants to see the best works represented, regardless of who writes them, or what politics might be involved. (*continues laughing with root beer coming out nose*)
4 – We, the pure fans of SF/F, will defeat the evil, political, nasty people, because were are pure and righteous and the evil, political, nasty people are not! YAY US! Because — again — the best way you prove that you aren’t a politicized robot douchebag about your voting practices, is to behave like a politicized robot douchebag. Then, when you refuse to acknowledge that you’ve been a politicized robot douchebag, people will totally believe you.
5 – None of the SP3 works or authors is good enough to compete with non-SP3 works. Because snobbery is absolutely not at work during these pure awards! Come, my brothers and sisters, let us cast out the unworthy people and their unworthy fiction! This is how we prove our inclusiveness! By throwing you out the door without even thinking twice! You never belonged! Get lost! We don’t even need to read your stinking stories! Get lost!
Seriously, the hanky-waving bed-wetters are proving — to the entirety of the world viewing this on the outside — that they aren’t grown-ups. That the whole thing is a “cool kids” operation, and now that the “cool kids” are getting beat with their own rules at their own game, it’s cause for panic and an immediate retreat to “No Award! No Award! No Award!”
Tell me, bed-wetters, who “loves” this field, again?
Yah, I don’t believe you either.
You don’t love this field nearly as much as you love having your way.
Somebody (suddenly bad, wrong fans!) is using a democratic process (suddenly broken and in need of fixing!) so that you don’t get to have your way, and you’re pitching a fit about it — and banging your plastic forks and knives on your high-chair tables, shrieking like a toddler who needs to be put in time out.
Totally mature, CHORFs. Totally mature.
SJWs don’t love this field. It’s pretty obvious the worst of them find radical feminism of more interest than SFF. They routinely churn out stories that are either not SFF at all – like Hild and “Wakulla Springs” – or only technically so by putting some fake caboose at the end of the story.
And it doesn’t matter who we put up for awards who happen to be not in their forbidden zone of straight white men, they’ll say we’re doing it to show we’re not bigots. SJWs just can’t accept the fact we don’t care. I’ve read all their arguments where they turn demography into ideology and act on that. Strangely, they never employ those same arguments about rap, boxing, romance fiction or anything outside the forbidden zone.
The reality is C. L. Moore, Leigh Brackett, Octavia Butler, Samuel Delany and Ursula K. Le Guin never would’ve had careers without the support of the very people intersectional feminists claim hate them. SJWs are pathological liars and naive rubes.
I have been more than happy in marginalizing the “marginalized,” since according to the definition of the Southern Poverty Law Center, those “marginalized” are an informally organized hate group.
In a 1975 interview Brackett said the following about coming into SFF:
“Everybody in the field welcomed me with open arms. All the other writers and editors and everybody were just great because we were such a small clubby group in those days that if you found another nut case that you could talk to, it was great.”
In 1975, in the introduction to The Best of C.L. Moore, veteran SFF author Lester del Rey wrote:
“I sat in the audience at a World Science Fiction Convention banquet, listening to Forrest J. Ackerman announce a special award that was about to be presented to a writer. As is customary, Ackerman was saving the name of the recipient for the climax. But he mentioned a story called ‘Shambleau’ and never got to finish his speech. As one, the 2,000 people in the audience came instantly to their feet in unanimous tribute—clapping, shouting, and craning to see a gracious and lovely lady blushingly accept the applause. Many in that audience had never read the story. But everyone knew about it. And everyone knew that Catherine Moore was one of the finest writers of all time in the field of science fiction.”
Does that sound like a community of misogynists?
“We still maintain that the Hugos ought to not be the personal plaything of a small group of taste-makers…” oh the irony here, it burns.
Wait for SP4, Terry. It’ll look totally different. As it should. We don’t want to replace the extant taste-makers. We want to obliterate predictable taste-making, period. And no, you don’t have to like it.
Best SP3 quote yet: “I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I am endlessly amused by people who claim to love democracy until somebody they don’t like turns out to be better at it than they are.” — Mark Whipple
I’m with malcolmthecynic and add that there was no way I wasn’t voting for My favorite stories simply because they happen to be by the same author. That would be like the weenie NYT book review knocking Harry Potter off into its own children’s fiction ghetto because Rowling was hogging the best seller spots.
And since my manic depressive puppies was posted online prior to the nominations, I can prove I voted for what I liked best – and not necessarily the straight SP slate (which is where the two noms for Winters Tale came from 🙂
How anyone can read both “Queen of the Tyrant Lizards” and “If Only You Had a CCP My Love, I’d Not Need to Write If You Give a Mouse a Cookie Parodies”, and *not* realize SP3 was striking a blow for quality storytelling is beyond me.
“Having done the math I wouldn’t be making plans to ship many rockets home from Sasquan.”
It’s funny. An epic, historic sweep, deemed entirely legal by every knowledgeable source, and you’re still going to spin it as “defeat is inevitable, give up now, Sad Puppies”?
“if we have whole categories of “no award” because the works suck will you admit defeat or will you argue that people are just bloc-voting against you?”
Did it escape your attention that Larry TURNED DOWN the nomination? That should suffice to serve as a warning. In answer to your question, no. We will neither admit defeat nor argue that people are just bloc-voting against us. But I, for one, will laugh.
@Terry: Is it ironic? Only if you ignore the dreck usually pushed by the Hugos (If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love? Really?) and the fact that the SP slates were some of the most ideologically diverse slates in the past decade or more.
Or, to put it another way: It’s the same thing as saying that it was “ironic” that many of the American politicians who were foursquare against the tyranny of Parliament were also very much in favor of increasing the power of the legislative branch here at home. That is, there might be irony there, but it is irrelevant to the point.
The accusations about GamerGaters are funny. As near as I can tell, most of them didn’t hear about Sad Puppies until the SJWs started raging about it during the past week. And then there’s Sarkeesian ranting about us using “fake memberships”. Fake? How, exactly?
The “process” was clearly “broken and in need of fixing” last year when both the Hugos and the Nebulas were packed with dreck like “If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love.”
And I suspect the fact that Teresa Nielsen-Hayden is so quick and eager to libel Tor authors like Kevin Anderson and John C. Wright – Mike Glyer posted a “Making Spite” excerpt from her this morning over at File 770, in which she called Wright a “pervert” – is a big part of the reason that she no longer works for Tor. Heh, talk about a “rabid puppy”…!
A couple of individuals asked about seeing the breakdown of the nominees. The last several years have seen the breakdown published by that year’s Worldcon shortly after the awards are announced (whether it is that night or the next day, I can’t recall).
Per Sasquan’s website (this year’s Worldcon), they will release the list of the top 15 nominees in each category after the Awards ceremony on August 22. This is fairly standard, though I would generally like to see the full nominee list because I’m a nerd like that.
Congratulations to all the nominees. And congratulations to you, Sad Puppies, although I fear you will become that which you profess to hate.