Sad Puppies 3: The Judgment of Solomon

Now that the internet is cooling down from its 15-minute rage nozzle episode (over the Sad Puppies 3 slate) I’d like to talk about something I see being floated a lot, among friends and critics alike: that the presence of the Sad Puppies 3 slate so thoroughly roils the voting waters, men and women of good conscience must vote “No Award” on their ballots. For those not in the know, the Hugo awards — Science Fiction & Fantasy literature’s self-labeled “most prestigious award” — the “No Award” option allows voters to pick a thumbs-down selection, in the event that none of the other works or people in a given category measure up to that voter’s expectations. In other words, if you have five flavors of ice cream to pick from, and you like none of them, you vote “No Award” for that category, and NO AWARD then becomes your primary selection.

Hugo voting is instant-runoff, so this means you could get creative about it. Let’s say you love strawberry ice cream, like chocolate ice cream, don’t mind vanilla, but you definitely don’t like orange sherbet or pralines and cream. So, when you fill out your Hugo ballot, you rank your selections as follows:

1 – Strawberry.
2 – Chocolate.
3 – Vanilla.
4 – NO AWARD.
5 – Orange sherbet.

Or, if you simply like none of the above, you could do:

1 – NO AWARD.
2 – Strawberry.
3 – Chocolate.
4 – Vanilla.
5 – Orange sherbet.

In the second scenario, if enough people vote as you do, the category will literally be carried by NO AWARD for that year, and no award will be given out. Everything below “No Award” will get left out in the cold. As having not measured up to the expectations of a majority of the voting body.

Historically, this almost never happens. At least in the literary categories, like Best Novel. Never has NO AWARD swept an entire fiction selection out of the running for a Hugo trophy. But there’s a lot of talk that this is precisely what’s going to happen by August 2015. Several editors, many significant and long-time fans, and even many relatively young fans, writers, and podcasters are all buzzing about how the “solution” to Sad Puppies, is to nuke the Hugos from NO AWARD orbit — because it’s the only way to be sure.

I find this to be peculiar and contradictory talk, for a field which has also been buzzing hotly about how it loves Science Fiction and it loves Fantasy, and what a shame it’s going to be to have to destroy the award in order to preserve and protect it from falling into the hands of the “wrong” voters or the “wrong” lists.

Have none of these individuals ever heard of the Judgment of Solomon?

If not, here’s a refresher from Sunday School: King Solomon had two mothers come before him, challenging each other for custody of a single baby. Unable to determine which mother had right of guardianship, Solomon said the the baby would be cut in half, so that one half would go to each mother. One of the women said, “Fine, kill the baby, so that neither of us shall have it,” while the actual mother of the child said, “No, she can have my son, just please don’t kill him!” Thus Solomon knew immediately who the real mother was. Because the actual mother’s love prevented her from seeing harm come to the child, even if it meant giving the child up.

The way you prove to the world you love a thing, is not to cut it in half — so that nobody gets anything.

The way you prove to the world that you love a thing, is to see the thing preserved. Maybe it winds up in the hands of somebody you don’t think deserves it, or because you don’t like how the thing got there in the first place. But declaring, “Cut it in half,” reveals a jealous possessiveness that belies any love that may be felt.

Right now Sad Puppies 3 is at the eye of a rather contentious genre storm, wherein many people who feel they have a claim on the Hugo awards — how they’re selected, and to whom they should go, according to tradition — are being challenged by people who feel they’ve either not had a voice in the past, or that their voices were too few, or too much ignored; even when they aren’t few. And because the system is a democratic system, anyone and everyone willing to pay the poll tax — in the form of a Worldcon membership — is allowed to participate. So the question comes down to, which sentiment will carry the day? The feeling that the baby (the Hugo) should be split and given to none? Or the feeling that the baby should be spared, even if it means the baby belongs to the “wrong” people?

My gut hunch is that there simply aren’t enough people at Worldcon willing to split the baby. I get it that purists and idealists alike have been most unhappy with the resounding success of Sad Puppies 3. If either myself or anyone else who’ve been working on Sad Puppies 3 this year, thought there was a better way to make some changes to the same-old same-old that has gone on — with the Hugos, in years past — I am sure we’d have picked a less dramatic method. Still, we broke no rules. We played the game the way it’s supposed to be played. And we’re proud of the authors, artists, editors, and other people we’ve brought to the final ballot. Both because of their many fine and worthy works, and the fact that this wasn’t just the result of a few people acting alone. A terrific number of fans — yes, even old-timers within WSFS; I know, I have the e-mails — threw in with Sad Puppies 3. For the sake of making a point. For a change of pace. To have some fun. And to put their weight behind a particular favorite (or favorites) who had been too long overlooked or neglected.

Now, my gut hunch might be wrong. Possessiveness can be as powerful an emotion as love. And many people, when jealously guarding a thing, will often default to wanting that thing destroyed, rather than see it fall into the “wrong” hands.

But I don’t think this will be the case. Oh, no question, “No Award” is going to be featured prominently in any category where Sad Puppies 3 (with the counter-slate Rabid Puppies) occupies all five of the available slots. I won’t be surprised to see “No Award” take third, or perhaps even second, place. But I doubt very much that “No Award” will claim first place in any category. Because there simply aren’t enough fans — even WSFS stalwarts — who are willing to turf an entire category out of spite. There are too many worthy works in all of the categories. Including works not on the SP3 or RP slates. And SF/F fans are like cats: notoriously averse to being herded. Plus, as a few pros have demonstrated, there is plenty or principled logic to support reading and voting for a work or a person on a slate despite disliking the slate itself. Why punish a good writer or editor or artist, simply for being on a list? It’s not like all the people participating in the nomination period dutifully went down the rows, reliably checking all the items without a second glance. Not for SP3, and not for any other suggested lists either — and there were many such lists, though perhaps not quite so extensive as ours.

In point of fact, of all the many SP3 voters who’ve contacted me at this point — and it’s been well over a hundred, and counting — even the people who stuck close to the trunk of the tree, deviated from the slate in remarkable ways.

Which was never a problem for anyone working on SP3 behind the scenes. We made it clear up front at the beginning: we wanted more involvement, first and foremost. Whether or not people followed our suggestions wasn’t nearly as important as the fact that we wanted people who’d not had a voice before, to have a voice. And we wanted them to read the suggested works, and make their own calls.

Now we’re faced with the call for “No Award! If you love the Hugos! No Award!”

It’s the Judgment of King Solomon, come to SF/F’s top accolade.

Choose wisely, my friends.

Advertisements

319 thoughts on “Sad Puppies 3: The Judgment of Solomon

  1. As a Hugo voter who made nominations in good faith as an individual and saw them have almost no chance of making the ballot because of your cynical campaign, I will be voting No Award above all slate candidates. It sends the strongest message that I deplore bloc voting and do not want to see others adopt this tactic in the future.

    George R. R. Martin wrote on his blog today, “I think the Sad Puppies have broken the Hugo Awards, and I am not sure they can ever be repaired.”

    https://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

    I sadly concur.

  2. @Rogers Cadenhead

    Oh yeah, show us how naughty we are by working within the rules and not judging a work on how good it is, but because some people decided that it was good and you happen to disagree.

    Bravo! That will show us! Throw a temper tantrum like a child, because that is what this is, it is children throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get their way.

  3. “As a Hugo voter who made nominations in good faith as an individual and saw them have almost no chance of making the ballot because of your cynical campaign”

    Translation: “My vote is more important than yours.”

  4. Brad, perhaps you could answer a question. Prior to the rise of the SP campaigns, was it considered necessary that folk intending to nominate a work/writer for a Hugo first contact their intended nominee for permission to do so? Because I’m seeing a lot of indignation and frothing over so-and-so wasn’t asked for permission to be nominated!!! Oh, the humanity! And it just seems entirely peculiar, not to mention impractical, to me.

  5. I don’t think bloc voting is an example of evaluating each work and deciding how good it is.

    For months the proponents of the Puppies slate have promoted them as a chance to stick it to “social justice warriors.” To me, that appears to be what happened: A bunch of people voted straight party ticket instead of doing what the rest of us Hugo voters were doing — picking the best works by our own idiosyncratic tastes.

    Before the ballot came out, I thought the Puppies’ rhetoric was obnoxious but I thought their campaign might turn out to be a net-positive by bringing more fans into the Hugo voting process.

    But when the entire ballot is full of almost nothing but slate selections — including Vox Day putting himself, his publishing house and his authors all over the ballot in a brazen example of self-dealing — and Day is posting on Black Gate calling himself an “arsonist” who is willing to see the “destruction” of the awards, we’ve ventured a long way from people fairly nominating and celebrating the best SF/F works of the year.

  6. The sheer, swollen sense of brattish entitlement on the part of CHORFs — “Waaaaahhhhh! You all made it so someone to the ideological left of Pol Pot conceivably might not win a little plastic spaceship this year! No Fair! NO FAAAAAIIIIIRRRRRRRR!!!” [::violent banging of sippy cups against highchair trays here::] — makes them all sound absolutely, 110% bugf*ck crazy, doesn’t it?

    Better start internalizing those long overdue lessons, re: The Sharing of One’s Toys, poppets.

    As we’ve all seen thus far: wetting yourselves and wailing in pinched, red-faced panic isn’t changing our minds any.

  7. They would be crazy to destroy the Hugos in order to preserve their mythical purity.

    Which means they probably will.

  8. I thought their campaign might turn out to be a net-positive by bringing more fans into the Hugo voting process.

    Which it did.

    You’re welcome.

  9. Our SF/F will be mediocre and intersectional or it will be bullshit! /s

    As a lifelong fan of the genre, I completely support what the Sad Puppies campaign has accomplished. I’m sick of having people’s political agendas shoved down my throat, then awarded as “the best”. True, worthy SF/F makes you think, it doesn’t preach to you how you should think.

    I don’t care about anyone’s politics, I care about the stories.

  10. There was no “Puppies slate” (singular). There were two (public) slates, plus the decades-long behind-the-scenes one that’s given us Hugos for such deathless literary masterpieces as Redshirts.

    Either you did not know this (in which case you’re not qualified to have an opinion on this topic) or you did know it and are dishonestly attempting to conflate the Vox Day slate with the one Brad ran.

    Which is it?

  11. Our SF/F will be mediocre and intersectional or it will be bullshit! /s

    “Won’t you please, PLEASE think of all the pan-sexual third world dinosaurs, my love…?!?” 😉

  12. Wow, Rogers. You’re showing a remarkable lack of self-awareness. It’s okay, here’s your ball, you can take it and go home if you like. And no, your vote doesn’t count any more than mine does!

    When I clicked on the Amazing Stories link at the end of the article, one of the ads on the side was for “Revolution 60, the official game of Amazing Stories!” (Yes, the Brianna Wu game) I thought ads were supposed to ATTRACT customers?

  13. The CHORFS haven’t figured out that if they succeed, it will prove what Sad Puppies has been saying all along: that the Hugos no longer have anything to do with merit.

  14. Hi Brad,
    apologies for asking this in comments as I could not find an easy way to contact you directly. In the next few days I will be writing a blog post on the SP/RP Hugo thing and adding my voice to the hurricane.

    I would very much like to use the picture you posted of your family as a jumping off point.
    I wanted to know if I could use it directly in my post. If not that’s no problem and I will simply put a link to your post (I will do that anyway since I refrain from mentioning people without links/credits so people can make up their own mind).
    If you would like to see the post first prior to deciding that’s understandable too and I will be happy to send you a preview if you tell me where to do so.

    In the interest of full disclosure I am an RP supporter, but I am sure that you are primarily interested in me telling the truth first, and my particular stance on anything else second.

    Lastly, THANK YOU.
    THANK YOU.
    THANK YOU.

    There are literally thousands, if not millions of people that you have helped somehow vindicate a little bit with your work in the SP campaign. We are grateful for the sense of growing spiritual, mental and emotional freedom yours and Larry’s actions have provided. Thanks you.
    G.

  15. To “No Award” the entire Hugo slate, they’ll have to drag in an _awful_ lot of shills who hate diversity more than they love SF, to pony up actual cash just out of spite.

    I mean, it _could_ happen…the capacity of the SJW set for temper tantrums is not to be underestimated. But at $40 per ballot, let’s just say it’ll be a lot more expensive than whining on twitter or convincing their pet MSM dupes to print libelous articles.

  16. Ahh, again the lie positing the certainty that there was ‘bloc voting’ with no proof offered other than an indigent feeling of such having occured. That should be all you need to know about the first comment on this article. Heres a hint, unless you have the nomination breakdown results, all you are doing is guessing. It might be. It might not, but you have NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH BLOC VOTING OCCURED OTHER THAN YOU FEEL IT TO BE TRUE.

    And if you do have such evidence, all that proves is there is back door crap going on, which, well, was the exact point of Larry starting this whole thing.

    Also, GRRM quoting EW, et al, all I can do is ‘lol’.

    That is all.

  17. As a voter I wasn’t happy with some of the trends in what was winning Hugo awards. That’s one of the reasons I became a voter. I wanted more of the kinds of SF/F I like to take home a rocket.

    People keep claiming there have been hidden conspiracies to manipulate the Hugo awards in past years, but as a fan and voter I saw zero evidence of it and never read any credible evidence presented by others.

    On Larry Correia’s blog this week, I posted a challenge to him: I said I’d buy a copy of every novel he has written if he could prove that even a single novel/novella/novelette category was stuffed with a secret bloc’s nominees in the past 10 years.

    Correia admitted there’s no proof and wrote, “Luckily for you, they’re not that stupid, but I won’t miss the sales.”

    In my opinion, Torgerson, Correia and Day are peddling a myth — secret cabals stole the Hugos and now we’re taking them back! — to motivate people to part with $40 and stick it to these non-existent evildoers.

  18. The Hugo Awards were already broken. Broken by the CHORF cliques and their gatekeeping and power schemes. Now the Sad Puppy Army is outside the gates of Hugoland and the orders come from the CHORFührerbunker to destroy Hugoland!! But RealFans must do their utmost to save the Hugos and SF&F from the CHORF/SJW Nero Decree, to take up the banners
    of SF&F and raise them above the shattered hulk of the CHORFstag!!

  19. I came relatively late to this, when the Hugo ballot came out. I’ve refrained from involvement with fandom for close to 20 years in large measure because of this kind of nonsense. You are a very good writer and your stories in Analog particularly impress me. I don’t belong to either camp here, I disagree with both sides intensely on various points and, frankly, no one save for some of the nominees looks good here. Your stated intent with SP 3 was to recommend work for consideration for the Hugo. But apparently, there were no more than five works in any category you found deserving of recommendation.

    Now, if I felt that there were works which would likely be overlooked which were deserving of consideration, I could easily find ten or more works in each short fiction category. If I thought long and hard, I could probably find ten novels worth considering. That’s what I would do if I simply wanted to widen the discussion and make recommendations. If I just wanted to make a point, all I would do is widely broadcast the following: “If you don’t like the Hugo nominations ballots the last few years, then NOMINATE THE WORKS YOU LIKE! If you don’t bother to nominate, then stop complaining!”-without making recommendations.

    If I wanted very much to gum up the works and “accomplish” what has come to pass here, I’d release a list with no more than five recommendations, label them “recommendations” only (wink, wink) and urge people to nominate, because, that way, you put forth a limited set of recommendations on lists which will likely be seen and copied by a large enough group of people to make them the likely final result, because everyone who isn’t nominating the SP slate will spread their choices over a more widely varied set of options.

    That’s not what bothers me most. What bothers me most is that one of two lists involved here (Rabid Puppies) is filled with stuff from ONE publishing imprint. The final Hugo ballot has fully ONE/THIRD of the three short fiction categories being the work of ONE author, including three of five novellas-ALL of them published by the imprint the author of one of the two lists edits. Seven of 15 short fiction nominees were published by said imprint. That strikes me as odd, to say the least.

    Your critics may be reacting like children in many ways, but your actions and the results make you look no better than they do. You effectively trolled the Hugos, whatever you say your intentions were. Compare the correlations of the separate lists and do the math. I suspect that your motives as a group are a trifle impure. I have no doubt that’s “Vox Day”‘s motives are impure as hell. The more I look at this, the more convinced I become that what happened with the Hugo ballot is what you, “Vox Day” and Larry Correia planned for all along, right down to you only placing three recommendations for novella, four for novelette and having three of five nominees in common on short story. This was choreographed.

  20. In my opinion, Torgerson, Correia and Day are peddling a myth

    … whereas, in my opinion, Theresa Hayden’s parents were both: a.) circus people; and b.) first cousins. Offered up with exactly as much in the way of supporting evidence as you did for yours.

    See how that whole “opinions” thing works, there…?

  21. Rogers Cadenhead,

    I can only speak for myself, and go by what a number of others have told me, but I took Brad at his word and looked at SP3 as suggestions. Yes, I voted for some of those named by SP3 but I also nominated a number that weren’t included on SP3. I happened to have read everything I voted for. So, does the fact that some of my nominees wound up being on the SP3 slate as well, does that make my vote any less proper than yours?

    And what sort of message are you and those like you sending when you refuse to even consider whether or not something is worthy of a Hugo just because you don’t like the way it made it to the ballot? Did SP3 break the rules? No. Did Brad do anything others haven’t also done? No.

    As for Vox, well, he was not on the SP3 slate. Yes, some authors from Castilia House were but do we condemn them because you don’t like the actions of their publisher? Or do you not recognize that SP3 is a separate slate from Rabid Puppies?

    Yes, I was one of those Brad recommended via SP3 and I was honored to be asked. Just as I am honored to have made the final ballot. That is not why I support what Brad did. I support it because he did something it appears a number of folks opposing him abhor: he told the reading public that they can and should have a say in who wins a Hugo. All the vitriolic comments saying that the Awards don’t belong to the readers or fans but to the true fans, those who have been long term WorldCon goers, doesn’t read inclusive to me. It seems like they don’t want new blood, either in fandom or on the Hugo ballot.

    Go ahead and vote No Award if you wish but, if you do and if the Hugos are broken as a result, don’t blame those who did take part. Blame yourself and those like you who acted like spoiled kids who didn’t get your way.

  22. “To ‘No Award’ the entire Hugo slate, they’ll have to drag in an _awful_ lot of shills who hate diversity more than they love SF, to pony up actual cash just out of spite.”

    It would not be necessary to bring in new voters. The group of people who vote for the final winner is over twice as large as the group that nominates. Last year there were 1,595 nominations for best novel and 3,587 voters choosing the winner.

    So there are likely 2,000 people who did not make nominations and will be deciding how to respond to the unprecedented use of bloc voting to fill entire categories of the ballot.

    I’m not going to predict whether No Award will win any categories, but given the outrage I’m reading across the SF/F online community I think there will be quite a few voters who use it to reject the strategy of bloc voting.

  23. It’s not against the rules to vote No Award, with 4 other blank spots below that. And Sad Puppies are all about following rules, right?

  24. Then again, what proof do you have that the people that voted for Sad Puppies candidates didn’t actually read the works and think they were worthy of nomination? If your standard is proof, and you don’t hold both sides to the same standard, it pretty clearly shows which side you are on.

    Given that the statistics seem to show that the SP-recommended works had very varied vote totals, it’s less likely that the SP slate made the ballot via block voting than previous years SJW recommendation lists.

  25. “It sends the strongest message that I deplore bloc voting and do not want to see others adopt this tactic in the future.”

    Sorry, but that ship has already sailed. People always pimped their suggestions for what to nominate for the Hugos, just not as overtly as SP did. If anything, bloc voting is now out in the open and it’s here to stay. My suggestion to YOU is to come up with your own slate and run with it. If it counters the recommendations on the next SP slate, fine. If not, your nominations didn’t have enough votes to get onto the final ballot.

    “…to motivate people to part with $40 and stick it to these non-existent evildoers.” You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    Also, did you not read Brad’s post above? Specifically, this part: “In point of fact, of all the many SP3 voters who’ve contacted me at this point — and it’s been well over a hundred, and counting — even the people who stuck close to the trunk of the tree, deviated from the slate in remarkable ways.”

  26. “Compare the correlations of the separate lists and do the math. ”

    Compare Amazon sales ranks and do the math.

    They have more fans than you do. This year they asked their fans to vote. They did.

  27. It’s not against the rules to vote No Award, with 4 other blank spots below that. And Sad Puppies are all about following rules, right?

    Yes, there’s nothing wrong with that. It will certainly show us. We will see that you think it’s more important to protect the privileged elite that have dominated the award for years than to promote good Science Fiction and Fantasy works and advertise them to the mass of fans. That will really show us.

  28. I am just going to say as a reader, I do not remember the last time I read a TOR book or author. However, I have read and enjoyed most of the authors on the SP3 list. hhhmmmm let me think of what that means….. Maybe Tor should too.

  29. “So there are likely 2,000 people who did not make nominations”

    I think you’re going to be quite surprised at how many supporting members there are this year, particularly if the idiots keep blaming this on “GamerGate”. On the other hand, I guess that will give your guys a convenient excuse to play victim, and we all know that’s what this is really all about, right?

    “It’s not against the rules to vote No Award, with 4 other blank spots below that. And Sad Puppies are all about following rules, right?”

    It is perfectly within the rules to do that, but I don’t think that strategy is going to end up where you imagine that it’s going to end up.

  30. “Seven of 15 short fiction nominees were published by said imprint. That strikes me as odd, to say the least.”

    and TOR filling 40% of the best editor long form nominations since the category was created doesn’t do anything to your finely tuned corruption detector?

  31. “My suggestion to YOU is to come up with your own slate and run with it.”

    I think that’s the worst possible response to what the Puppies have done to the 2015 ballot. The Hugo awards should not be a party system where a minority of voters acting in lockstep can win over a majority of individuals who are just voting their preferences without coordinating their efforts. It will not be an improvement if there’s a Sad Puppies slate and an Anti-Sad Puppies slate next year.

    Surely you can see the difference between an author posting his or her Hugo recommendations and Vox Day running a bloc voting campaign that put himself and his publishing house’s authors on the Hugo ballot 11 times.

    The Sad Puppies campaign was begun by Larry Correia out of a belief that some writers were being unfairly kept off the Hugo ballot for considerations other than the excellence of their work.

    How can anyone possibly defend Day being on the ballot 11 times as fair?

  32. “How can anyone possibly defend Day being on the ballot 11 times as fair?”

    How can anyone possibly defend John Scalzi having more Hugo nominations than Arthur C. Clarke?

    You go first.

  33. Roger Cadenhead –

    What bloc-voting? Seriously, are you aware of a *single* person who voted only the slate? Just one. That’s all I want from you. Name *one* such person.

  34. We can’t defend Vox on the ballot: we didn’t put him there. He and his supporters did. Take it up with them.

  35. Rogers is determined to make this about Vox Day ’cause he’s Voldemort or Beetlejuice or something. You’re on the wrong site, Rogers.

    And yeah, I didn’t vote for him, so I don’t have to “defend” anything.

  36. I first got involved with voting last year as a result of SP2, but only nominated or voted for works that I have read and liked, the “slate” has just been a starting point of things to look at for me. I actually went looking for the people who asked to be removed from SP3 because of the harassment because I figured they were worth reading.

    Next year I hope we can move away from having a “slate” of works and have multiple lists from different people about what they liked (and from publishers of what works are eligible)

    I actually doubt that very many people voted the straight SP3 or RP ‘slate’, but when the final nomination numbers are eventually released, we should be able to tell.

    question, are nominations ordered like votes? or is it just a list?

  37. “I think that’s the worst possible response to what the Puppies have done to the 2015 ballot. The Hugo awards should not be a party system where a minority of voters acting in lockstep can win over a majority of individuals who are just voting their preferences without coordinating their efforts.”

    Uh, Roger, the Sad Puppies group and their supporters are basically a bunch of individuals who got handed a list of suggestions for what to nominate and did their thing. And again, per Brad’s post, which you seem keen to either ignore or deliberately overlook, a lot of SP supporters who voted deviated away from the list. How, pray tell, is this bloc-voting?

    “It will not be an improvement if there’s a Sad Puppies slate and an Anti-Sad Puppies slate next year.”

    Sure it will. Slate, I think, is perhaps the incorrect word to use here. They’re recommendations. Suggestions. That’s all.

    “Perhaps the SJW Powers that Be could hold an alternative Worldcon in Avignon until you Sad Puppies come to your senses.”

    That will be hilarious – mostly because it’d be small and insular.

    Again, this genie’s out of the lamp and has had his wish fulfilled to become something other than a genie. Get used to it.

  38. “How can anyone possibly defend Day being on the ballot 11 times as fair?”

    In a democratic system, “fair” is whatever a majority of the people who show up to the polls want.

    If a majority of the people who submit ballots this year vote for “No Award” in every category, screaming “In order to save the Hugos, we have to destroy the Hugos!”, we’ll get to see a mighty embarrassed Sasquan conduct the spectacle of a big ceremony in which to do nothing at all. I’m betting that won’t happen, but if it does, and it isn’t the result of fraud, then it’s still fair.

    Or, you know…there could be a diverse group of winners. Again, as long as the ballot-counting isn’t corrupted by fraud, that’d be fair too. Also, I think, better. Some apparently disagree, which is fine. Free country, and all that.

  39. Perhaps the SJW Powers that Be could hold an alternative Worldcon in Avignon until you Sad Puppies come to your senses.

    That should make for a cozy, intimate dinner party.

    “Hi! Welcome to Denny’s! Table for six…?”

  40. The Hugos have largely been meaningless for years. That it’s only 2 out of five nominees in Editor-Long Form as opposed to 3 or 4 shows that Tor is inept at corrupting the process, given how much their editors are involved with fandom. SP/RP packed the list in three of four fiction categories and had 18 of 20 fiction nominees. Tor’s size relative to the rest of the field is such that, if they actually wanted to have all five slots in both editor categories, they could do it out of petty cash and not even notice the outlay. Tor could actually just have all its employees buy memberships and pack the ballot 100% with Tor if they wished.

  41. I think that’s the worst possible response to what the Puppies have done to the 2015 ballot. The Hugo awards should not be a party system where a minority of voters acting in lockstep can win over a majority of individuals who are just voting their preferences without coordinating their efforts.

    Again, you have no proof that anyone is acting in lockstep. Since there is no way to prevent lockstep voting (punishing only one side does nothing to prevent it, in fact it only encourages the other side to continue) your best bet is to find those voters that are open to suggestion and give them the great sci-fi books that the slates are missing and let word-of-mouth advertising sell your books to a wider audience.

    You might also want to take the Sad Puppies at their word that they’re looking for the best sci-fi regardless of creator’s identity or politics. I know I certainly am, and I always appreciate good book recommendations. And you might also want to assume they’re telling you their honest opinions that the books they recommended are really good. But that would require having an open mind…

  42. “How can anyone possibly defend John Scalzi having more Hugo nominations than Arthur C. Clarke?”

    Scalzi has a large online following, frequently helps other authors, tweets more often each day than he takes a breath, and makes sure his fans know he has Hugo-eligible works at nomination time. That’s my presumption, as someone who has never voted for him and did not agree with the Redshirts Hugo win, on why he does so well.

    But before you accuse Scalzi of dirty dealing, the promotional tactic he uses is exactly like what many authors do during nomination time. He has never encouraged bloc voting. There’s never been a Scalzi party line on a slate of nominations.

  43. Tor could actually just have all its employees buy memberships and pack the ballot 100% with Tor if they wished.

    [::shrugs::] Go for it. It’s no less the dreaded “bloc voting” (Cue SCREAMS. ORGAN MUSIC.) than “No Award” is/would be.

    Veiled threat, once unveiled, seems somewhat… underwhelming.

  44. “He has never encouraged bloc voting. There’s never been a Scalzi party line on a slate of nominations.”

    You are pretty much repeating yourself here like a broken record, but I’m not too surprised by that.

  45. Anyone want to ballpark the number of panels in the last decade or Workd Con about the greying of fandom?

    Well, congrats, you’re getting new blood. Of course, you can’t be too shocked when those new people don’t do it quite the same way when you prefer the cold shoulder to the welcoming hand.

    Almost makes me want to write a short story about a world where Larry wasn’t shunned and made unwelcome in Reno…

  46. “Scalzi has a large online following”

    So…sort of like the Sad Puppies, then?

    “frequently helps other authors”

    So…sort of like the Sad Puppies, then? Larry Correia is teaching a friggin’ college class starting in a couple of weeks, and unlike some (cough) “prestigious workshops” one could mention, he’s not charging a thousand bucks a crack. It’s a hundred bucks, and I’m willing to bet most of that is going to college overhead.

    “makes sure his fans know he has Hugo-eligible works at nomination time.”

    So… sort of like…. campaigning, then?

    The claim that what Scalzi has been doing for years is somehow different from SP is doing is just a convenient stalking horse, as are your repeated attempts to drag in Vox Day.

    And, no, I never accused Scalzi of “dirty dealing”. That came out of your head, Rogers. He does campaign, though. I don’t see anything wrong with it. You, apparently, only see something wrong with it when people you don’t like do it.

  47. Anyone want to ballpark the number of panels in the last decade or Workd Con about the greying of fandom?

    Well, congrats, you’re getting new blood.

    … and not even so much as the common courtesy of a simple, straightforward “thank you,” mind!

    😉

  48. a convenient stalking horse, as are your repeated attempts to drag in Vox Day.

    Each and every time one of these maladroits makes another failed attempt at conflating SAD Puppies with RABID Puppies: I know I’m looking at someone as bone ignorant as any given ground squirrel.

  49. “Dave? I can’t see your gender. Dave? Is that you?” – HAL 9000 in the Hugo Award-winning novel Intersectional Zombies in Space by Ann White Supremacy

  50. “I know I’m looking at someone as bone ignorant as any given ground squirrel.”

    Ignorant or dishonest. There really isn’t a third option.

  51. “… as are your repeated attempts to drag in Vox Day.”

    I’m talking about Vox Day because he put a slate on the Hugo nominations ballot through the use of bloc voting, following the playbook originated by Correia and carried on by Torgersen.

    Since my objection is to bloc voting regardless of who does it, he’s part of the problem.

    I also bring him up because it would be nice to see a Sad Puppies organizer say “you know, we’re not happy he got himself and his authors all over the ballot either. That’s not what we were talking about when we said we wanted more diversity in Hugo winners.” But so far no takers.

  52. “I also bring him up because it would be nice to see a Sad Puppies organizer say “you know, we’re not happy he got himself and his authors all over the ballot either. That’s not what we were talking about when we said we wanted more diversity in Hugo winners.””

    Ah. So you’re looking for a Stalin-style denouncement kind of thingie, then. Get bent.

  53. “He does campaign, though. I don’t see anything wrong with it. You, apparently, only see something wrong with it when people you don’t like do it. You, apparently, only see something wrong with it when people you don’t like do it.”

    You assume incorrectly. I don’t like online campaigning for Hugos. I think it can make us miss out on recognizing great writers who have the sense not to waste their time on the Internet the way I’m doing today.

  54. Regardless of one’s opinion of the SP/RP slates and their motivations, the solution is the same: get more people to participate and to vote, and thus make the Hugos truly a “readers’ choice” award. If one disaffected minority could make such a massive difference in the process, it was clearly not representative, whatever the quality of the results. Prior to this week, I didn’t know Hugo-voting was something a normal human being could do; as a lifelong SF/F reader, I’m thinking about scraping up $40 to do it this year.

  55. ” I don’t like online campaigning for Hugos.”

    But, only when people you don’t like do it does it become necessary to RAGEQUIT the Hugos? Is that it? Help me out here. Because I find it fascinating that this sudden outbreak of Hugo voting ethics just happens to coincide with people you don’t like getting on the ballot.

  56. I also bring him up because it would be nice to see a Sad Puppies organizer say “you know, we’re not happy he got himself and his authors all over the ballot either. That’s not what we were talking about when we said we wanted more diversity in Hugo winners.” But so far no takers.

    I’m willing to bet good, hard U.S. cash that you’re neither the father nor the personal deity of anyone posting here.

    As such: no one owes you any such oath of ideological purity, abject or otherwise.

    It’d be nice to see some working SF professional(s) baldly state, online: “‘If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love’ was the single most cringe-inducing nomination in Hugo history, and serves as inarguable evidence that the field and its pet award are both well and truly broken — perhaps irrevocably so.”

    So far, though: no takers.

  57. @rcade – This isn’t VD’s blog. VD wasn’t on the SP slate. And if you are serious about opposing “slates” for the subject of slates, then it shouldn’t matter who got put on, or in what order, or how many times. Repeatedly hammering on VD (again, not here!) re-enforces the perception that your grief is with WHO got elected, not HOW.

    Where I will agree is that multiple works by one person is a bit much. Were it me, (cue hysterical laughter, yeah right) I would expect that I would accept only one nom, for the work which I was most pleased with. Wright (who is on the SP list) has since said that *had he thought about it* he would have declined nomination for all but one, but at the time he was simply so gobsmacked he just said, yes, thank you, I am honored (or some such.) (This was via his spouse, some details may be inaccurate.)

    HOWEVER, to quote some wise commentor over at Making Light, “This has happened before and it wasn’t seen as a problem.” Again, the process seems fine until it gets a result one doesn’t fancy.

    I am willing to entertain the premise that visible slates in this venue are so horrific they must be avoided at all costs. However, you’re going to have to put forth reasons for *that* which don’t include “because you guys used them to pick works I don’t fancy.”

  58. Frankly Mr. Cadenhead, I’d rather see the latest issue of Cosmopolitan on every single ballot than the smug line-up of intersectional idiots from last year who obsessively talk about white men as if they were soulless pigs haunting their dreams.

    A.) It would be less harmful to SFF literature
    B.) “Cosmopolitan isn’t spelled with 3 “K’s” at the front.

    Conclusion: Win-Win

  59. I wonder how far this loyalty oath thing should be taken. Rogers, would you be okay with demanding that any Hugo nominee repudiate, in writing, any support for Marxism? I mean, given that whole “murdered a hundred million people” thing from the last century?

  60. I am a bystander. I sadly have too many responsibilities to read science fiction like I did when I was a kid. I did not vote with respect to these awards. But from what I hear, I can’t imagine any of the great works of my childhood getting nominated for anything these days.

    My goodness, what a mean group the old guard is. They resemble nothing so much as the medieval Catholic Church trying to burn heretics. This is just one year, people.

    I think the fear is not that the slate is bad, but that it is good. Which is what you would expect if quality works were denied over many years and then got through all at once.

  61. Ah. So you’re looking for a Stalin-style denouncement kind of thingie, then. Get bent.

    “Renounce Vox Day, and all of his unclean works, or be herewith branded, now and forevermore, as Hastur’s Regular Saturday Night Squeeze Thang! Confess, damn your heathen eyes! CONFESSSSSSSSSS — !!!”

  62. “I object to bloc voting therefore I shall protest by organizing and participating in bloc voting.” Seems odd that these protests were silent when TOR authors were “all over the ballot” in some previous years. Why were those events not just cause for similar protests?

    Light is a wonderful disinfectant.

  63. “I can’t imagine any of the great works of my childhood getting nominated for anything these days.”

    Meaning, under the narrow ideological regime that has apparently existed up until this year. Probably they would only make it through in a year like this.

  64. I agree Swirky’s slop-bucket about an allegorical prehistoric Freedom Rider was the single stupidest event in Hugo history. Even S. Clay Wilson isn’t as satirically witty as Swirsky is unaware. He’s just no match for that woman, possibly because he can’t shut off his brain.

    Swirsky may be the only person alive who could’ve written dead serious comics more insidiously vulgar and unintentionally funny than R. Crumb’s best efforts.

  65. “Because I find it fascinating that this sudden outbreak of Hugo voting ethics just happens to coincide with people you don’t like getting on the ballot.”

    I never said I don’t like the people on the ballot. I’m sure there are some fine authors and works there, and Jim Butcher is certainly one who should’ve been there earlier. Black Gate is a site that I would have nominated if I thought of it. Larry Correia’s ideas about what constitute good SF/F are probably pretty close to my own, since I’m a 30-year reader of the genre who grew up on Heinlein, Asimov, Silverberg and Vonnegut.

    But liking or not liking slate nominees isn’t the issue. Bloc voting is an unfair manipulation of the process that made it impossible for most Hugo voters to have a chance to put nominees on the ballot, so I’m rejecting that.

  66. If we actually attempted to create an entirely fictitious Social Justice CHORF-slash-SF writer, for wholly satirical purposes: could we, in our most collectively depraved conjurings, ever have come up with anything so stereotypically perfect as either the authoress of “If You Were a Two-Spirit Genderqueer Brachiosaurus, Ol’ Buddy Ol’ Pal” OR the fawning, cult-like adoration accorded it by its doe-eyed fans and supporters?

    I think not. I think not. 😉

  67. Rogers Cadenhead I find it instructive that you have completely failed to address the quality of the works that have been nominated. Please illuminate the situation by picking any category of your choosing, discuss the relative merits of each nominated work and why each and every one of those works deserves neither a nomination nor an award. Please discuss the works themselves and not your petty politics. I’d like to hear you state directly to each of these authors why you think their works lack merit to such a degree that No Award is the best option.

  68. Rogers, I don’t know if you’ll read this, and honestly don’t particularly care, but I just paid $40 specifically to counteract one of these “No Awards” crowd. I can’t say it was particularly your posts that caused me to do it, but well, maybe it was. It feels good to know that your complaining to Mr. Torgersen just neutralized your own vote.

    I don’t particularly like the concept of slate voting either. I think SP3 could have been done differently. But to blame Brad and Larry and the SP folk for this is ludicrous. The system is already a joke. The awards are already a joke. Whether that’s because of mysterious block voting from Tor or simply because the SJW are the strongest crowd out there and are overtly political, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the Hugos, currently, do not really represent the best that sci-fi has to offer. And that is not in any way, shape, or form the fault of the SP campaign.

    A personal story: back when I was 12 or so, I thought I was a sci-fi fan. Why? Because I read Star Trek novels. Hardly a cultured fan, but what did I know, I was 12. One day, I saw a the library was giving out bookmarks that had the list of Hugo winning novels on them, and I realized to my shame I had never read any of them. So I turned that bookmark into my reading list. It was the best decision of my life. Well, not really, because it’s just books, but it was the best decision of my literary life. Almost every book I picked up I loved. I was introduced to Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov. I was blown away by Dune. I read Ender’s Game in one day because I simply could not put it down, and then read it all again 2 weeks later.

    And that’s why, reading about all the drama surrounding the Hugos, I’m pissed off enough to spend $40 on it. The Hugos actually did have a big impact on my life. And so what of the 12 year old kids of today going to the library and finding a list of them now? Redshirts? If You Were a Dinosaur? (Yes, I know it’s not a novel) Would a kid today be able to pick up modern Hugo award winning stories and fall in love with the genre?

    Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead are quite possibly the best one-two punch I have ever read. A fast paced action story with real, heartfelt depth behind it, followed by an anthropological and morally challenging mystery built around several wonderfully broken yet strong characters. And I have no doubt in my mind, NO DOUBT, that if they were written today that they would be banished from the award process. Not because of quality, but because of Card’s politics and religion. If those books had come out today, today’s kids wouldn’t find them on a bookmark in a library.

    Politics have already poisoned the Hugos long before SP came into play. That’s something that I just can’t wrap my head around. I can read Starship Troopers and The Forever War back to back without any problems. As long as the story is strong and the politics don’t overwhelm and convert to preachiness, a book is worth reading. Why would someone want to read only the stuff that fits their worldview? Isn’t that kinda boring? And even worse, why is a work only worth reading if you agree with the worldview of the person who wrote it, regardless of if that worldview shows up in the book? How does that even make sense?

    So don’t blame Sad Puppies for the fiasco we live in. I can’t even mention that I like Orson Scott Card’s stories without people shouting about hatred and intolerance and whatever and hating me for even mentioning him. It pisses me off that the SJWs are trying to remake the sci-fi world in their own image. So what should the response be? Ignore it? Cower from it? Or fight back? Crush the SJWs so that, maybe, just maybe, we can possibly go back to the way things were. I don’t know if that latter part is possible; probably not. But frankly, I trust the Sad Puppies crowd to let the politics go a lot more than I trust the intolerant, hateful, bigoted modern McCarthyists that are the SJWs.

    Hence why I bought the $40. Hopefully SP4 next year is different. Hopefully it is a recommendation of, say, a dozen different works in each category, so that there is no slate. Or maybe it can just be a giant list of recommendations by fans, organized by number of people recommending it. I don’t know. I don’t particularly like slate voting either. But all I do know is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and there is no greater enemy to the media world (including sci fi) than the SJWs. And I’ll be damned if I just sit back and let the SJWs torpedo many good authors just because someone they don’t like had the gall to like said authors.

  69. A “microaggression” is asking an ethnic Asian born in Des Moines if they have skyscrapers in Bangkok or saying “Pearl Harbor” to them in a funny voice. I have my own list I have to hear about every day which by an amazing coincidence is right here:

    “Examine your privilege.”
    “Are you related to King Arthur?”
    “You are the sole source of microaggressions.”
    “We have no need for a protocol ‘droid.”
    “I never think of you as a white guy.”
    “What does NASCAR stand for?”
    “Who’s ‘Jim Crow’ anyways?”
    “How many slaves did your uncle own?”
    “What was the deal with The Crusades?”
    “How many minutes can you stay in the sun?”
    “How old were you when you knitted your first sweater?”
    “Where’s the closest skating rink?”
    “Don’t you get scared milking cows?”
    “Can you fix my computer?”
    “Cleopatra was black, y’know.”
    “What’s the recipe for cheese whiz?”
    “Can you help me with my homework about The Vikings?”

  70. The viscousness shown by the perpetually-angry-and-aggrieved Social Justice contingent bespeaks the fear they feel, and thus their immediate willingness to throw the switch on the “No Award” nuclear option. Fear that their choices for award nominees may not be the popular choice among the larger audience. Fear that they are losing the power to demand obeisance and obedience from the unwashed masses of SF/F fandom. Petty tyrants do seem to want to burn down the manse around themselves if they are set upon by the usurping proles, so it’s not really a shock that this is the behavior we are now witnessing.

    The best escape for them would be to let the vote play out, read the works, vote for the best that they find, even if the best in a category is “No Award”, then recruit a larger Worldcon fanbase for next year — oddly enough, which is what SP3 was partly about. They would at least come away looking more composed and rational to their onlookers and as well as those unassociated with SF/F. But the strident ones are linear, narrow “thinkers”, and can’t comprehend that they are in a Xanatos Gambit — there seem to be no resolutions to the Hugos for the SJWs where SP3 doesn’t have a victory at the end. Easy Prediction: Hair on fire and screaming at the pigeons is the order of their day, forever.

    The truly delicious thing about SP3 and RP conflation is how “Voxemort” really does seem to push (and lock) every red button they own.

    Extremely entertaining!

  71. Politics have already poisoned the Hugos long before SP came into play.

    Bolded and italicized for cold, unvarnished truth.

  72. I honestly don’t understand the outrage over “block voting”. It wasn’t done before, and now two groups have done it successfully. Okay, that’s a bit of a kick-to-the-balls for the people who weren’t ready for it. But you realize that once four or five conflicting groups all do block voting, they’ll pretty much cancel each other out and we’ll be back to where we started? Except participation will be much higher. Win-win.

    The problem here, as I see it, is with Internet mobs of all types. Mob mentality is always pretty awful wherever it turns up, on the left or right. As are claims of privilege and victimhood (although it seems to me that claims of victimhood are often the start of a new mob … and so the cycle begins once more).

  73. “And so what of the 12 year old kids of today going to the library and finding a list of them now?”

    They would find Hugo-nominated novels by Kim Stanley Robinson, George R. R. Martin, Robert J. Sawyer, Cherie Priest, Neil Gaiman, Neal Stephenson and Charles Stross, and that’s just in the last five years.

    There are voting trends I didn’t like in recent Hugos, but I’d hardly call it a wasteland in which no great SF/F writers have been honored.

  74. “Rogers, would you be okay with demanding that any Hugo nominee repudiate, in writing, any support for Marxism?”

    Rogers? You there, buddy?

    As far as I know Vox hasn’t actually killed< anybody, much less reaching megamurder levels.

    I’m just trying to get some guidelines here on what requires a public denouncement and what doesn’t.

  75. Rogers Cadenhead (@rcade)
    And precisely how Does Theresa Nielson Hayden calling for a *block* “no award vote differ from “evil white male (even of they’re Portuguese women) privilege calls for *alternative* nominations? Either they are a real, fan driven award, or they are an award chosen by a self selecting elite. I remember watching Forbidden Planet as a child, because it was SF. For most of my life, Hugo nominated/award winning, meant I spent money to buy it, if I didn’t already know/like the author. For the last 15-20 years, it meant, increasingly, *avoid* buying it. It will be poorly written, with “message” coming third, behind author sex/color/politics, and message.

  76. And the message they’ll send with No Awarding everything is: “We’d rather destroy the awards rather than let someone else have them.”

  77. On Larry Correia’s blog this week, I posted a challenge to him: I said I’d buy a copy of every novel he has written if he could prove that even a single novel/novella/novelette category was stuffed with a secret bloc’s nominees in the past 10 years.

    I’ll take that bet if you’ll extend it to any Hugo category. Are you game?

  78. More Twitter crap: “@fozmeadows · 3h3 hours ago
    If Torgerson wants to use his wife & child as proof he isn’t ever racist or sexist, he can show me how they’re represented in his Hugo slate”

    and

    “Foz Meadows ‏@fozmeadows · 1h1 hour ago
    TORGERSEN IS HONEST TO GOD ARGUING FOR AN SFFNAL CANON WITH LESS CREATIVE DIVERGENCE THAN CHILDREN’S PICTURE BOOKS HELP ME I CAN’T.”

    I’ve said it before: we need a facepalm smilie.

  79. Ah, Foz. It was inevitable we’d reach loggerheads. If memory serves, Foz was hip deep in the trashing and slander of Mike Resnick. This is what happens when you give the children keyboards, internet access, and zero accountability.

  80. That’s why I call them the Usual Suspects: it’s usually the same dozen or so people, over and over again.

  81. Maybe there’s a different approach we can take here.

    Mr. Cadenhead, what exactly do you mean when you say ‘bloc voting’? Exactly how must someone vote, and how many people — by numbers or percentage — must vote this way? And why are you so convinced that those who voted for works or authors on the SP or RP recommendations did this? What kind of voting pattern would have constituted an “honest” or “acceptable” nomination?

    I apologize for sounding so anal about this, but I would like to believe that clarity about what people believe to be happening can only help. Sometimes what one person means by a term is just different enough from another understanding to cause problems.

  82. Nobody expects the Fannish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is fear! and name-calling! Our two chief weapons are fear, name-calling, and repetition! Our three chief weapons are fear, name-calling, repetition, and a fanatical devotion to Diversity! But not the wrong kind of diversity!

  83. Someone please convince me that we shouldn’t just let the Hugo burn.

    It hasn’t meant “guaranteed to be a good read” in years, so what the good is it anymore? I’m not trolling to be risible here, but I’m sincerely asking: why is it worth trying to rehabilitate it? I can’t think of any other reason at this point than this sloppy simile: that of trying to make sure the corpse of a fellow soldier is allowed a respectful burial at home instead of laying forever unclaimed on the battlefield.

    In the age of the Internet who the hell still needs it?

  84. Late to the party, but:

    – I’m not surprised GRRM is having a hissy fit. I remember the (now deleted?) hissy fit he through when Kerry lost, threatening not to finish whichever book he was writing because he was a whinging git.
    – Voting “No Award” because you’re mad… is falling right into the point: that the “SJW” crowd doesn’t actually care about quality. Your reasoning for doing what they want doesn’t matter at the end of the day.
    – Anyone who says this is about politics (it clearly isn’t), race, or gender is a liar. When Arthur Chu is on your side: reconsider your side.
    – Vox Day, while abrasive to some, is simply a distraction. Much like mentions of GamerGate he is an attempt to smear by association. Which takes some balls when the other side has the lineup of TNH, PNH, Scalzi, and so on and so forth.

    Hey, while we’re smearing by association, has the SFWA or her publisher denounced the pedophile child abuser yet?

    Disclaimer: I didn’t participate in Sad Puppies, and I am well behind on my reading. Not getting involved was the only honest option for me.

  85. “Mr. Cadenhead, what exactly do you mean when you say ‘bloc voting’?”

    I’d call it bloc voting when two ballots have 4 or 5 of the same nominees in a majority of the categories on their Hugo ballot. When 61 of 75 nominees came from the two slates and six categories are filled with nothing but slate nominees, I think it’s quite obvious that bloc voting was going on where 150-200 people stuck to the slates with little variance.

    Programmatically, ballots that employed bloc voting would be easy to spot compared to other ballots. An organized bloc voter picks from a much smaller population of potential nominees than the average disorganized Hugo voter, who is picking from among all the works released in a calendar year.

    The computer security expert Bruce Schneier has been carrying on a technical discussion of how a voting system could be designed to be more resistant to bloc voting:

    http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016199.html

  86. I posted this on the Hugo Award Page itself, but it is worth repeating here:

    My post on the HUGO award page, currently awaiting moderation:

    Nobody on the other side seems to be willing to understand or admit that the SP/RP tactics this time around are not, and can never be, a model for future action. The in-your-face, no-holds-barred aggressive actions in support of well known, well liked, and very successful writers who are not politically correct or well connected is a tactic that can only succeed ONCE.

    It was and is a warning and a demand that the progressives that have managed to assume gatekeeper roles in support of a political agenda that has nothing to do with science fiction or fantasy and has everything to do with advancing a politically correct narrative cease and desist. Everyone needs to get that dialed in.

    The Hugos are in danger of losing all relevance. If the progressive pushback succeeds. If the “No Award” crowd wins the day, do you really think fen are going to just shrug their shoulders, sit down, and applaud like good little puppets? If you do, the fen you are hanging around with are a vastly different breed than the ones I am used to.

    Their solution will be as simple and elegant as it can be. They’ll pick up their marbles and go start their own game somewhere else. WorldCon will be left with an empty sack of nobodies that nobody cares about and an award that everyone ignores.

    Already the battle cry is being raised, “Wrong Fans Having Wrong Fun!” and they are loving it to death because being in opposition to entrenched evil is FUN! NewCon, or whatever it’s ended up, being called will have all the fun and excitement that has been rendered verboten at WorldCon, and the Hugo award committee can sit on their pretty little statues and twirl.

    The established publishing houses cannot even threaten with blacklists anymore because Indy publishing, still in its infancy, is doing the same thing to their gatekeeper role that the Internet did to news. They are dinosaurs, they will have to adapt or perish, and the one thing that they must do if they want to adapt is remember that fans decide.

    Paraphrasing the great Robert A. Heinlein, “Fen and cats will do as they please, and progressives and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.”

  87. @rcade: “The computer security expert Bruce Schneier has been carrying on a technical discussion of how a voting system could be designed to be more resistant to bloc voting:”

    Someone at Making Light promoting systems to weed out ‘problematic ballots’ – excuse me, bloc voting.

    Can’t see any possibility for abuse. Nope. Not at all.

  88. “The rules permitted a contestant to submit any number of entries as long as each was written on a Skyway Soap wrapper or reasonable facsimile.

    “I considered photographing one and turning out facsimiles by the gross, but Dad advised me not to. ‘It is within the rules, Kip, but I’ve never yet known a skunk to be welcome at a picnic.'”

    — Robert A. Heinlein, Have Space Suit, Will Travel

  89. Oh noes! Someone played the Zombie Heinlein Card! We must submit!

  90. Cameron, the main reason I can think of to keep the Hugos is the legacy list. It DID use to mean a must read, and it’s worth it to keep must reads alive. Heinlein and Clarke and Asimov may be dead and gone, but their works should be kept alive. Hence why we might at least try to reform the Hugos first before nuking it from orbit.

    Rogers, perhaps there have been good novels that won of late; I never said otherwise. It’s hardest to game the novels award since it’s the most high profile. And personally, Connie Willis is one of my favorite authors, so I was glad that she won for Blackout/All Clear, even if it was a step lower in quality than her previous Oxford novels. That’s not the point.

    The point is that currently the Hugos represent the best novel of the section of fandom with approved opinions, not the best novel overall. Be honest: would Ender’s Game win if it was published today? I guarantee you it wouldn’t. And any award that blacklists good authors because of their religion or politics means the award is tainted and corrupt. Can you not see that?

    Agree or disagree: it is ok to blacklist authors because of their politics, even if their politics A) are still in the mainstream (ie, not Nazism or pedophilia or whatever) and B) their politics don’t overwhelm their writing. Do you agree with that? Because I sure don’t.

    Read Sarah Hoyt’s blog. Read what she said about being a closet libertarian in fandom. How can you read that and not think there’s a problem there? Because I get that in my professional life too. And I see it all around me. The neoMcCarthyites, the intolerant and bigoted Left, is trying to destroy the lives of anyone who dares harbor a different opinion.

    That’s why I joined up to vote on these nominees. Because I’ve learned that the correct response to these hatemongers isn’t to turn away and hope they stop there. It isn’t to hide in a corner and whisper “stop, stop, don’t do that”. The response is to stand up strong and stand and applaud those willing to stand up strong.

    I look at your responses, both here and at Correia’s blog, and shake my head. It seems to me that what you are saying is: “Well, the SJWs may be blacklisting people, but your response isn’t 100% perfect. Therefore I’m allying myself with the SJWs”

    I don’t think the SP response is 100% perfect either, but I’m not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good either. I stand with those that want scifi open to everyone, not with the hatemongers.

  91. Oh, is Bruce Schneier holding forth again on something he knows nothing about? Sorry, not going to click over to that snake pit to find out.

    Last time I recall was post-911, when he was pontificating on (physical) airline security (which he also knew nothing about, and on which his views were risible).

    He knows a lot about cryptography, but, from what I’ve seen over the years, not much about anything else.

    Any voting system can be “gamed”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

    I’ll trust the guy with the Nobel Prize here, thanks.

    Maybe you can make the system more resistant to “bloc voting”, but only at the cost of introducing other potential problems.

    Probability of that Stalinist clown car they have over there immanentizing the eschaton with respect to the Hugo ballots? Zero. Probability of them coming up with something that (by an odd coincidence) gives more power to insider cliques? Near 1.0000.

  92. “rcade:
    I think it’s quite obvious that bloc voting was going on where 150-200 people stuck to the slates with little variance.”
    “Think” isn’t evidence. Try again and bring some stats with you next time instead of opinion. If 80% of a county’s population votes in a third-party candidate in the Commissioner’s election, are they bloc voting because of an evil overlord’s control, or fed up with the other two parties, or is the third-party candidate the truly best over the other two? Prove your “obvious” result.

    “Programmatically, ballots that employed bloc voting would be easy to spot compared to other ballots. An organized bloc voter picks from a much smaller population of potential nominees than the average disorganized Hugo voter, who is picking from among all the works released in a calendar year.”
    So the 20K+ works released last year were all equally good? Probably more like a Poisson distribution, and there will be 20-100 that will dominate the vote. Take a stab at the combintorics on that before you proffer another unsourced “feeling”.

    “The computer security expert Bruce Schneier has been carrying on a technical discussion of how a voting system could be designed to be more resistant to bloc voting:
    http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016199.html

    Nice non sequitur, re. voting systems. Schneier is a reliable technical expert, but I question the sourcing of your quotes. Verification of any information for accurate transcription is a MUST when found at “Making Excuses.”

  93. “Can’t see any possibility for abuse. Nope. Not at all.”

    The Sad Puppies movement was a response to alleged (secret) bloc voting, so supporters should be amenable to exploring the possibility that a voting system could be objectively designed to be resistant to it.

    The Hugo rules are changed over a long process. Any change passed in 2015 would have to be passed again in 2016 and couldn’t take effect until 2017. So it’s not like there’s a danger that current sentiment will be driving a hasty alteration of the way things work.

  94. “The in-your-face, no-holds-barred aggressive actions in support of well known, well liked, and very successful writers who are not politically correct or well connected is a tactic that can only succeed ONCE.”

    Oh, it’s going to succeed again next year, at a minimum. They can’t change the rules until the year after next, and that’s only if they get a majority vote both this year and next year. If they try to ram something through, I expect Midamericon II to be extremely well-attended.

  95. Well, Rogers has convinced me to pony up $40 to specifically eliminate his moronic vote.

    Evidence of at least four slates presented: Plenty.
    Evidence of lockstep bloc voting: Zero-to-moronic.
    Confessions of Bloc Voters: Zero.
    Confessions “Well, I read some of that, and voted for some of that, but then did my own thing“: Plenty.

    Now to see if my wife and kids would -also- like to vote. I know the youngest literally set fire to last year’s Ancillary book, so I can’t image they’re going to vote on the side of Perpetual Outrage.

  96. Correction: it has already succeeded *twice*. Last year it was enough to make them nervous. This year it made them furious.

  97. “Be honest: would Ender’s Game win if it was published today? I guarantee you it wouldn’t. And any award that blacklists good authors because of their religion or politics means the award is tainted and corrupt. Can you not see that?”

    I would regard it as a problem too if a work the caliber of Ender’s Game didn’t make the Hugo best novel nominations today because of the author’s politics or some other extraneous concern. It’s a fantastic book my sons and I love, and I say that as somebody who has little in common with Card’s politics.

    But I don’t think bloc voting fueled by a highly politicized us-vs-them campaign is the right solution. Nor will I like it any better if there’s an us bloc and a them bloc next year.

  98. You know, all of this talk of bloc voting makes me wonder: is it more or less likely for deserving works to make it onto the ballot if there are several competing slates from popular authors?

    As acknowledged by both sides, there are a *ton* of works published every year. Being generous, let’s say that 5% of all notable novels (meaning not indie slosh the author’s mom is sooooo proud of or mediocre first-time novels) are good enough that a well-read individual might consider them worthy of nomination for a Hugo. Let’s say 1k novels meet those criteria. That still leaves 50 novels, with a VERY narrow restraint from the ~20k listed on Amazon (is that number right?).

    So, of those 50 novels, only 5 can make it on the shortlist. Let’s assume that there are 20 novels from that list that have a decent shot at it. At that point, do 5-10 slates (aka recommended lists) help or hinder the best novels? This is a question that I think is very seriously worth considering.

    And, of course: do people actually believe that last year’s list represents 5 of the 20 best novels of the year? Really?

  99. Here is why it is not bloc voting: Because, contra what everybody is saying, nobody was suggesting that a bunch of people vote for those writers just because they’re on a puppies slate. They were put on the slates because (after polling fans, by the way) it was thought they deserved it, and they very specifically asked other people who also thought they deserved it to vote.

    That nobody said (until pressed) “You should read the work first” is a red herring; how can you agree a work is deserving if you haven’t read it? It’s obviously implied, and even if it wasn’t implied it should be assumed…unless, of course, you’re determined to paint the puppies folks in a bad light.

    This isn’t rocket science.

  100. For example: I voted, but I only voted for things I both 1) Read and 2) Thought were good enough to make the ballot. I just naturally assumed that’s how we were doing it, and I expect I’m correct.

  101. malcolmthecynic: Please stop trying to confuse him with facts.

  102. I don’t know if block voting was really what occurred, but block voting was what succeeded in loosening the iron grip of these small-minded high priests, then three cheers for block voting.

  103. I have always thought that voting “No Award” was somewhat asinine. Even when I dislike a story, or even an entire set of choices (like last year’s Short Story lineup), I would still rank the stories in some order above No Award. It just seems to me that if a story gets to the final round, it at least deserves that modicum of respect.

    It is depressing to me that I appear to be a minority in this regard.

  104. “They were put on the slates because (after polling fans, by the way) it was thought they deserved it …”

    Polling fans to create a slate of nominees as part of a campaign to vote in the Hugo awards is bloc voting.

    Why you’d favor a process in which dozens of people made nominations (Torgersen’s estimate) over one in which over 1,000 people did is lost on me.

  105. I think the people who believe they truly represent fandom and think they can push through a No Award nuclear option may be in for a shock. I have consistently overestimated their influence. I thought they’d be able to prevent a SP3 from being successful. They aren’t as strong and numerous as they believe.

  106. Thank you Brad!

    As I commented on Larry’s blog, this lifelong SFF fan (Analog subscriber for oh about 30 years, I think) who is also an Asian American really appreciate what you and your friends have done with SP.

    I’m doing my small part by purchasing a supporting WorldCon 2015 membership. I also went to Amazon.com and bought one of your books as well as one of Larry Correia’s books. I do have to say that the insane reactions that you and your friends have been subjected to after the success of SP3 was what made me aware of the Hugo mess and that I should do something about it.

  107. Why you’d favor a process in which dozens of people made nominations (Torgersen’s estimate) over one in which over 1,000 people did is lost on me.

    Because that wasn’t the process. That was the process to make the list of suggestions of who to vote for, which you were only asked to do if you thought the works were deserving.

    Not only that, the works were on for a specific reason, namely, it was believed that otherwise deserving folks would never get a chance if it wasn’t suggested that fans come out and vote for them.

    Mr. Wright is an excellent example of that. “Awake in the Night” and “The Last of All Suns” were clearly gems, yet neither got a nomination. So this time the puppies folks came out and said “We think Mr. Wright deserves an award, and he’s been robbed in the past; therefore, if you like him, we suggest you vote for him.” But they did NOT say “We want everybody to vote for these exact candidates en masse even if you hate him, because then we’ll ruin the SJW’s day. That’s observedly never what was said – you can read their words yourself.

    You’re saying that giving a list of suggestions of who to vote for, and telling people to only vote for those suggestions if you think they deserve it, is bloc voting. Well, maybe you define it that way, but if you do I fail to see any problem with it.

  108. Nothing says “mindless bloc voting” like holding book bombs to encourage people to buy and read the suggested works.

    Not that I expect a concern troll like Rogers to accept the obvious…

  109. Pingback: Open tabs, I have open tabs…. | The Common Room

  110. <>

    I can see your point. In fact, I mostly sympathize with it. I love a lot of the Hugo winners I read from back when “Hugo” meant something besides “Will Not Offend The Perpetually Aggrieved.” I remember the Hugo and the Nebula from years and years ago when I was young and new to sci-fi and I cared not a whit how old a story was that I was reading. That was before the internet, of course.

    But now we live in an age where nobody is walking to the Sci-Fi/Fantasy aisle at Barnes & Noble and basing his purchases anymore on whether there’s a Hugo symbol on the cover. (I worked at a Barnes & Noble for 8 1/2 years. Nobody – nobody – willingly buys award anthologies; at least not in stores.) By and large, my assumption is that if one is a reader of sci-fi and fantasy one is also most likely getting his suggestions on what to read next from his favorite authors’ websites. That’s how I do it (hence my assumptions about someone else’s shopping habits, ‘natch). I’ve been burned too many times by cool looking covers on browsing trips.

    Even if the award can be saved from its current role as the Official Stamp Designating The Speculative-Literature Emotional Safe Space For Victims Of [Insert Injustice Of Which One Is A Victim Here], I’m suppose I’m just having a real hard time believing that ANY award that is convention-based can have a hope of being as relevant as it used to be before the internet took over and brought the authors and their opinions and recommendations directly and immediately to the readers.

    If it can be argued that Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies campaigns weren’t really necessary, I think it’s only because the Hugo isn’t necessary anymore, either (however that came about). Or the Nebula. Or any other legacy, pre-internet marketing tool, for that matter.

    I hope I’m wrong, but only because the same kid who discovered sci-fi lit for the first time so many years ago is still quite alive in my wee little brainpan every time I come across a new book I really like, even if the grown-up part of me is all jaded about this crap.

  111. “Foz Meadows @fozmeadows · 3h 3 hours ago ‘Behold this foul literary conspiracy of WOMEN & GAYS & BROWN PEOPLE putting their FILTHY POLITICAL VIEWS IN STORIES.’ cognitive dissonance!”

    More scare quotes from a moron. She’s quoting our minds after having read them. A nifty trick for a demagogue.

    “Foz Meadows @fozmeadows · 3h 3 hours ago I am not interested in any definition of ‘adventure stories’ that hinges on the right of straight white male characters to act unchallenged”

    I don’t have to read Meadows’ mind – she doesn’t have one. That entire Twitter rant is a wonder of boneheadedness:

    “Foz Meadows @fozmeadows · 5h 5 hours ago When Torgerson talks about space opera just being space opera in the good old days, what he wants is stories with unexamined implications.”

    “Foz Meadows @fozmeadows · 4h 4 hours ago ‘God, can’t we just have a rollicking space opera where colonialism is an unquestioned force for good & the aliens are racist caricatures?'”

    SJWs keep talking about those Golden Age stories but can never produce them. That’s because they’re ignorant liars.

    “Foz Meadows @fozmeadows · 4h 4 hours ago ‘Can’t we have a story about a planet of women that doesn’t, like, give them agency or discuss sexism or anything, where they’re just hot?'”

    Sure, that would be really exciting. Why not twerking or have Taylor Swift in them?

    My favorite thing about this brainless woman is how she uses “colonialism,” “Middle Eastern” and “homophobe” but her own lack of awareness and political correctness and “unexamined implications” forbids her from ever putting them in the same sentence, though it would be far more accurate than the context in which she actually uses the terms.

    She can’t do that because she is literally forbidden by her own intersectional ideology from doing so. It would be crimethink.

    “Foz Meadows @fozmeadows · 5h 5 hours ago We’ve had fucking centuries of literature that interpreted empire & colonial expansion as bold adventures; are we never to question that?”

    Nope. Not if it’s Islam, the most successful colonial-imperial project in history.

  112. “Can’t we have a story about a planet of women that doesn’t, like, give them agency or discuss sexism or anything, where they’re just hot?”

    If the alternative is a book-length Marxist lecture delivered by a stupid and humorless SJW, bring on the hotness, I say.

    Like most of her kind, Meadows is profoundly ignorant of both a) the history of SF and b) everything else.

  113. “Polling fans to create a slate of nominees as part of a campaign to vote in the Hugo awards is bloc voting.”

    So are public snits announcing that you’re voting “No Award” for everything, and (at least implicitly) encouraging others to do the same.

    Either both are wrong or neither is.

  114. Vox offered to take you up on your bet if you extended it across the entire ballot, – why aren’t you answering him?

    Accuse, accuse, accuse, and suddenly the person you are most pissed about shows up in the channel, responds to you directly… and you make several more comments like it never happened.

    You, Roger, are all shit and no gunpowder.

  115. “If the alternative is a book-length Marxist lecture delivered by a stupid and humorless SJW, bring on the hotness, I say.”

    Judging from this information, found on the Amazon page for the most recent work from Ms Meadows and friends:

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,336,266

    I’m not the only one who thinks that way. Remind me again why anyone pays this woman any attention?

  116. He’s not answering my question about whether it would be okay to ask authors to publicly repudiate Marxism, either.

  117. @cameron

    > I’m suppose I’m just having a real hard time believing that ANY
    award that is convention-based can have a hope of being as relevant as it used to be
    before the internet took over and brought the authors and their opinions and
    recommendations directly and immediately to the readers.

    a lot of what’s happened with SP is that people who cannot attend the convention in person are providing money to the convention and voting over the Internet. Enough of this and it won’t matter much what convention it is, the award would truely be world-wide from fans across the Internet.

    If you don’t like the works that were nominated this year, get out the vote next year for the works that you think deserve to be nominated next year.

    This is exactly what the SP folks were told when they complained about what was winning awards, and guess what, they did exactly that.

    I nominated several things on the SP “slate”, didn’t nominate others (because I didn’t have time to read them), and nominated a few others that weren’t on the SP “slate”

    so tell me, is my ballot a ‘block vote’ ballot or not?

  118. “I nominated several things on the SP “slate”, didn’t nominate others (because I didn’t have time to read them), and nominated a few others that weren’t on the SP “slate”

    so tell me, is my ballot a ‘block vote’ ballot or not?”

    Beats me.

    I suppose I don’t really a dog in this fight, now that I think about it. I like so much stuff that wouldn’t be [serious? important? groundbreaking?] enough for a Hugo even the Hugo still mattered that I reckon my critical vote wouldn’t be all that critical to begin with.

  119. Christopher M. Chupik says:
    “I think the people who believe they truly represent fandom and think they can push through a No Award nuclear option may be in for a shock. I have consistently overestimated their influence. I thought they’d be able to prevent a SP3 from being successful. They aren’t as strong and numerous as they believe.”

    We are in uncharted waters right now. This is starting to take on a life of its own, and may go in ways neither side can predict. I hope that most fans will see reason and go about their business as usual, but with so much disinformation out there (and too many fans believing the outright lies and distortions), I’m afraid too many will go along merely because they don’t know better and writers they like (like Scalzi) are urging them to do so. I do find it difficult to believe most Jim Butcher fans would choose to honor the pact (and hence deny Skin Game a chance at the award), but who knows? At the moment they may have the edge in pure membership votes, but there’s no way to tell if that will continue.

  120. @Rogers Cadenhead (@rcade)
    April 8, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Mr. Cadenhead, Sad Puppies is about several different things.

    The Sad Puppies campaign was:
    a. A Voter Registration Drive for the Hugo Awards
    b. Publicizing works and people that seemed to be being shut out due to political biases.
    c. Proving those biases to both the “In” crowd and the public.
    d. Showing that the system had been “gamed” by the “Right People” for many years.

    The “slate” was constructed after much request for public input, via Blog and Facebook.

    It succeeded in spades.

    If you go look up the history of the SP work at Larry Correia’s and Brad Torgerson’s blog pages, they’ve been very transparent and public about it.

    We can walk AND chew gum AT THE SAME TIME.

  121. Ender’s Game wouldn’t get nominated today. Not just because Card has repeated told his fans that some of their friends shouldn’t be able to get married, but because it would be outdated. Old technology, a disconnect with the way information flows on the internet, and issues with Ender’s treatment and the theory behind his upbringing (not to mention the explanation for his birth in the first place). Speaker for the Dead would have a much better chance of still getting a nomination, because of the really interesting interactions with the piggies.

    At the time though, Ender’s Game was a good book, and in my opinion it deserved to be nominated. I stopped buying OSC books a while ago though because his writing got terrible, and I felt like I wasn’t getting anything worthwhile for my money.

  122. They pay her attention because she lights up white men – period. That’s why she was on the Hugo ballot last year. That is why Mikki Kendall, K. Tempest Bradford and Sunil Patel exist. They have done nothing in SFF otherwise. Why was Sunil Patel on panels at last year’s Nebula Weekend? No published work – not a member of SFWA – not a blogger. A Twitter racist. That’s it.

  123. If the goal was to make the Hugo honest, this was not the time for anyone involved with the *puppy campaigns to throw their name into the hat. Larry Correia did the right thing by recusing himself. “But they do it, too,” is no excuse.

    If the goal was to make the Hugo better, don’t introduce the worst aspects of the American political system. Don’t let this award reflect an ideological divide that’s both pointless and destructive. Many people are going to vote No Award to keep the Hugo from becoming some sort of red and blue farce. Good stories will suffer for this in the same way that good people do in general.

    If the goal was to make the Hugo reflect science fiction’s diverse voices, don’t insult people. Take the high road. What I’ve seen directed toward “liberals” is as ridiculous as what I’ve seen directed towards “conservatives” over the course of this mess. We’re better than this. We should be.

    I don’t think Solomon is the right comparison. If we’re at the point where we’re comparing an award ceremony to an ancient and logically unsound court decision, it’s time to take a break.

    What if both women said the other could keep the child? Would Solomon be left holding the baby?

    @Skeptical Chemist: The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. In a conflict, there are n possible sides, all of whom can be wrong. The first Hugo was awarded in 1953, at Philcon II. It didn’t spring from the convention’s forehead, full-formed. It became a feature of Worldcon, the rules that govern nominations and the voting process were established and over time the award gained enough prestige that people tried to game the thing in their favor. As far as I’m concerned, a slate violates the spirit of the award, if not the letter of the law. It’s a form of gaming things in your favor, whoever does it.

    The Hugo award wasn’t stolen from us, in aggregate or in part. It was and is something that’s part of Worldcon, nominated and voted for by whoever pays the fee. Don’t make it something it isn’t. Keep some perspective. I’m sympathetic to making the award more diverse, I think SP3 had good stories on its slate. I don’t think anyone benefits from “conservative” or “liberal” voices being silenced– But at the end of the day, if you think the Hugo doesn’t represent your ideas and your interests, no one is stopping you from creating your own award. The Hugo isn’t everything.

    Science fiction has always been about ideas. Fahrenheit 451 is a political work. That thread has always been there, as clear as any other. There is no going back to the way things were– We’re here. Always have been.

  124. So, how exactly can SJWs win this?

    Throw a tantrum and get more outside fans involved and who did they think those people will vote for? Sales don’t seem to indicate that your average person people will buy “I Hate White Men (In Space!)” but they will buy Jim Butcher, so who would they vote for? Even if they buy the SJWs anti-puppy racist and sexists screeds, their tastes won’t suddenly change overnight.

    Getting more people involved will only weaken their hold and, at this point, there will only be more people involved next year.

    This all ends with more fans voting for the Hugos no matter what happens. So, uh, seems to me Sad Puppies wins.

  125. @Mokoto

    when one ‘side’ nominates the works of people across the political spectrum and the other only nominates people who agree with them, it sure seems different than the “liberals vs conservatives” picture that you are trying to paint.

    By the way, a question for everyone who didn’t vote for anyone on the SP ‘slate’, did you ask the person you were nominating for their permission to recommend them to the other Hugo fans?

    If an author were to take the position that any of their fans needed to ask their permission before recommending them to someone else, do you think anyone would ever hear of that author?

  126. We know 451 is a political work. It does not have Taylor Swift in it. Do you know what I mean by that? It defaults to an everyman and leaves behind cultural markers in favor of showing failure and success on a almost mythical human level. SJW fiction retains cultural markers and so is faddist and overly contemporary in a way that yanks us out of the story. Ancillary Justice has a severely restricted shelf life. 451 is for the ages.

    Like Bradbury’s “Way High Up in the Sky,” “Wakulla Springs” is anti-Jim Crow. But one is humanitarian. The other filthy racial defamation and payback-revenge fantasy, as is all intersectionalist fiction. It is an expression of self-loathing. Bradbury was an expression of self-love – for us all.

    This is not a question of an enemy of an enemy but of where an enemy has placed us. The first is a choice, the second, not. The Warsaw Ghetto was not a choice, nor is the ghetto of white privilege these morons have placed us.

  127. Mokoto:

    Let me get this straight:

    “It was and is something that’s part of Worldcon, nominated and voted for by whoever pays the fee.”

    “But at the end of the day, if you think the Hugo doesn’t represent your ideas and your interests, no one is stopping you from creating your own award.”

    Say what? Either it represents the will of the voters — defined as anyone with a spare $40 and an interest — and can thus be changed at the whim of those voters, or it’s something immutable (or that should be subject to the tastes of “special” voters) and people who don’t like the stuff that’s been winning should buzz off and start their own award (rather than voting for stuff they do like).

    Which is it? The two statements are logically inconsistent.

    What you are saying makes about as much sense as putting an “All the beer you can drink — $5.00” sign on a bar, and then, when people with $5.00 show up and start drinking beer, suddenly demanding that they go start their own bar.

  128. Rogers Cadenhead (@rcade)
    April 8, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    “Surely you can see the difference between an author posting his or her Hugo recommendations and Vox Day running a bloc voting campaign that put himself and his publishing house’s authors on the Hugo ballot 11 times.”

    YOU tell US the difference, then explain how Sad Puppies breached it.

  129. Rogers Cadenhead (@rcade)
    April 8, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    “How can anyone possibly defend Day being on the ballot 11 times as fair?”

    Vox glommed on to the game at the last minute, without consulting anyone on SP, to my knowledge. Cease and desist your conflation immediately. SP owes you no answers for him.

  130. Sorry if I am derailing this comment thread, but I think people should be aware of WSFS constitution section 3.11.2, so there is no potential for being blindsided if it happens to trigger this year (for some categories it has come very close to triggering in the past):

    3.11.2: “No Award” shall be given whenever the total number of valid ballots cast for a specific category (excluding those cast for “No Award” in first place) is less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of final Award ballots received.

    WSFS constitution: http://wsfs.org/bm/const-2014.html

  131. “They resemble nothing so much as the medieval Catholic Church trying to burn heretics.”

    I’d rather be tried by a medieval Church court than by the current mob neo-Stalinists. The former at least extended the courtesy of clearly stating the charges, vetting witnesses, and restricting its jurisdiction to members.

  132. @Rogers Cadenhead

    It seems your big complaint against SP/RP isn’t the campaigning for the awards-after all no award is immune to campaigns, it happens all the time from professional sports (MVPs, Hall of Fames) to the Oscars, and has obviously occurred frequently in the Hugos- but to slate voting.

    Yet the funny thing is that if you look at the history of the Hugos (and you make a dubious claim to be a long-time voter) you can see patterns in the voting, and nominating process. For example in the eighteen years from 1996-2014 four writers: Sawyer, Stross, Scalzi, and Mieville garnered 26% of the total nominations for the Best Novel category. Sawyer was nominated an egregious four years in a row and five out of six years.

    Now were those four authors the most awesome of awesome writers during that period? Perhaps, but likely not. Of course they did not always win and only locked up 26% of the nominations, but throw in Neal Stephenson and Connie Willis and the number of nominations locked up by those six authors jumps to well over a third.

    Six authors dominated a third of the nominations and four locking up over a quarter during an 18 year period, with how many authors in total that were published in the speculative fiction fields during that same time frame? Clearly no bloc voting going on, and the Hugos were only broken by SP/RP.

    I’ll be generous and say that this voting pattern may not have been due to a conspiracy, but rather like-minded people reading the same authors over and over again. And agreeing with their particular worldview voted mostly for them, and a few others to round out the ballots.

    What SP does is broaden the reading pool a bit: competition, free market, diversity, all those buzz words. We’ll see in 18 years time after Sad Puppies XX if the Hugo ballots have a more balanced representation of the field then before.

  133. “Foz Meadows ‏@fozmeadows · 1h1 hour ago
    TORGERSEN IS HONEST TO GOD ARGUING FOR AN SFFNAL CANON WITH LESS CREATIVE DIVERGENCE THAN CHILDREN’S PICTURE BOOKS HELP ME I CAN’T.”

    That one actually requires subtitles of some sort. 😉

  134. Cameron says:
    April 8, 2015 at 7:26 pm
    “Someone please convince me that we shouldn’t just let the Hugo burn.
    It hasn’t meant “guaranteed to be a good read” in years, so what the good is it anymore? I’m not trolling to be risible here, but I’m sincerely asking: why is it worth trying to rehabilitate it? I can’t think of any other reason at this point than this sloppy simile: that of trying to make sure the corpse of a fellow soldier is allowed a respectful burial at home instead of laying forever unclaimed on the battlefield.”

    Because we owe it to the future to fix the system so as to highlight good works and perpetuate them and give them hope, mystery, wonder and goals to strive for, and we owe it to the past, for those Giants who came before us.

  135. Equating this situation with the judgment of Salomon is quite hilarious. Not awarding Hugos in a year when whole categories were sweeped with a campaign of bloc voting is hardly splitting the baby. Hugos don’t die if they aren’t given out one year. (They are badly sick, though, and the process has to be repaired so that politicized slate-voting campaigns cannot hurt it this fatally in the future.)

    The best reason for voting no award is, I think, the principle of not giving bullies what they want. I can respect that, although I have myself decided to read (or try to read) everything on the shortlist first.

  136. Polling fans to create a slate of nominees as part of a campaign to vote in the Hugo awards is bloc voting.

    As is chivvying and lobbying fandom, en masse, to vote “No Award,” out of nothing more than sweet, simple selfishness’ sake.

    Rending your garments and gnashing your teeth over one, while championing the other, is naked hypocrisy — shameful, small and sad.

  137. “Equating this situation with the judgment of Salomon is quite hilarious. Not awarding Hugos in a year when whole categories were sweeped with a campaign of bloc voting is hardly splitting the baby. Hugos don’t die if they aren’t given out one year. (They are badly sick, though, and the process has to be repaired so that politicized slate-voting campaigns cannot hurt it this fatally in the future.)

    The best reason for voting no award is, I think, the principle of not giving bullies what they want. I can respect that, although I have myself decided to read (or try to read) everything on the shortlist first.”

    So you think voting No Award is going to stop slate voting or SP? I wouldn’t bet on that. Someone else has said the genie is out of the bottle, you can’t go back now. Slate voting is going to be with the Hugos, well it always was but now done officially. Voting No Award isn’t a smart strategy unless you are prepared for possibly several decades of no Hugo awards, making the awards irrelevant.

  138. “Foz Meadows @fozmeadows · 3h 3 hours ago I am not interested in any definition of ‘adventure stories’ that hinges on the right of straight white male characters to act unchallenged”

    Any/all characters, in any given work, “act unchallenged,” unless specifically acted upon by their author. What in the name of Asimov does that hapless, lunatic word salad jumble even mean, for pity’s sake…? 😉

  139. Rogers Cadenhead (@rcade) says:
    April 8, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    “The Sad Puppies movement was a response to alleged (secret) bloc voting, so supporters should be amenable to exploring the possibility that a voting system could be objectively designed to be resistant to it.”

    Actually, I don’t think “bloc voting” (“You keep using that phrase….”) was ever mentioned in SP. Just that works from the “wrong people” were heavily discouraged, if not aggressively rejected.

  140. Don’t let this award reflect an ideological divide that’s both pointless and destructive.

    That camel’s spinal column was finally splintered for good and for all, last year, with the absurd and indefensible nomination of the non-SF non-story, “If You Were a Tri-Gendered Drama Queen Diplodocus, My Non-Binary Other.” And it wasn’t the SP side of the current great fannish divide responsible for that, now, was it?

    But at the end of the day, if you think the Hugo doesn’t represent your ideas and your interests, no one is stopping you from creating your own award.

    Then go do so. There, problem solved. Next…?

  141. “spacefaringkitten says:
    April 8, 2015 at 11:41 pm
    Equating this situation with the judgment of Salomon is quite hilarious.”
    It’s exceptionally apt: the anti-SP contrarians will bloc vote to kill all award presentations lest an SP author be given a Hugo, much like the false mother that Solomon found lying. Just because you can’t follow the simple logic doesn’t make it wrong, though I agree the anit-Puppy’s childish behavior is very humorous.

    “Not awarding Hugos in a year when whole categories were sweeped with a campaign of bloc voting is hardly splitting the baby. Hugos don’t die if they aren’t given out one year. (They are badly sick, though, and the process has to be repaired so that politicized slate-voting campaigns cannot hurt it this fatally in the future.)”
    The process is not fatal if No Award is given, but we have to change it so it isn’t fatal in the future because … well, because. Interesting. So, when Scalzi and Stross engineered their own slates and advocated for their works to be nominated, that wasn’t bloc voting or wrong? Where was your righteous indeignation then?

    “The best reason for voting no award is, I think, the principle of not giving bullies what they want. I can respect that, although I have myself decided to read (or try to read) everything on the shortlist first.”
    If bullying equates to ‘bloc voting’ then any bloc voting whether overt or open should be protested and “No Award” given because bullies shouldn’t be rewarded? Then if you were shown evidence that covert bloc voting and influence was occuring or had occured in the past, those people should be punished somehow and their chosen authors should be “No Award”-ed? Am I clear?

  142. and Vox Day running a bloc voting campaign that put himself and his publishing house’s authors on the Hugo ballot 11 times.”

    Vox Days is part of Rabid Puppies… not Sad Puppies. Vox Day, therefore, is irrelevant to a discussion of Sad Puppies. (He also has his own web site, in the event that you simply cannot restrain yourself any further from discussing Rabid Puppies, in a setting where it actually makes some conceivable sort of sense to DO so.)

    Again: ineptly (and ineffectually) attempting to conflate the two simply throws a harsh, unforgiving spotlight on your own tendencies toward naked intellectual dishonesty.

    It gives us all something to point and laugh at, sure… but: ain’t doin’ you no partic’lar favors.

  143. Pingback: All The Colors of Kibble 4/8 | File 770

  144. James M. says:
    So you think voting No Award is going to stop slate voting or SP? I wouldn’t bet on that. Someone else has said the genie is out of the bottle, you can’t go back now.

    If No award wins in the majority of the Hugo categories and slate-voters get zero trophies, that is a powerful argument against doing it in the future. Nominating rules can also be changed in a number of ways that make it mathematically harder for an organized minority to force every other work out of whole categories. I’m in favor of something like that. If there’s secret SJW cabal bloc voting behind the scenes, as you keep saying, it will affect them too and that’s fine. I have yet to see any real evidence of that, but we’ll all be happy if the rules change then, are we not?

    Mr.A is Mr.A says:
    So, when Scalzi and Stross engineered their own slates and advocated for their works to be nominated, that wasn’t bloc voting or wrong? Where was your righteous indeignation then?

    Haven’t seen any proof of something like that. Small campaigns of a dozen people or so are hard to identify, though, so I can’t say that there absolutely isn’t something like that going on. On the other hand, if every third people who nominates a novella goes for the same exact one in a field of hundreds, everybody knows that it stinks.

  145. Meadows is what’s known as a mental lunatic. Nothing she wrote in that long tirade made any sense. All you get is a vague notion the masculine patriarchy is once again on the march smearing its filthy heteronormative jelly all over everything, therefore inducing a panic attack. This is usually caused by a lack of brain cells in tandem with spending too much time indoors reading young adult fiction about capering elves.

  146. This is usually caused by a lack of brain cells in tandem with spending too much time indoors reading young adult fiction about capering elves

    … or else sassy, willowy young things in belly shirts battling ‘gainst all the forces of Hell with one hand, whilst diddling their smoking hot were-seal vampire boytoy with the other. (In other words: everything Seanan “That One, Right There! He Might Conceivably Call Me ‘Shamu,” Someday! I Can Just Sense These Things, I Tell You!” McGuire has ever written.)

  147. “If No award wins in the majority of the Hugo categories and slate-voters get zero trophies, that is a powerful argument against doing it in the future.”

    You are assuming that winning awards, per se, is the primary motivation for SP.

    You’re wrong.

    Please do stick with that belief, though.

  148. You are assuming that winning awards, per se, is the primary motivation for SP.

    Doesn’t matter how often you tell ’em, or how small the words you use in so doing, Doc: they simply blink, dully… reboot… and then go right back to droning their dopey TOR-assigned talking points, like the sweetly simple automatons they are.

    For God’s sake, Larry Correia turned down his own Hugo nomination — which, in this SP-driven year, would have been an all-but-certain win — and yet they still (STILL!) mulishly pretend it’s all about taking that widdle pwastic spaceship home with us.

    [::shakes head, chuckles disbelievingly::] 😉

  149. @kitty kat

    “If No award wins in the majority of the Hugo categories and slate-voters get zero trophies, that is a powerful argument against doing it in the future.”

    No it just confirms that people are voting based on politics rather than quality, which is the point SP is trying to prove. The SP slate is quite diverse and SP4 is gearing up with a woman even spearheading the effort, so it’s not going away with a few No Award votes.

    ” Nominating rules can also be changed in a number of ways that make it mathematically harder for an organized minority to force every other work out of whole categories. I’m in favor of something like that.”

    Nominating rules can be changed, but that could change the nature of the Hugos as well.

    “If there’s secret SJW cabal bloc voting behind the scenes, as you keep saying, it will affect them too and that’s fine.”

    I never said that, I said a group of like-minded people who only read the same authors tend to vote the same way. SP is about diversifying that group of people. You’re in favor of diversity yes?

    “I have yet to see any real evidence of that, but we’ll all be happy if the rules change then, are we not?”

    I just gave you some evidence in my previous post. Answer me this: Are Charile Stross, John Scalzi, China Mieville and Robert Sawyer really worthy of holding more that a quarter of the Best Novel nominations over the past nearly two decades?

  150. Doctor Locketopus says:
    You are assuming that winning awards, per se, is the primary motivation for SP.

    You’re wrong.

    The tactic, quite simply, seems to be hijacking the whole ballot in a number of categories, which forces everybody else to either vote for them or voting no award. I’m sure that whatever happens, Brad and Larry will post about how they won and there will be much sneering.

    Kent18 says:
    For God’s sake, Larry Correia turned down his own Hugo nomination — which, in this SP-driven year, would have been an all-but-certain win…

    I have trouble imagining that. Even though the nomination vote was RP-driven, actually, that crowd is 200-300. There’ll be 2,000-3,000 people voting for the winners, so it’s only 10%, and the final vote is STV (or whatever). Beating no award will be hard for the slate nominees, but we’ll see.

    James M. says:
    “If No award wins in the majority of the Hugo categories and slate-voters get zero trophies, that is a powerful argument against doing it in the future.”

    No it just confirms that people are voting based on politics rather than quality, which is the point SP is trying to prove.

    You can’t tell whether they will vote No Award because of politics and liberal bias or because they think that slate-voting is awful and it destroys the whole idea of the Hugos.

    “If there’s secret SJW cabal bloc voting behind the scenes, as you keep saying, it will affect them too and that’s fine.”

    I never said that, I said a group of like-minded people who only read the same authors tend to vote the same way. SP is about diversifying that group of people.

    Why the slate, in that case? If the other side isn’t organized with a bloc-voting slate, why do it yourself? Having a diverse group of people voting for their own favorites would have been enough to change the results to a more diverse direction. I especially admire the diversity in the novella category this year. 😀

    Are Charile Stross, John Scalzi, China Mieville and Robert Sawyer really worthy of holding more that a quarter of the Best Novel nominations over the past nearly two decades?

    That’s an absurd question. Are they inherently unworthy? There’s no objective answer to that. They are popular and I do like most of Mieville and Stross’s stuff I have read.

  151. You’re in favor of diversity yes?

    If the Toad of TOR’s goofy gunsels really, truly, genuinely were “in favor of diversity”: would they be yowling like so many scalded cats over the prospect of so many new nominees (Bellet, Sanderson, Green, Kratman, Anderson, Butcher, Wright, etc., etc.) finally getting their well-deserved shots at a little recognition and appreciation?

    To ask the question is to answer the question.

    Diversity of thought is something valuable and true, and worth fighting for.

    Faddish fetishizing over melanin levels and innies-versus-outties, on the other hand? Pffffftt.

  152. For God’s sake, Larry Correia turned down his own Hugo nomination — which, in this SP-driven year, would have been an all-but-certain win —

    I have trouble imagining that.

    I daresay.

  153. “You can’t tell whether they will vote No Award because of politics and liberal bias or because they think that slate-voting is awful and it destroys the whole idea of the Hugos.”

    If it’s the latter then they’re being naive, campaigning, “slate” voting, what have you has a long history in SF Awards.

    “Why the slate, in that case? If the other side isn’t organized with a bloc-voting slate, why do it yourself? Having a diverse group of people voting for their own favorites would have been enough to change the results to a more diverse direction. I especially admire the diversity in the novella category this year.”

    Would any of those nominees have made the ballot without SP’s help? The problem is that there wasn’t enough diversity, SP was about bringing new voters in as well. Hopefully your scenario will come true and slate voting won’t be needed in the future.

    “That’s an absurd question. Are they inherently unworthy? There’s no objective answer to that. They are popular and I do like most of Mieville and Stross’s stuff I have read.”

    So the answer is no.I understand your objections to “slate” voting and hopefully the inherent biases in the voters will be corrected over time and SP won’t be needed, but for now I think it is still a necessary step to preserving the Hugos.

  154. Kent18 says:
    If the Toad of TOR’s goofy gunsels really, truly, genuinely were “in favor of diversity”…

    Only favorites of a small tactically-voting group making it to the shortlist is not diversity, even though I see why you want to spin it as it were. Calling people toads is not something adult people should do, in my opinion.

    James M. says:
    “You can’t tell whether they will vote No Award because of politics and liberal bias or because they think that slate-voting is awful and it destroys the whole idea of the Hugos.”

    If it’s the latter then they’re being naive, campaigning, “slate” voting, what have you has a long history in SF Awards.

    You just said in the previous comment that there are usually no slates or cabals but “a group of like-minded people who only read the same authors tend to vote the same way”. Even if they had secret hidden SJW cabal mystery slates behind the scenes, there’s nothing you can really compare with what happened this year.

    “That’s an absurd question. Are they inherently unworthy? There’s no objective answer to that. They are popular and I do like most of Mieville and Stross’s stuff I have read.”

    So the answer is no.

    No, the answer isn’t no and the answer isn’t yes. There is no objective answer because there’s no objective metric of worthiness.

  155. Diversity of thought is something valuable and true, and worth fighting for.

    Faddish fetishizing over melanin levels and innies-versus-outties, on the other hand? Pffffftt.

    Only favorites of a small tactically-voting group making it to the shortlist is not diversity

    For you and yours, “diversity” is all here. [::pulls at skin on arm::]

    For the adults in the room, however: it’s here. [::taps skull::]

    You’ll either learn, or you won’t.

    I sleep just as soundly tonight, either way.

    Calling people toads is not something adult people should do, in my opinion.

    Neither is bloc voting “No Award,” while simultaneously yodeling piously, re: De EEEEEEeeeeevils of Dat Ol’ Debbil Bloc Voting, Lawsy Lawsy Laws, in mine.

    Oh, well.

  156. @Doctor Locketopus: George R.R. Martin has been commenting about the issue at: http://grrm.livejournal.com/

    There are two Hugos: There is the award created by and associated with Worldcon, since 1953. This Hugo you can vote for, if you have the money and interest. There is also the Hugo, divorced from its history. You can pay $40 and vote for that Hugo, too– But, they’re the same thing. This is not Martin’s perspective, this is mine: The award’s history is relevant, the award’s creators are relevant. Worldcon chose to make the process open, they could choose to close it. It’s their award. They literally own it.

    To use the beer analogy, if a bar puts a sign up advertising all the beer you can drink for $5.00, they are not obliged to do so forever. Once they take the sign down, no one has any business complaining about it. If you want infinite beer for $5.00, you can go somewhere else. Worldcon made it possible for anyone to vote, as long as they paid to do so. They made a conscious choice to do that. They could change their mind, and we could debate the merit but not the right.

    I don’t think they should do that, in the same way I don’t think a slate is a productive way to handle a Hugo vote. If it comes down to the same sort of red & blue conflict that’s poisoned American politics, what good is that? If your goal is to make the Hugo representative, there are better ways to do it than to declare your opponents monsters and raise your pitchforks.

    @James May: Montag wasn’t an everyman. He was a fireman, his name is a brand of paper, like Faber’s a brand of pencil. Bradbury claimed to have done so accidentally, but — Maybe. Maybe so, maybe not. Like Tolkien, Bradbury had something other than the moment in mind when he wrote a story. Products of their time tend to fade with them.

    As far as everymen go, it’s “man” in the sense of “mankind”. There is no default person. There are characters who work for their stories and characters who don’t.

    @davidelang: People can promote, nominate and vote for the candidates they like without malice. SP3 and RP walked away with most of the nominees. If the process was rigged, that wouldn’t have happened. If there’s a conspiracy, it’s not a very good one.

    On concern trolling, eh. I have a different beetle in my box. When people dehumanize one another (and we’re at that point on both sides), there’s no room for conversation. We have more in common than otherwise and when we talk to each other instead of fighting, that will show through. Most of the folks on the “other side” grew up reading the same stuff you all did and liked it. There will always be differences, because we’re not the same person. Those differences are not a threat. Expressing them isn’t one, either.

    I’ve never read Wakulla Springs, but I will. I’m curious. The thing about racism is that it’s real. It exists. Slavery, apartheid, the various forms it takes now. We aren’t the people we were fifty years ago, a century ago, whatever. Racism now isn’t what racism was like, once. But, there it is. Some people see it and keep things in perspective. They don’t fall into the abyss while observing that it exists. Some people don’t and that becomes its own sort of trouble.

  157. Because it demonstrably bears repeating… I’ll repeat it:

    Reading SF for the past 50 years taught me early on the trick of being able to see things through the POV of someone/something completely and utterly alien in nature… but, my hand to God: trying to imagine what daily existence must be for, say, one of the Toad of TOR’s perpetually piqued henchfrogs — flinching and spluttering on cue at each and every imaginary “trigger” or “microaggression”; automatically viewing other human beings not as people, first and foremost, but as ambulatory check marks on a grey government ledger fetishistically listing SJW-approved gradients of Race and Gender and Sexual Preference — leaves me both faintly nauseated and nonplussed, in roughly equal measure.

    Let them peddle their worn, ideologically bucktoothed wares someplace where the rubes are still buying.

    As Nicholson so memorably snarled it, in As Good As It Gets: “Go sell crazy someplace else! We’re all stocked up here!” 😉

  158. Well, it does make perfect sense a genre of speculative fiction and gritty fantasy should be based on the premise the West is a white supremacy dedicated to the fear and suppression of homosexuality and the oppression of our cherished axlotl tanks while maintaining the false facade of the biologic sham called heterosexuality.

    Isn’t that how Vaudeville got started?

  159. “No, the answer isn’t no and the answer isn’t yes. There is no objective answer because there’s no objective metric of worthiness.”

    Therefore no way to choose between the candidates, so reason for the Hugo to exist at all since all is random. You certainly brought a plastic spork to the logical gunfight.

  160. You certainly brought a plastic spork to the logical gunfight.

    [::Sean Connery, a la The Untouchables::] “Isn’t that just like a CHORF? Brings a spork to a gunfight!” 😉

  161. So, rcade, did you NoAward Scalzi, and anyone else he recommended, every year in order to object to his dastardly campaigning and encouraging of bloc voting?

    Or are you just concern trolling?

    Besides, wasn’t your big whine over at Larry’s about a novel you like not getting nominated? IOW, aren’t you whining that NO ONE liked the novel you liked, since there were two non-puppy novels that got nominations?

  162. “You just said in the previous comment that there are usually no slates or cabals but “a group of like-minded people who only read the same authors tend to vote the same way”. Even if they had secret hidden SJW cabal mystery slates behind the scenes, there’s nothing you can really compare with what happened this year.”

    I hope you’re not a writer since you seem to have reading comprehension problems. I said campaigning, “slate” voting, and SF Awards (which means not just the Hugo awards). You’ve heard of the Locus Awards? How is it that Tor publishing has won best publisher nearly 30 years in a row? But that’s not slate voting, apparently.

    I’ll be generous with Hugo voters and assume that there isn’t an overall conspiracy there, juts a hive mind mentality. But 30 years in a row winning the Locus Award isn’t an accident, not even a trend, its deliberate slate voting.

    “No, the answer isn’t no and the answer isn’t yes. There is no objective answer because there’s no objective metric of worthiness.”

    So why get worked up over SP? It’s not the nominees that bother you apparently since there can be no objective metric of worthiness. And it can’t be the manner in which they were chosen since campaigning and slate voting aren’t exactly new to SF, whether it be deliberate in the case of Tor or hive minded in the case of most of the past Hugos. So it must be the politics of the people behind SP you don’t like. Hence the reason for SP.

  163. James M. says:
    You’ve heard of the Locus Awards? How is it that Tor publishing has won best publisher nearly 30 years in a row? But that’s not slate voting, apparently.

    Well, Locus Award obviously tells something about tastes and biases of people who read Locus and vote for the award. Maybe there are campaigning and slates and maybe not, who can tell. But if I was voting for the award and and if there were slates which thwart the results to the same extent that was seen in Hugos this year, I’m sure I’d be upset.

    So why get worked up over SP? It’s not the nominees that bother you apparently since there can be no objective metric of worthiness. And it can’t be the manner in which they were chosen since campaigning and slate voting aren’t exactly new to SF…

    It is new to SF. Tactical slate-voting has never before robbed the majority of Worldcon members their possibility to get the works they nominated on the ballot so badly (if at all). That is a problem and things have to change. The Rapid Puppies did not demonstrate that there is liberal bias, they demonstrated that the process is broken.

    But let’s just agree to disagree about that. Neither of us will reconsider.

  164. “Besides, wasn’t your big whine over at Larry’s about a novel you like not getting nominated?”

    My complaint is that my individual Hugo nominations — and those of hundreds of others — have little chance of making the ballot because of bloc voting slates. I picked the works I like without strategic thinking about what others might be choosing. None of them made the ballot, which is a first for me. In the future, anyone who wants to influence the process will be forced to choose a slate.

    I’ve been wondering this morning whether the way forward is for the Hugos to actively encourage slates. Let any group of five people with Worldcon attending memberships announce their slate on thehugoawards.org while nominations are open, but limit them to three picks per category. Let any other member who wants to sign on as a supporter publicly do so.

    If there were 5-10 popular slates representing different parts of SF/F fandom, their impact is spread out and no slate is likely to take the entire ballot. Voters who wanted to influence the process without adopting one slate could pick from the best of several.

    We could end up with a ballot that contains some picks from slates, some works with crossover appeal to multiple slates and others that got there from individual support. This wouldn’t require any rules changes, though I think it would help to also expand the nominees per category from 5 to 10.

  165. @spacefaringkitten

    “If No award wins in the majority of the Hugo categories and slate-voters get zero trophies, that is a powerful argument against doing it in the future.”

    All ways in motion, the future is. But that sort of scorched earth response is…highly unlikely to convince anyone on the SP side that they need to change what they’re doing. The works on the slate aren’t getting awards (or noms) NOW. How does the whole thing going “No Award” do that?

    SP is trying to a) nominate works it thinks deserving and b) demonstrate that the reason why these sorts of works have not been nominated has been not because they are undeserving, but because forces in the established SF fandom (such as it is) have been keeping those works out.

    Going no award only proves B. (Proves it *more*.) And makes the establishment look like poor losers.

    (BTW – SFK really is a cool handle)

    @Mokoto –

    Either the Hugos have prestige because they represent “the” combined voice of world fandom, or they are the selection of a small group of fans at a tiny con who don’t connect with most of the rest of fandom. GRRM’s emotional attachment to Worldcon goes back, as he says, decades, back to when Worldcon could claim to represent some cross-section of Fandom. It doesn’t any more. SP is trying to change that.

    We can leave the Hugos with that small group and the rarifed air that is Worldcon trufans, or we can have awards that are more diverse and more representative of the fandom. GRRM, by his own admission, wants the Hugos to stay with the tiny group that is the Worldcon inperson attendees.

    I do agree that people need to not be calling each other names and getting nasty. You are likely to find a lot of people on the SP side really REALLY pissed off right now, seeing as some person or persons saw fit to slander the SP leads as racist homophobes ACROSS GLOBAL PRESS. I’m not sure what would help calm the waters and make people more willing to reach across the divide, but any implication that SP people are racist or otherwise bigoted isn’t going to help. I suggest that people stop making that implication, AT ALL, and stick to the technical matters of voting technicalities and work quality. (It would also help if people – like several commentors at GRRM) would back off the baseless charge of “you voted for things you didn’t even read!” It’s not provable, it’s insulting, and it’s not something that fans should suggest to each other.)

  166. “spacefaringkitten says:
    April 9, 2015 at 6:23 am
    It is new to SF.”
    Rubbish. I merely means you’ve been willfully blind to it. Scalzi and Stross played slate voting before. Anyone who recommends a book or group of writings or authors is “bloc voting” in your definition.

    “Tactical slate-voting has never before robbed the majority of Worldcon members their possibility to get the works they nominated on the ballot so badly (if at all).”
    The only issue here is that people all over the Internet recommended potential candidates for the Hugo ballot. The difference is that Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies actually *showed up* to support their choices. Scalzi’s group wasn’t big enough to get “Lock In” on the ballot, even after Larry declined his nomination.

    “That is a problem and things have to change. The Rapid Puppies did not demonstrate that there is liberal bias, they demonstrated that the process is broken.”
    Garbage, and unproven garbage at that. You are whining because someone you were told to believe siad you should feel bad, so now you do, and they said “things must change” and your reactions are that of a meat robot: you obey the directions of others and attack where sent.

    “But let’s just agree to disagree about that. Neither of us will reconsider.”
    Then you concede all points made here by those arguing against your stance. “Agree to disagree” after your random spew of contradictions on several threads is just the coward’s way of backing away from a fight you are losing. I don’t blame you, as you are flailing away miserably. You’ve had nothing to offer the discussion here other than unsupported, conflicting contradictions.

  167. I’m not sure what would help calm the waters and make people more willing to reach across the divide, but any implication that SP people are racist or otherwise bigoted isn’t going to help. I suggest that people stop making that implication, AT ALL

    The genuine tragedy, here, is that while this would indeed remedy an enormous portion of what presently ills the fannish body politic, there are simply too many CHORFs out there (self-)trained to yip-yip “RAAAACISS!” on cue, like so many trained seals — Jemisin, Bradford, Chu, “Requires Hate,” etc. — personally invested in doing precisely the opposite. They no more could (or would) willingly surrender the dank, sour joys of slander and spite than they could telekinetically relocate Jupiter.

    Well thought-out and well-spoken, however. Seriously. 😉

  168. “I’ll be generous and say that this voting pattern may not have been due to a conspiracy, but rather like-minded people reading the same authors over and over again.”

    I believe that’s the reason. Once a writer broke the best-novel nomination barrier, that writer was likely to be nominated again on future novels, as long as the novel was not a collaboration or book X of a series.

    In 2010 I looked at the best novel nominees for the previous decade. 34 out of 50 nominees were people who had been nominated in that category before. Here are the only first-timers over that period:

    2000: J.K. Rowling
    2001: Nalo Hopkinson, Ken McLeod, George R.R. Martin
    2002: Neil Gaiman, China Mieville
    2003: None
    2004: Charles Stross
    2005: Iain M. Banks, Susanna Clarke, Ian McDonald
    2006: John Scalzi
    2007: Michael F. Flynn, Naomi Novik, Peter Watts
    2008: Michael Chabon
    2009: Cory Doctorow

  169. 1. You continue to ignore Vox’s response to your bet. Interesting. Can we assume now that you aren’t going to take him up on your own challenge?

    2. Great. Then the SJW’s can quit whining about how many ‘deserving authors who have never won an award’ were robbed because of thepuppies. We put up a bunch of never-yet-won, and the SJWs historically haven’t. So points for puppies!

    3. You keep saying that your particular problem with Vox is that he loaded a slate with himself and his publishing house… but that’s okay, isn’t it? Afterall, that is *exactly* what Scalzi and Tor did. You are arguing that Sad Puppies is bad because they pushed works from too many authors instead of doing ‘the usual’ fare of self-promotion, and Rabid Puppies is bad because Vox did too much self-promotion.

    It’s almost like no matter what the puppy side of the equation does, it will be bad. Funny, that.

  170. “Either the Hugos have prestige because they represent ‘the’ combined voice of world fandom, or they are the selection of a small group of fans at a tiny con who don’t connect with most of the rest of fandom.”

    The Hugos have always been the selection of a small group of fans who financially support Worldcon. They gained prestige because of the convention’s seminal role in the development of SF/F fandom and the winners in early decades who became the grand masters of the genre. Being a part of Worldcon and the Hugos ties you to the 200 fans who attended the first one in 1939 and the legendary conventions that followed.

    If you think Worldcon is just a “small group of fans at a tiny con who don’t connect with most of the rest of fandom,” that’s your prerogative. But that group created the Hugos and nurtured them over the decades and owns the Hugo brand, so people who become supporting members shouldn’t think of the awards as something they can take from Worldcon.

  171. “You continue to ignore Vox’s response to your bet.”

    He already posted an allegation of an editor category being manipulated on Black Gate, but what he considered evidence was telling me, “Go through the nominating statistics.”

    I pay little attention to some of the smaller categories like Editor. That’s why my challenge to Correia focused on novel/novella/novelette, because those are the ones where I am most confident that no behind-the-scenes manipulation has occurred in the past decade.

  172. Frau Butthurt, this morning: “Cora Buhlert ‏@CoraBuhlert · 22m22 minutes ago  Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, Germany
    @AaronPound @NMamatas @deirdresm @eilatan After all, Torgersen has said he wants to exclude everybody who doesn’t write his brand of SFF.”

    Where does he say that?

  173. “They could change their mind, and we could debate the merit but not the right.”

    Who is this imaginary “they”? Are you under the impression that there’s some group that controls Worldcon rules other than the membership? GRRM gets one vote, just like everybody else.

    I hope both Sasquan and next year’s MidAmericon have reserved a much larger than normal room for the business meeting.

  174. “robbed the majority of Worldcon members their possibility to get the works they nominated on the ballot”

    They got more votes. If that’s “robbing” someone, then people are getting “robbed” every year.

  175. I picked the works I like without strategic thinking about what others might be choosing. None of them made the ballot, which is a first for me.

    I wonder if you realize just how revealing this comment is.

  176. keranih says:
    “I do agree that people need to not be calling each other names and getting nasty. You are likely to find a lot of people on the SP side really REALLY pissed off right now, seeing as some person or persons saw fit to slander the SP leads as racist homophobes ACROSS GLOBAL PRESS. I’m not sure what would help calm the waters and make people more willing to reach across the divide, but any implication that SP people are racist or otherwise bigoted isn’t going to help. I suggest that people stop making that implication, AT ALL, and stick to the technical matters of voting technicalities and work quality.”

    This. A thousand times, this. But I’m not seeing anyone on the other side counselling it (well, except Mary Kowal). Quite the opposite; they seem to be doubling down on it. And (as I’m discovering, after having talked with some long time fans last night over this subject), the impression appears to be sticking.

    We seem to be rapidly heading towards a policy of scorched earth on both sides. It would be nice if anyone, ANYONE, on the other side showed even a little effort to staunch the unwarranted assaults. Even a neutral party offering olive branches to both sides would help. But I’m starting to believe this tit-for-tat name calling will end up tearing the Hugos apart long before the voting even starts.

  177. I guess they’re referring to his “Nutty Nuggets” analogy. I can see why that would go over their heads. To which they would respond: “Nothing goes over our heads! Our reflexes are too quick! We would catch it!”

  178. “I hope both Sasquan and next year’s MidAmericon have reserved a much larger than normal room for the business meeting.”

    They’re gong to need the main auditorium this year. And to think people were complaining hardly anyone ever shows up to the business meetings anymore.

  179. You know, you can couch it however you like, but Scalzi, Stross and Tor have been pushing slates for years – calling them “eligibility lists” and such is playing word games. What they did is absolutely no different to SP / RP, and the lack of condemnation then is as telling as the tide of righteous condemnation now.

    It’s been evident that backdoor dealing has been going on for years, and they’re now sore that they can’t get away with it any more – hence the scorched earth option of “No Award” theyre trying to push. So it’s time to share the playground, or take your ball, go home and cry to mummy about the big mean kids.

    One thing strikes me as funny in all of this – the likes of spacefaringkitten, Mokoto, @rcade and their ilk all assume that the newcomers encouraged to join in the Hugo’s process via SP / RP are a minority, and that they and others who think like them are the majority. I think they’re in for a rather big shock in August.

  180. “I wonder if you realize just how revealing this comment is.”

    Seeing 2-6 of my nominees out of 70 on the ballot each year is hardly evidence that I’m guilty of groupthink. Most of them have been in less contested categories like Best Fanzine. A few times it was because I liked the new work of an author who had already won some Hugos in that category. As I said earlier, that tends to be the biggest predictor of future Hugos, and it was true going all the way back to when Heinlein was taking home rockets.

  181. @Rogers

    “I believe that’s the reason. Once a writer broke the best-novel nomination barrier, that writer was likely to be nominated again on future novels, as long as the novel was not a collaboration or book X of a series.”

    Fair enough, so what SP does then is break that mold, and gives new authors a chance for the Hugos instead of waiting for those authors to either stop writing or die off. I’ll admit it is a pile driver tactic, but sometimes those are necessary.

    @SpaceKitten

    “It is new to SF. Tactical slate-voting has never before robbed the majority of Worldcon members their possibility to get the works they nominated on the ballot so badly (if at all). That is a problem and things have to change. The Rapid Puppies did not demonstrate that there is liberal bias, they demonstrated that the process is broken.”

    Campaigning has been done before, as has slate-voting. George Martin has a good post on his blog about the history of campaigning in the Hugos, not really different from any other award. Sad Puppies just organized better so they got better results. It was necessary to do in order shake up the voting.

    “But let’s just agree to disagree about that. Neither of us will reconsider.”

    I still wouldn’t recommend voting No Award. It probably won’t lead to anything but a hardening of positions by both sides, and you just may have no Hugos awarded for a decade.

  182. Yes, Scalzi’s “book-pimpage” comes to mind.

    And can you imagine the crapstorm if Larry or Brad used the word “pimpage”?

  183. Nick Mamatas replying to Buhlert: “Nick Mamatas ‏@NMamatas · 1h1 hour ago
    @CoraBuhlert @AaronPound @deirdresm @eilatan He writes turgid religious testimony.”

    Translation, “I glanced at the cover of The Chaplain’s War and jumped to conclusions.”

    I must admit, Mamatas is going a great job of showing how he has attained his current status in the field this past week.

  184. “Calling people toads is not something adult people should do, in my opinion.”

    Normally I would agree, and I myself have not referred to her as such. However, to my personal knowledge, she has been verbally abusing and bullying people online and off for well over 20 years, calling anyone who disagrees with her every scurrilous name in the book. My sympathy for her is…minimal.

  185. “… the newcomers encouraged to join in the Hugo’s process via SP / RP are a minority …”

    There are likely around 150-250 Puppies voters. Last year’s Hugos got around 3,500 votes. The newcomers are definitely a minority of the overall electorate.

    As a Hugo voter for several years, I hope the noobs will keep supporting the Worldcon and attend one if they get the opportunity.

  186. “I think they’re in for a rather big shock in August.”

    I think you are right. Loncon 3 was the biggest Worldcon in 30 years, and was an overseas con to boot (those are usually much smaller).

  187. “Newcomers this year are an overall minority” – youve only got to look at how the figures have swollen since the original SP campaign – (http://sasquan.org/member-numbers/) .In the last seven months, membership has doubled.

    While not all of those will be brought in by SP / RP, my guess would be that a majority of those newcomers have. After all, theres been no other campaigns to try and increase membership, have there?

  188. A lot of the membership growth on that Sasquan link is people buying their attending memberships so they can go to the convention as the date gets closer. You have to buy that every year, so it starts from 0. Around 8,000 people attended the last one in London.

  189. Kryters says:
    “You know, you can couch it however you like, but Scalzi, Stross and Tor have been pushing slates for years – calling them “eligibility lists” and such is playing word games. What they did is absolutely no different to SP / RP, and the lack of condemnation then is as telling as the tide of righteous condemnation now.”

    It was either Ace or DAW (or perhaps, both!) in the 1980s did this every year. I remember being handed flyers at their room parties.

    “One thing strikes me as funny in all of this – the likes of spacefaringkitten, Mokoto, @rcade and their ilk all assume that the newcomers encouraged to join in the Hugo’s process via SP / RP are a minority, and that they and others who think like them are the majority. I think they’re in for a rather big shock in August.”

    In this I think they do have a point. The SP voters have indeed formed a large voting bloc, but they are still smaller compared to the Worldcon voting group as a whole. And the final ballot voters always outnumber the nomination voters by at least 2-1. Since the nomination totals were around 2,200 votes that puts the likely Hugo final vote to be around 4,400 (I actually think it will top 5,000 this year). Assuming the SP bloc is around 400 (I’m splitting the difference between the 100-200 figure the anti- crowd is touting and the 500-600 figure that various SP voters are citing), that means there should be around 4000 votes that can be legitimately called “non-bloc”. While SP has drawn in a chunk of new voters, the question is still whether it can rally enough of the remainder to offset any No Award campaign, because it WILL need to do so. With the anti- campaign’s having more momentum in the messaging right now (and make no mistake, they do), it may be a hard thing to sell.

  190. ” Rogers Cadenhead (@rcade) says:
    A lot of the membership growth on that Sasquan link is people buying their attending memberships so they can go to the convention as the date gets closer.”

    While I understand the costs go up for attending the convention as the date approaches, I fail to see the source of your evidence that the numbers reflects attendees purchasing memberships. Do share your data or its source. Otherwise one might arrive at the conclusion you are engaging in “wishful speculation”.

  191. I’ve been following your posts on SP3 for months now, and I’ve yet to see you answer the most important question: What’s your exit strategy? Now that you’ve “destroyed science fiction,” as you headlined your aim in January, how do you fix it? How do you rebuild the Hugos and win the peace? Because until you answer that question, you’re no better than Brutus, who fantasized that everything would just turn out all right once he’d murdered Caesar.

  192. “Seeing 2-6 of my nominees out of 70 on the ballot each year is hardly evidence that I’m guilty of groupthink. ”

    Pfft. I was lucky if I ever got one on the ballot. And that would usually be in Best Dramatic Presentation.

  193. @Mr.A is Mr.A

    Frankly that’s all he’s got I’m guessing. I’ve asked him before to provide some evidence of was bloc voting, and promptly got ignored. There might have been, or there might not have been, we simply have no data at this point to analyze. Rogers is either running on feelz & speculation & has no data or else has ‘secret’ data that just proves our entire point.

  194. “Cora Buhlert ‏@CoraBuhlert 16h16 hours ago @fozmeadows Never mind that the shadowy SJW cabal exists only in their twisted little minds.”

    “Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 16h16 hours ago @CoraBuhlert @fozmeadows actually I’m in charge of the cabal behind my pleasant seeming facade. Don’t tell anyone.”

    Typical SJW lack of awareness of their own words. I’m not maintaining a shadowy anything but an open and above board collusion to discriminate against and even ban white men from spaces in SFF.

    “I’m increasingly less likely to pick up a book if it is another straight white dude story.” – Kate Elliott

    “It is no coincidence that my book review column features no white male authors.” – Sunil Patel

    Anyone who knows me knows I’m not bullshitting when I say I could list 500 more examples in quotes across the institutional spectrum of the core SFF community.

    I’ve noticed again and again SJWs resort to phrases they sarcastically put forward as if their unpossible but are things they actually do. There absolutely is an ideologically driven cabal that is dead set against white men and which actively and even obsessively promotes their provisional opposite: the gay, non-white, female. That tacit cabal determines who gets published and who gets awards and who gets on convention panels among many other things. You’re only chance if you’re a white man is to kowtow and confess to the very specific tenets of radical feminism about white male privilege. At that point you get a dispensation as an “ally.” But even so you will never survive the relentless race-gender pie-charting of this very real and active cabal.

  195. @snow1985man

    Care to provide a reference to us wanting to ‘destroy science fiction’? Because that’s the first I’m hearing of it, and I’ve been involved for 2 years now.

  196. “… I fail to see the source of your evidence that the numbers reflects attendees purchasing memberships …”

    You can see it in the multi-colored graph, which has the attending memberships in green and supporting memberships in gray. Attending grows from around 800 to 3,100 over seven months. Supporting grows from around 1,200 to 1,800.

    I don’t think month-to-month growth is going to show us how many new people the Puppies brought to the party. It’ll be in year-to-year and in the vote totals for the slates, presumably.

  197. “Now that you’ve “destroyed science fiction,” as you headlined your aim in January”

    Nice out-of-context quoting, troll. That post was a reaction to others accusing him, not his own stated goal.

    Nothing in that article supports the thesis that Brad actually wants to “destroy science fiction”. You are invited to provide cites to the contrary.

    You’re either dishonest or illiterate. Which is it?

  198. @Doctor Locketopus

    Yea guessing snow1985man doesn’t do sarcasm. Or Honesty.

  199. “With the anti-[SP] campaign’s having more momentum in the messaging right now (and make no mistake, they do), it may be a hard thing to sell.”

    It is true that the anti-SP campaign was able to stuff global media with the idea that SP was racist sexist homophobes who should be opposed on the grounds of righteousness. Given the degree to which those articles have had to be revised, I don’t see them being able to repeat this. (I could be wrong. I wouldn’t have said that RS would have lied outright as they did, nor have as much traction as they did.)

    And as has been said repeatedly – ‘all no award’ is a sign of the favoritism of the traditional trufans. It’s not actually a defeat for people intending to expose and reduce this favoritism.

  200. Seeing 2-6 of my nominees out of 70 on the ballot each year is hardly evidence that I’m guilty of groupthink. Most of them have been in less contested categories like Best Fanzine.

    That’s still more revealing than you think. It indicates that your tastes not only have no overlap with the kinds of works that the SP/RP recommend (or the most popular of the rest), but by declaring that you’ll vote No Award, you’re also not interested in evaluating the pieces they do recommend. It shows you always had a stake in the old system; after all, if something you liked got on the ballot, the system must be more or less okay, right? Since you’re shut out, time to take your ball and go home. (Plus, by doing what you’re doing where you’re going, you’re creating opposing voters. Not the best strategic move.)

    That also explains your steadfast refusal to accept the possibility that anything untoward was happening because if it was and you didn’t notice it, you might have some culpability for it. It is your recalcitrance on this last point that makes me distrust your alleged noble motives and your protestations that prior years were all in good faith. As Alexander has pointed out, you still haven’t responded to Vox Day’s offer to take up your bet (even to the extent of a simple, “won’t buy, but will see the evidence”), and you have misrepresented Larry Correia’s declining to provide a militant skeptic a criminal case as being an admission that he has no evidence of prior shenanigans.

    You rather remind me of a university professor that thinks there can’t possibly be any bias at his college because all the fellows he knows are such cantankerous, independent-minded sorts that, nonetheless, all vote the same way and live the same way. Now some new strange sorts are in the department, so let’s be sure to shun them and let them know they’re not welcome. Inclusive, that.

  201. “Rogers Cadenhead (@rcade) says:
    ‘… I fail to see the source of your evidence that the numbers reflects attendees purchasing memberships …’

    You can see it in the multi-colored graph, which has the attending memberships in green and supporting memberships in gray. Attending grows from around 800 to 3,100 over seven months. Supporting grows from around 1,200 to 1,800.”

    Thank you for correcting my misreading of the graphs and where you were drawing the data for your statement. I apreciate you answering my quesiton.

  202. “Rogers is either running on feelz & speculation & has no data or else has ‘secret’ data that just proves our entire point.”

    If you’re asking whether I have access to the nomination votes, the answer is no. I’m just a Hugo voter with no involvement in running the con. All I have is data that’s publicly shared, like this count of how many ballots were cast in each category:

    Stats

    People who are putting forward the idea there was no bloc voting should offer an alternate theory for why so many entire categories of the Hugos were filled with nothing but the nominees from the Puppies and they claimed 51 of 75 slots overall. It is completely unprecedented.

  203. Lemme see if I have this conflict down correctly:

    ANTI-SP CROWD: The Hugo nominations should be left in the hands of a small, exclusive clique of like-minded persons who, because of their attachment to a specific book convention, should therefore be considered more capable of determining what good science fiction is than anyone else.

    SP CROWD: That’s ridiculous.

    ANTI-SP CROWD: And anyone who disagrees with our position must therefore be, by definition, racist, sexist, straight, white, Christian, Republican crackers, or, worse, Mormons, and thus shouldn’t be allowed to infect our precious Hugo award with their nefarious ignorance.

    SP CROWD: [Sweeps nominations]

    ANTI-SP CROWD: Well, scorched earth work for the Nazis, so let’s go for “No Award” everyone!

  204. “The future belongs to those who show up.” Sp and RP “showed up”. The rest apparently did not. Again, Vox has stats on some categories from previous years compared to SPx years.

    The goal is to get more to “show up” for the Hugos if I understand the thrust of SP from Larry and Brad.

  205. As for calling people names, I’ll use this example since SJWs are incapable of simple analogy or metaphor. They are stuck on identity and only one identity.

    There is no insult a black person can use against the KKK or Jew against neo-Nazis that is too harsh. There is no insult too harsh for anyone who is an SJW, since they are members of a racist, sexist, supremacist cult that never shuts up about white men. I don’t care about their feelings or in decorum.

    For me personally, SJWs are the ones who started the name-calling. The simple reason for that is they not only created the atmosphere for that but a double standard. What you can say at Tor or any SJW site is completely different if you’re an SJW than if not.

    They made this bed and they’re going to lie in it. I usually (but not always) stay away from appearances but when I say SJWs are stupid, mentally addled and ignorant I mean that in a quite literal sense. They also routinely lie. Everything an SJW claims they are against is a sham; they have no principles. If you’re against homophobia then that would include Islam, not just Christians, but it never does include Islam. In fact SJWs have predictably created rhetoric where that is considered a “derailing” tactic. Anything which gets in between an SJW and white men is dismissed. In other words, SJWs act in a completely opposite manner than law and fair play does. That is plain evidence of a racist cult which never lets the real target out of the cross-hairs and is an excuse factory for any other group of people who are not white, male, heterosexual, Christian and Western.

  206. keranih says:
    “It is true that the anti-SP campaign was able to stuff global media with the idea that SP was racist sexist homophobes who should be opposed on the grounds of righteousness. Given the degree to which those articles have had to be revised, I don’t see them being able to repeat this. (I could be wrong. I wouldn’t have said that RS would have lied outright as they did, nor have as much traction as they did.)”

    First impressions are often the ones people keep. After having read the (libelous) original versions of those articles, I think most readers won’t even notice the corrections unless someone beats them over the head with them.

    “And as has been said repeatedly – ‘all no award’ is a sign of the favoritism of the traditional trufans. It’s not actually a defeat for people intending to expose and reduce this favoritism.”

    I was responding to those who think that the Worldcon voters would be in for a rude surprise this year if they expect No Award to win. We do have a steep mountain to climb, and it will be against an entrenched opposition dropping loaded insults on us from above. Difficult, but by no means impossible, to achieve.

    At the moment I’m figuring we would need to convince between 2,000-2,500 non-SP voters to at least give the nominated ballot a chance rather than No Award everything. And this would be the best cast scenario.

  207. *grumble* I hate that I can’t rewrite my posts once they’re submitted here, because I’ve just thought of a great turn of phrase for my previous post. Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to save it for another time.

  208. “It indicates that your tastes not only have no overlap with the kinds of works that the SP/RP recommend ,,,”

    Wrong. I grew up on Heinlein and still read that kind of SF today. It was easy to challenge Correia by offering to buy his books because they’re the kind of thing I typically enjoy, so even if he provided actual evidence and I lost, I’d win.

    There is overlap between what I enjoy and what the Puppies want to see recognized. But with thousands of works to choose from each calendar year in the fiction categories, there’s never going to be much overlap between me and any other voter or slate.

    There wasn’t much overlap among the Sad Puppies themselves when recommendations were being taken. According to one breakdown of how Torgersen assembled his slate, “41 people suggested, among other things, 35 novels. Of those novels, 4 were suggested by 3 people each, 4 by 2 people each and the rest by 1 person. Among the Sad Puppies themselves, a group whose tastes could be expected to be similar, even the most favored books were getting less than 10% of the vote before the slate.”

  209. Rogers YOU are the one that is making the charge that there was bloc voting. At best you’re guessing, again I’ll state: There may have been. There may not have been. WE DO NOT KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVE NO DATA. It’s your job to support your charge. Not mine to disprove it.

  210. “Veronica Schanoes @schanoes · 17h 17 hours ago @NMamatas + 2) I bet your slate wouldn’t be associated w/any white supremacist misogynists, though. Key difference.”

    … says a person who’s adopted a black gay female supremacist ideology.

    No SJW has principles… or a dictionary for that matter.

  211. James M. says:
    “It is new to SF. Tactical slate-voting has never before robbed the majority of Worldcon members their possibility to get the works they nominated on the ballot so badly (if at all). That is a problem and things have to change. The Rapid Puppies did not demonstrate that there is liberal bias, they demonstrated that the process is broken.”

    Campaigning has been done before, as has slate-voting. George Martin has a good post on his blog about the history of campaigning in the Hugos, not really different from any other award. Sad Puppies just organized better so they got better results.

    Well, that’s more or less what I was saying: that you organized and went for the extreme. Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies sweeped the nominations across the board leaving all other nominations out in many categories, and that is new to SF. I think Martin’s post is very good as well, even though for some reason he is only speaking about Sad Puppies, which was the less successful slate. He does think that Sad Puppy effort broke the Hugos and it was a bad thing that you did what you did there, even if there has been some sort of small-scale campaigning before.

  212. At a guess, I’m thinking that the larger the Hugo vote turnout the more it favors the SP noms squeaking past No Award. In addition to whatever new votes SP has brought in, there is always a fair percentage who hear that something is “going on with the Hugos”, and ignore it simply because it sounds like more fan politics (and lots of people are truly sick and tired of fan politics). Others will somehow manage to not even be aware that anything had been going on in the first place and so will vote as normal. And then there are people like me, who rank the options even when they personally don’t like the works at all, but will at least give each nominee some respect for making it that far.

    And no matter how many people vow to vote No Award, I just can’t imagine Jim Butcher’s legions of fans down voting Skin Game merely because of Sad Puppies; Dresden Files is a juggernaut, and I think it will probably trump whatever the anti-SP crowd campaigns for.

  213. rcade;

    First, one of the reason for more listings initially was that it was in response to an explicit request to suggest things that might have been missed. Once two people said “Skin Game!” and three said “Brandon Sanderson!” I’m not worrying about saying “Me too, me too” because it has already been mentioned. Saying from that that only 10% supported (say) Skin Game can only be a deliberate misrepresentation that was made to you.

    Second, for the short fiction, it is very hard to distinguish the book bomb effect out of ‘slate voting’ – consider that maybe a lot of voters don’t read a lot of short fiction, but did read, and enjoy, and nominate the book bombed fiction. Explains the focused vote and the varied vote, which gives it a virtue as a theory that the straight slate voting theory lacks.

  214. Ryan: a few people quickly reviewed it, and suggested I pull it. Which I’ve done. I am integrating elements of the sentiment into a different post. It was late and I was operating on 3 hours of sleep. Some things look fine through fatigued eyes. (grin) Then in the morning you go, “Oooohhhh, yeah, probably not the best idea.”

  215. “He does think that Sad Puppy effort broke the Hugos and it was a bad thing that you did what you did there, even if there has been some sort of small-scale campaigning before.”

    “… small-scale campaigning before.” Ugh. Reading comprehension fail. Endemic campaigning is what GRRM noted. He also said no one has done it better than SP.

    While his final comments are not up on Sad Puppies, your thoughts are that we can ignore the previous campaigns (water under the bridge), but the current one (SP) among unknown others underway openly and behind the scenes are problematic because “death of the Hugo”? Or just Sad Puppies, because “feelbad”?

    Please link to other sites where your complaints about campaigns of any stripe are found posted.

    And GRRM is opposed to “No Award” — taking his lead here as well?

    SFK is fitted with a “Not a Bad Thing Unless Others Do It” Goggles welded to its head.

  216. The way you prove to the world that you love a thing, is to see the thing preserved. Maybe it winds up in the hands of somebody you don’t think deserves it, or because you don’t like how the thing got there in the first place. But declaring, “Cut it in half,” reveals a jealous possessiveness that belies any love that may be felt.

    Or shorter Brad: “Do you really want me to shoot the hostage?”

  217. “They would find Hugo-nominated novels by Kim Stanley Robinson, George R. R. Martin, Robert J. Sawyer, Cherie Priest, Neil Gaiman, Neal Stephenson and Charles Stross, and that’s just in the last five years.”

    So, they’d be exposed to a bunch of writers, all of whom are white, all of whom, but one, are male. There are more women and non-whites in the SP slate than in your little list there. Now, who’s the racist, again?

  218. You know, it’s really shocking on occasion for me to see a lot of people capable of following the great subtleties of science fiction and fantasy insist that evidence of SJWs encouraging people to stuff the ballot must be clearcut, printed in block letters, and waved as a flag.

    Follow the connections, guys. Use your noggins.

    And honestly – pardon my French, but what the ever loving hell do you think this ‘No Award’ campaign is if it’s not an attempt to – wait for it – stuff Hugo boxes on grounds other than literary merit?

    Even if the Sad Puppies people were completely wrong about secret blocs dominating the Hugo voting, you are creating, yourselves, the very thing, the not-so-secret SJW bloc, that they were talking about! You are furnishing their proof for them! It’s pretty damn hilarious!

  219. The dishonest whining from @rcade and others has convinced me to buy a supporting membership. Well, that, plus the opportunity to read a bunch of works that for once look better than the usual dreck.

  220. For the first time in a long time, I have no idea how the Hugo Awards are going to go.

    Personally, I think that’s a good thing.

  221. Christopher M. Chupik says:
    “For the first time in a long time, I have no idea how the Hugo Awards are going to go.”

    Same here. This time I actually have no idea how any of this is going to shake out. In the last several years you can usually get a good idea where it was going just by listening to the buzz; this year? No idea. Its quite refreshing for once.

  222. “Now, who’s the racist, again?”

    If you’re trying to put me in my place, I’ve never described Brad Torgersen or Larry Correia as racists, nor have I characterized Sad Puppies as being motivated by that.

  223. This post is directed at rcade and spacefaringkittens, although I expect this will fall under Larry Correia’s axiom of ‘swaying the undecided’ not convincing either one of you.

    It’s very very easy to go back to Scalzi’s blog (just as one example I bothered to take the time to search), go to his search feature and search for award to see not one but two blog posts most years where he has a post for award recommendations just for authors to put forward and one for fans to put forward. About the only difference (in my cursory searching) that I can see between what Scalzi did and what our gracious host, Brad Torgersen, did, is that Brad compiled the top 5 recommendations from his and Larry’s blogs into a “slate”.

    If you’re too lazy/busy to search yourself, here’s the search link on scalzi’s site:
    http://whatever.scalzi.com/?s=award
    And here’s the 2015 fan recommendation post: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/02/12/the-2015-sff-fans-award-recommendation-thread/

    Note that this post only has 64 responses. Now I didn’t read through those responses to see how many were unique, but given that in some prior years, it only took 40 votes to get a work nominated, it’s not hard to make the stretch that the ‘small scale campaigning’, as SFkittens put it, was all that was necessary to lock up the nominations.

    And while this isn’t direct evidence of bloc-voting on the part of the old guard, the circumstantial evidence is piling up; particularly when you consider that Teresa Nielsen-Hayden put up a post on her blog *before the nominations were announced* more or less admitting that their candidates didn’t get nominated. That implies a lot of behind-the-scenes communication and collusion between the various old guard groups.

    As to straight bloc-voting on the part of the SP/RP crowd, I, personally, consider it obvious that the allegation is false. If it were true that all or a large majority of SP/RP supporters all voted the suggested slates in lock-step, then instead of 51 of 75 nominations going to the slates, the result would have been 75 of 75. Because that’s what a bloc-vote is, everyone voting in lock-step.

    That a lot of those works ended up on the ballot are, to me, evidence that many other fans were suddenly aware “OMG, I can vote for Jim Butcher?!” (as one example), and added their voices to those of the other people voting for Butcher, but not voting straight down the slate for all the suggestions from either SP or RP.

    Lastly, I find it personally telling that you (rcade, here– spacefaringkittens has at least mentioned she’s going to read and judge the works on their merit, which I applaud), intend to No Award because you feel the works are somehow tainted because they got nominated and your picks didn’t. I would really like to hear from you, rcade, why (as just three examples), Skin Game (which I’ve not read), Interstellar (which I have seen), and Goodnight Stars (which I’ve also not read), are not worthy of a Hugo award. Is the writing in Skin Game subpar? Is Guardians of the Galaxy simply a better movie than Interstellar? Is there some other indicator of quality that would preclude Goodnight Stars from winning a Hugo?

    The No Award slash and burn isn’t giving these works the due and fair consideration they deserve for being nominees, regardless of how you feel about either the SP or RP movements.

    I’ve not bought a membership for any of the SP campaigns (I drop thousands of dollars a year and hundreds of volunteer hours) into local conventions, and I haven’t seen much point in diverting even $40 of that to a con I won’t be attending), thus far, but the more I hear from people like you (again, rcade solely here, not SFkittens), the more inclined I am to take some money from the local cons I support and put it there, just because the simple injustice of decreeing that the work isn’t worthy of consideration on its own merit. Keep arguing and you may convince me to go cough up that $40 to vote against your tactic.

  224. “nor have I characterized Sad Puppies as being motivated by that.”

    No, you’ve just repeatedly associated them with KNOWN!!!! RACIST!!! Vox Day and wanted everyone connected with SP to publicly denounce him.

    Still waiting for my answer about whether demanding that writers denounce Marxism would be okay. I suspect I’m going to be waiting for a long time.

  225. “If you’re trying to put me in my place, I’ve never described Brad Torgersen or Larry Correia as racists, nor have I characterized Sad Puppies as being motivated by that.”

    In that case, I apologize.

    However, a lot of the anti-SP people do make such accusations on the flimsiest of pretexts. The list of venerable authors you gave would have been quite enough for some people to label you as a racist. This is part of the point some of the more fervent SP supporters are making.

  226. Even if the Sad Puppies people were completely wrong about secret blocs dominating the Hugo voting, you are creating, yourselves, the very thing, the not-so-secret SJW bloc, that they were talking about! You are furnishing their proof for them!

    It’s no secret. We keep telling them that — openly and directly. We’ve BEEN telling them that, virtually from Day Numero Uno.

    For the SJWers and the CHORFs, however, blowing up the Hugos if they can’t have their way isn’t a bug: it’s a feature.

  227. Or shorter Brad: “Do you really want me to shoot the hostage?”

    We’re not the ones threatening to shoot the hostage.

    If you want to take the metaphorical route, let’s go completely literary. We’ve got poor Hugo, caught between two lovers from feuding families (Patrick and Brad). Both Patrick and Brad claim that they truly love Hugo and the other side just wants him for his prestige. Now, it looks like Brad has managed to wrest Hugo from Patrick and is running away with him. Hugo looks back, perhaps out of sorrow, perhaps out of fear. But what’s this? “Nobody else may have him!” says Patrick to his family. “Kill Hugo!”

    Question for the reader: does Patrick truly love Hugo?

  228. “However, a lot of the anti-SP people do make such accusations on the flimsiest of pretexts.”

    I dislike the venomous ideological back-and-forth going on over the awards and many other controversies in SF/F. I’m here for the good books. When I want to argue about politics I do so over serious matters like wedding cakes.

  229. “Campaigning has been done before, as has slate-voting. George Martin has a good post on his blog about the history of campaigning in the Hugos, not really different from any other award. Sad Puppies just organized better so they got better results. It was necessary to do in order shake up the voting.” -James May

    I have to admit, James. A lot of Sad Puppies insist up and down its not a slate, people just happened to vote that way, this is true fandom.

    At least you *own* what is the obvious truth. I still abhor how this was done, regardless, because it opens the doors to slates all across the board and a competition for Hugo awards on anything except the merits of the damned book I’ve read or the podcast I’ve heard.

  230. “Kent18 says:
    It’s no secret. We keep telling them that — openly and directly. We’ve BEEN telling them that, virtually from Day Numero Uno.”

    Doubtful that they will listen. After all, any who disagree with them must be Evil. 😉

    Answer their arguments (or lack thereof) so that the rest of the audience will understand. The mind-numbed won’t be converted — they will likely become targets and fodder for others of their ilk over time, if history is any guide.

    Refute what they say for the sake of the neutrals’ understanding. They are the ones who might be persuaded with argument.

  231. Mr.A is Mr.A says:
    “… small-scale campaigning before.” Ugh. Reading comprehension fail. Endemic campaigning is what GRRM noted. He also said no one has done it better than SP.

    You’ve done it better means that your campaign is bigger. Compared to it, other campaigning is small-scale. Some business-insiders and their friends voting for each other doesn’t break the whole process like this sweep did.

    While his final comments are not up on Sad Puppies, your thoughts are that we can ignore the previous campaigns (water under the bridge), but the current one (SP) among unknown others underway openly and behind the scenes are problematic because “death of the Hugo”?

    Well, what do you suggest? Nobody has the means to monitor what small groups of people agree to do among themselves. Maybe a couple of people have got themselves nominated this way over the years, it’s hard to tell and impossible to sanction. You’ve run a massive campaign and wrecked the way Hugos are supposed to work. Only organized bloc-voters had a say in selecting any short fiction nominees, for example. Something has to be done rules-wise.

    And GRRM is opposed to “No Award” — taking his lead here as well?

    As I’ve said in this thread, I will read nominated works first and decide after that. I do understand why many people support a blanket no award for every Puppy. It has wrecked the Hugos and, in my opinion, there’s much bad faith in Brad’s manifestos.

  232. The mind-numbed won’t be converted — they will likely become targets and fodder for others of their ilk over time, if history is any guide.

    I always start with the baseline assumption that “you can’t reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into to begin with.”

    The TOR-sponsored Team Tantrum — “You’re making us do this, you filthy unwashed heathen bastards! You’re MAKING us burn the Hugos down to the ground, rather than letting them be sullied by your badthink/wrongfun touch! WE’RE THROTTLING GRANDMA ON HER DEATHBED BECAUSE WE CHERISH AND ADORE HER SO, DAMN YOU!!!” — isn’t a position of reason. It’s spite, and bile, and the ugliest, most engorged sort of sullen entitlement.

    Were they genuinely capable of being reached by sweet, sweet reason: they wouldn’t be standing there with their paws wrapped around grandma’s throat in the first place.

  233. I dislike the venomous ideological back-and-forth going on over the awards and many other controversies in SF/F. I’m here for the good books. When I want to argue about politics I do so over serious matters like wedding cakes.

    It’s odd, then, that you direct your ire at the explicitly non-ideological side in the debate. (I admit, one can always define ‘believing things should be non-ideological’ as an ideology, but that tends to lead to self-referential mental breakdown when you try to oppose it. Likewise, the only ideology the SP faction seems to be outright opposing is the ‘books need to meet an ideology and not just be good’ ideology.) There’s an asymmetrical difference between the two sides, and that is Social Justice ideology explicitly makes everything its business; if something isn’t sufficiently viewed as welcoming to the SJW protected group du jour, it’s the duty of the SJW to change it.

    Ironically the best thing the SJWs could have done to stop the SP campaign in its tracks would have been to quietly make sure that a couple of conservative / libertarian / non-Tor type authors won awards for a few years. Then when the steam fell out of the SP campaign, go back to SJW / Tor business as usual.

  234. “You’ve done it better means that your campaign is bigger. Compared to it, other campaigning is small-scale. Some business-insiders and their friends voting for each other doesn’t break the whole process like this sweep did.”
    So “big” campaign is bad, but “small” and/or “insider” campaigns are ok. Corporate corruption passes muster with you then? Process is broken because someone was successful in conveying a message to join Worldcon? You continue to whine that tune, but you provide NO evidence that anything is broken. As per your usual, fail.

    “Well, what do you suggest? Nobody has the means to monitor what small groups of people agree to do among themselves. Maybe a couple of people have got themselves nominated this way over the years, it’s hard to tell and impossible to sanction. ”
    But you’ll define what is acceptably “small” for everyone involved? You’ll decide who can associate and communicate with whom and when that communication becomes “unacceptable”? You are a petty tyrant.

    “You’ve run a massive campaign and wrecked the way Hugos are supposed to work.”
    Bullpucky and balderdash until you provide evidence that either SP or RP broke a single rule.

    “Only organized bloc-voters had a say in selecting any short fiction nominees, for example. Something has to be done rules-wise.”
    Complain to the fans who didn’t buy a membership in order to nominate. The complainers didn’t show up to nominate or to vote, even though SP3 was known for a year. Pitch your whine-and-moan fest to them for letting down their favorite authors, et al.

    “As I’ve said in this thread, I will read nominated works first and decide after that.”
    That is the one sane thing you’ve said in this thread.

    “I do understand why many people support a blanket no award for every Puppy. It has wrecked the Hugos and, in my opinion, there’s much bad faith in Brad’s manifestos.”
    Only in the bizzare reality you’ve manufactured inside your head.

  235. “Some business-insiders and their friends voting for each other doesn’t break the whole process like this sweep did.”

    A process that resulted in John Scalzi having more Hugo nominations than Arthur C. Clarke was already broken.

  236. @spacefaringkitten

    I do understand why many people support a blanket no award for every Puppy. It has wrecked the Hugos and, in my opinion, there’s much bad faith in Brad’s manifestos.

    We can tell that there is ‘bad faith’ – it leaks through quite clearly every time someone – like, oh, GRRM, says “Oh, I know what they said, but I think they aren’t telling the truth.” We’re drowning in the lack of trust over here.

    Between that and the screeches of “DID YOU READ THEM?!?! I THINK YOU’RE LYING AND YOU JUST VOTED FOR THE SLATE IN LOCKSTEP!!!!” we’re about at the point where we wouldn’t believe the other side if they offered a parley flag and set up a tent at Runnymede.

    And I hate this. It’s not ‘your side my side’, it’s flipping *fandom*, where 2d100 couldn’t count all the edges.

  237. Paul Weimer says:
    “At least you *own* what is the obvious truth. I still abhor how this was done, regardless, because it opens the doors to slates all across the board and a competition for Hugo awards on anything except the merits of the damned book I’ve read or the podcast I’ve heard.”

    I’m sorry, Mr. Weimer, but I think Sad Puppies was inevitable. If not us, then someone else would have done the same thing eventually. The ever increasing number of potential nominees these days (so many that no one can actually read/listen to them all) coupled with the rise of internalized cliques and the ease of internet delivery practically begged for it to happen at some point.

    And I would further suggest that considerations besides the merits of any individual work (be it the author themselves or politics or whatever) have been around for ever in Hugo voting, so in that respect, little will have changed.

    Whether you like slates or not, I think they’re going to be here to stay. The only thing left to do now is to try to find ways for all of us to live with them.

  238. Re “Destroy Science Fiction” here’s Brad’s 1/16/15 post I was referring to:

    https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/why-sad-puppies-3-is-going-to-destroy-science-fiction/

    As for it being sarcastic headline–and an appropritation of the “Queers Destroy SF” title–I don’t see how it could be given that the post is basically the business plan for SP3 and ends:

    “If SAD PUPPIES happens to make a few people cry a Grinchy boo-hoo-hoo along the way, and if we give the Hyper-Progressive Pissypants Club (HPPC) heartburn because we’re ruining things by trying to get the larger SF/F consumer world involved . . . well, that’s just a cross we’re prepared to bear — with a large cup of soda in one hand, and a big bucket of theater popcorn in the other.”

    That not sarcasm. That’s a fuck them.

  239. keranih says:
    “Between that and the screeches of “DID YOU READ THEM?!?! I THINK YOU’RE LYING AND YOU JUST VOTED FOR THE SLATE IN LOCKSTEP!!!!””

    Like this has never happened in Hugo voting before. Lots of authors and their works get on because the author is popular or word-of-mouth is that its the new “in thing” to read or whatever. And then lots of people vote for it for the identical reasons. Its just the nature of the beast.

  240. For what it’s worth, I doubt that the Hugo voting will be screwed up for all time. The Sad Puppy Prevention movement is currently enjoying a great sense of solidarity, because they’re standing shoulder-to-shoulder against what they perceive as a cadre of like-minded insiders voting in lock step to support boring stories by politically correct authors.

    Within a short time, the group will start to splinter, because it won’t have a unifying “enemy” to hold it together. The hard science guys will chafe that too many monster stories are on the slate, or the libertarians will decide that they can’t support all the stories with a Strong Central Authority. Once this happens, we’ll see the various flavors of Puppies supporting their own favorite stories, and as the movement splinters, they’ll be on equal footing with every other sort of fan. I honestly believe this will bring us the best outcome we could hope for: myriad competing slates supported by myriad competing sub-groups of fans, all arguing about how Their Author is amazing and the Other Guy’s Author is overrated dreck. Which is how things are supposed to be, if you ask me (not that anybody has).

    I don’t think that lock-step voting, whether from the Puppies or the old guard, is going to dominate for very long; the community is just too fractious. And that’s a good thing.

  241. This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen, and I work with the public. First off…yes, maybe the Hugo’s ARE broken…and just like those who have gone before me, I call for proof and not just rants on the internet. But did you seriously think this is the way to fix the problem? Secondly, just because you didn’t break any rules, that doesn’t mean this is the answer. Just because you HAVE the right doesn’t mean it IS the right. Mostly I am disturbed by the gleeful tone of the drama queens involved in this, on both sides, (you will know I am referring to you if you suddenly feel that self-righteous anger burning in your throat). So carry on with your bickering. I am going to go cast MY vote the old fashioned way, and buy a book.

  242. I hope it’s a dictionary – one with words like “racist,” “both,” “sides,” “how” and “many.”

  243. Cthulhu’s Wheel of Fortune is still trying to puzzle out what a thing like a civilization looks like.

    Plus there’s poems:

    I once met a feminist named Lorde
    Her patter made me awfully bored
    So I kicked her in the [redacted]
    To see how she reacted
    But her [redacted] wasn’t there any more

  244. Arthur Chu’s latest Twitter target? John Ringo. I guess he’s going to rage against every single one of Baen’s bestsellers now.

    No, I’m not cutting and pasting it. I’m sick of this crap. I need a rest.

  245. Just because you HAVE the right doesn’t mean it IS the right

    “Just because you followed the long and clearly established Hugo nomination rules, down to the very last letter, doesn’t mean that you all aren’t morally depraved inhuman creatures for doing precisely that!

    [::headdesk::]

  246. Arthur Chu’s latest Twitter target? John Ringo.

    Arthur Chu’s latest target ought to be second and third helpings at dinner.

  247. So this is the old “Hard SF” vs. “Soft SF” debate all over again, except this time, instead of insisting on plausible science, we’re really just complaining that too many people are loving stories that carry a social message vs. pure pulp entertainment (and vice versa). As someone who enjoys both Sir Terry Pratchett’s social commentary via the Discworld and the very pulpy “Death Vigil” comic, I’d just say that you all are far too pretentious, and Brad, this is a bit over the top. SFF doesn’t “die” if the Hugo isn’t awarded to someone. Even the Hugo doesn’t die if no award is given for a particular category on a particular year. If anything, such an act provides more social commentary: were really none of this year’s entries worth awarding? Wow. Why is that? Because a group politicked and put a partisan slate up for consideration? What the fudge?

  248. First illiterate: “That[‘s] not sarcasm. ”

    Yes, it is. Your reading skills just suck. Work on it.

    Only an idiot could read that piece and get the takeaway that Brad actually wants to “destroy science fiction”.

    Second illiterate: “I call for proof and not just rants on the internet.”

    See above about John Scalzi having more Hugo nominations than Arthur C. Clarke. That’s not the only similar case, either, not by a dozen or more.

    Second illiterate (Part Deux, the Concerning) “Mostly I am disturbed by the gleeful tone of the drama queens involved in this, on both sides”

    Links to your comments taking drama queen Teresa Nielsen Hayden, or any other drama queen on the other side, to task? Thanks in advance. A very long time in advance, I’m betting.

    “I am going to go cast MY vote the old fashioned way, and buy a book.”

    Sorry to interrupt a good flounce, but if you knew ANYTHING about this, you’d know that Brad, Larry, et al have sold roughly Avogadro’s number of books for the authors involved.

    Concern Troll: “So this is the old “Hard SF” vs. “Soft SF” debate all over again”

    Wrong. Next.

  249. There’s this strange obsession with claiming that the SP voters couldn’t possibly have read and enjoyed those books, even though Amazon sales ranks and other sources indicate that the SP authors sell quite well (a lot better than their stuff, in most cases).

    Why this inability to believe that someone might (shock!) have different tastes in reading material than you do? The mighty 1.5 million sales rank for the Foz Meadows work is a pretty strong indicator that her audience is quite….selective (Spinal Tap reference there).

  250. Me: “Links to your comments taking drama queen Teresa Nielsen Hayden, or any other drama queen on the other side, to task?”

    Here, I’ll even have pity on you and let you do it post facto. Go over to Nielsen Hayden’s blog, call her a drama queen, etc. etc. then come back here and give us a link to the comment,.

    Assuming you’re really as naive as you’re pretending to be, you’ll learn a valuable life lesson.

  251. @Kryters: “One thing strikes me as funny in all of this – the likes of spacefaringkitten, Mokoto, @rcade and their ilk all assume that the newcomers encouraged to join in the Hugo’s process via SP / RP are a minority, and that they and others who think like them are the majority.”

    I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side.

    @James May: “There is no insult a black person can use against the KKK or Jew against neo-Nazis that is too harsh. There is no insult too harsh for anyone who is an SJW, since they are members of a racist, sexist, supremacist cult that never shuts up about white men. I don’t care about their feelings or in decorum.”

    “–I pull out my robes and hoods and say look, this is what I’ve done to put a dent in racism. I’ve got robes and hoods hanging in my closet by people who’ve given up that belief because of my conversations of sitting down to dinner and they gave it up. How many robes and hoods have you collected? And then they shut up.” –Daryl Davis

    http://www.npr.org/2014/11/14/363896136/the-silver-dollar-lounge

    We’re all geeks. We’re here because we like science fiction. Nobody’s a monster, not even people who get bent out of shape about their right to self-determination. It happens, anyone can reach the point where they feel like they’re set upon on all sides.

  252. SFF doesn’t “die” if the Hugo isn’t awarded to someone. Even the Hugo doesn’t die if no award is given for a particular category on a particular year.

    The Hugo dies if it becomes about anything other than awarding good science fiction, regardless of ideology. Science fiction dies if enough people decide that it’s not entertaining enough to keep reading. They’re all anecdotes, but we have plenty of quotes from people saying “I stopped reading when all the books I could find got to be boring message-first fiction. Thanks to Brad (or Larry, or Sarah) I discovered the first good SF/F novels I’ve read in a long time, and I’ve picked up a bunch more based on their recommendations.”

    If anything, such an act provides more social commentary: were really none of this year’s entries worth awarding? Wow. Why is that? Because a group politicked and put a partisan slate up for consideration? What the fudge?

    I spend a lot of time auditing quality processes. If something keeps commonly happening that should be stopped by processes, I have to look and figure out where the process isn’t working. The Hugo is a process to award good SF/F works. I can go back and look and find lots of quality works that not only don’t win, but are never nominated, and that only certain works have a chance of winning. If the process was working, I’d see works across the spectrum of SF/F winning. It’s not abnormal to have an off year, but these are consistent, repeated failures. Anyone interested in SF/F should be interested in getting the process fixed so these better works get to the attention of fans. If none of the nominees this year are worthy of being called good SF/F, then something is definitely wrong.

  253. Sorry to interrupt a good flounce

    The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms
    Chicks Dig Time Lords
    Among Others
    Redshirts
    Throne of the Crescent Moon
    Ancillary Justice
    “The Lady Astronaut of Mars”
    “The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere”
    “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love”

    The past five, six years of Hugo Awards have been one long, entitled teenybopper of a flounce.

  254. We’re all geeks. We’re here because we like science fiction. Nobody’s a monster, not even people who get bent out of shape about their right to self-determination. It happens, anyone can reach the point where they feel like they’re set upon on all sides.

    I don’t much care if everybody is a geek, but I do care that there are people only demonizing those on one side of the ideological divide.

    And guess what – the demonizers are not from the puppies side.

  255. @SpacKitten

    “Well, that’s more or less what I was saying: that you organized and went for the extreme. Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies sweeped the nominations across the board leaving all other nominations out in many categories, and that is new to SF. I think Martin’s post is very good as well, even though for some reason he is only speaking about Sad Puppies, which was the less successful slate. He does think that Sad Puppy effort broke the Hugos and it was a bad thing that you did what you did there, even if there has been some sort of small-scale campaigning before.”

    The Hugos were broken long before this, SP just shined a light on the problem. I don’t see any usefulness in an award that is only given to the same handful of writers year after year.

  256. @Paul Weimar

    “I have to admit, James. A lot of Sad Puppies insist up and down its not a slate, people just happened to vote that way, this is true fandom.”

    You quoted me not James May. I use the term slate more for simplicity to describe the phenomenon, but.SP is probably more accurately described as a list of recommendations. Slate is a specific political science term.

    “At least you *own* what is the obvious truth. I still abhor how this was done, regardless, because it opens the doors to slates all across the board and a competition for Hugo awards on anything except the merits of the damned book I’ve read or the podcast I’ve heard.”

    Campaigning, lists, etc. have a long history in awards voting, the Hugos are not immune to this. And merits of the book? Like Redshirts? No, there hasn’t been much quality in Hugo nominees or winners for a while now, hence the reason for SP. As I’ve said before the same authors were nominated over and over again. Are they that great or was the voting pool that small and cliquish?

  257. @malcolmthecynic:”I don’t much care if everybody is a geek, but I do care that there are people only demonizing those on one side of the ideological divide. And guess what – the demonizers are not from the puppies side.”

    No. I’ve seen folks on either side of the dispute describe people in that way, at length, with ferocity. I understand: No one likes to be described by someone who doesn’t know them or anything about them. It’s a quick way to anger almost anyone.

    I thought about saying this in Torgersen’s gulag post, but I may as well say it here: I don’t know what SP has planned for the future, who will be nominated for future awards or how much this process will be influenced by other groups. Maybe everything will turn out well, maybe not. When I look at the the Hugo’s best novels, from 1953 to 2014, I see a lot of good books. Are they always the ones I would have picked? –No. It would be weird if they were. I could reach into that list and replace The Diamond Age with Snow Crash, because Snow Crash, people, but I love that book to pieces.

    However insular the Hugo’s vote has been, however driven by self-serving interests, there are awesome stories there and a lot of them. Ancillary Sword and Throne of the Crescent Moon are on my to-read list. Their authors have been treated poorly. They do not deserve the contempt heaped upon them. They might not have been your nominations, but they are worthwhile ones.

  258. “Their authors have been treated poorly”

    If Leckie weren’t spouting nonsensical gibberish about the Evil Men supposedly “punching her in the face” on a regular basis, you’d have a point.

    As it is, she deserves every bit of the blowback she’s getting.

  259. Ancillary Sword and Throne of the Crescent Moon are on my to-read list. Their authors have been treated poorly. They do not deserve the contempt heaped upon them.

    No, no, and oh HELL no. In that order.

  260. “Regardless of one’s opinion of the SP/RP slates and their motivations, the solution is the same: get more people to participate and to vote, and thus make the Hugos truly a “readers’ choice” award. If one disaffected minority could make such a massive difference in the process, it was clearly not representative, whatever the quality of the results. Prior to this week, I didn’t know Hugo-voting was something a normal human being could do; as a lifelong SF/F reader, I’m thinking about scraping up $40 to do it this year.”

    This. I didn’t know I could nominate for the Hugos. I didn’t know that only a few thousand people nominated for the Hugos and a few hundred people could change the result. I didn’t know that I could vote for the Hugos, simply by paying $40. My husband and I, both moderate SF readers, have bought supporting memberships this year.

    I used ‘Hugo-award winner’ as a buyer’s guide, and believed myself ‘weird’ for thinking Redshirts was terrible (Old Man’s War is apparently much better. Sadly for Scalzi, due to the Hugos, Redshirts was my first exposure to his writing). I thought I was weird for not enjoying ‘politics-first’ stories about gender, despite being female, since they routinely got nominated for prestigious awards.

    Thank you for raising this issue. Thanks to the SP controversy, I have picked up my first Jim Butcher novel and was gripped by line one. I’ve never read any of your books (yet), but you’ve attracted the attention of an audience outside Worldcon fandom and that is ace. I hope there’s a record number of voters this year – that’s healthy for any election.

  261. “Their authors have been treated poorly. They do not deserve the contempt heaped upon them.”

    Listen, buddy. Unless we are in possession of completely different dictionaries when it comes to incitement to hate a race and sex, they absolutely do deserve that contempt. They are contemptible people. Before I started looking into this a couple of years ago, I’d never in my entire life seen such rhetoric outside a white supremacist site. And they are typical of the SJW community as a whole. When America fell this far, I’m not exactly sure; recently. But that it has fallen is not in dispute. In my day literally no one used such rhetoric outside of people considered hateful fringe lunatics. The fact these people consider themselves anti-bigotry makes it all the more astonishing.

  262. I should add, to be fair to John Scalzi, that Redshirts read like a Star Trek homage written by a very talented writer during spare moments in the bath. It had that ‘zany overextended short story’ quality. To my knowledge, he did write it fast and loose. That’s fine, and fun, but I would despair if Redshirts was genuinely close to the best novel of 2013.

  263. It is deplorable to see people in this thread, claiming that a slate which obeyed the rules and which was made publicly known well before it swept the nominations somehow constitutes skullduggery intended to suppress works of greater merit; malfeasance and foulness of an order so steeped in sin, that it may only be washed away by…

    …voting a slate, in hopes of denying anyone any award at all, regardless of merit.

  264. No. I’ve seen folks on either side of the dispute describe people in that way, at length, with ferocity.

    Not *because* of their politics or race, though, but rather because they decided to fire broadsides. There’s the difference. And if somebody decides to fire broadsides, it’s unfair not to expect some fire back.

    “We’re all geeks” is white noise to me. That’s like saying “We all have noses.” Well yeah, but so what? Actions speak for themselves, geek or no geek.

  265. Hey Toby “Nothing Interesting” why don’t you tell me how this years SP ‘slate’ is partisan, except in the Never Won Before orientation?

  266. @malcomthecynic: If you see “the other side” as the worst possible example of humanity, you’ll lose sight of the truth: There are more than two sides to this story, and people who may be sympathetic to you, but wary of your goals and the way you defend them. I mention our common ground because it exists, and it’s relevant. Also:

    If you’re right, take the high road.
    If you’re wrong, take the high road.
    If you’re angry, take the high road.
    If the world is on your shoulders, take the high road.
    If your people are imprisoned, take the high road.
    If you’ve seen someone you love hung from a tree, take the high road.

    At a dangerous time and for a cause far greater than this one, Martin Luther King understood this. He was called a fool, he was called a monster. He took the high road.

    @James May: In America, the burden of racism falls on specific shoulders for reasons of historical record. I say this as a white person whose ancestors did not keep slaves, but came to America on a wooden boat, and slaughtered the people who lived here. I know how I got here, my roots are deep.

    So, if someone corks off and says something stupid, like “all white people are racists,” or “all men are rapists” I ask the question I always ask: Who is this person and what are they talking about?

    Ahmed believes that 1) racism is a problem in America and 2) its better now than it was in the past. That’s the sum of:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_game_of_thrones_too_white/

    This is a guy who said this:

    When faced with a stereotype he made a joke.

    I don’t see a monster, here. I see a person with a legitimate concern who may express that concern in unproductive ways. He wrote a book I want to read.

  267. “Arthur Chu’s latest Twitter target? John Ringo. I guess he’s going to rage against every single one of Baen’s bestsellers now.”

    Oh, dear. Someone get Miriam.

  268. Oh, dear. Someone get Miriam.

    Having only just read Ringo’s RavenCon for the very first time, last night: that made me howl. 😉

  269. As a child I had difficulty understanding the subtleties of the story of Solomon’s judgement and why he chose as he did. So I asked my mother (who is a very wise woman), “Mommy, what if Solomon didn’t pick the real mother? What if the baby’s real mother was the one who wanted the baby cut in half?”

    My mother explained it in a way I’ve never forgotten: Solomon wasn’t looking for the baby’s biological mother. That wasn’t important. What was important was knowing which of these two women would act the most like a mother toward the child. No matter who the *true* mother was, the baby would be better off with the woman who loved him and would do anything to keep him alive and safe — even if that meant he might be taken from her. Would it have been fair to the child to leave him in the care of a spiteful woman who would use the ancient equivalent of the nuclear option to thwart a perceived enemy, even if her motives sprang from a profound personal sense of justice?

    I can’t help thinking there’s a connection to the notion of True Fandom here somewhere. Just can’t quite put my finger on it…

  270. @James May: “Mokoto you’re full of shit. I didn’t slaughter anyone so fuck off.”

    History exists. Don’t forget it, don’t be trapped by it, either. Ahmed observed that racism exists– This is true. He observed that America is a better country now than it was in the past– This is also true. We changed. We made ourselves better. We looked at the past, saw it for what it was and carried on. Anyone who believes that all white people are racists is trapped by history. We’re responsible for ourselves, not the faults of the dead.

    Daryl Davis sat down with members of the KKK, convinced them that he was a human being and hung the symbols of who they were, freely given, in his closet. He had every right to hate them and chose not to. Where are your hoods and robes?

  271. @Kent18: The point of the parable is this: If you love something, you will give it up if it means saving it. i.e. if you care about the Hugo and what it means to science fiction, then you won’t ruin it, even if the vote doesn’t turn out in your favor.

    I don’t accept the idea that the Hugo has been taken over by a shadowy cabal of radical “social justice warriors” bent on stealing everyone’s junk and whatever fun may be derived from it.

    Traditionally, few people vote for Hugos, fewer nominate. There’s nothing strange about that generating a predictable vote: Low interest + a static population = there you go. The solution: Get out the vote. That happened.

    If I’m an advocate for anything, it’s an honest vote and a chance for good work to be recognized. If you come to my door with “we’re going to crush these SJWs and drive them from the Hugo” I’m going to show you the sidewalk and have a nice day.

    Anyone who challenges the status quo will be criticized. It comes with the territory. The best way to deal with criticism is to be honest and level-headed. If someone lies about you, tell the truth. If they get angry, keep cool. Take the high road. This isn’t easy, but it’s worth doing.

    The Hugo’s open to everyone. Pay the fee and you can vote. Anyone can do what Sad Puppies did– All they need is a strong slate and sufficient interest. When that happens, how will you respond?

  272. Well. It’s taking quite some time, because one thing is clear – this is a subject which is rousing a shitload of passion on both sides. Being a newfan (in the sense of any kind of Worldcon activity), and probably a wrongfan, if i chose to discuss my political leanings (which I don’t), I kind of messed up the nomination part. Note to self: next time, read the fuckin’ directions FIRST.

    That said, I am awaiting my packet of nominations to read. Once I’ve read them, I’ll organize my votes. Will I vote “No Award” as my first or any choice in any category? Probably not, because if a work has made it to the ballot, someone *somewhere* thinks it has merit. Even if I personally think it’s a stinker, I’ll put it in last place.

    What I am pissed off with is the behaviour of some of the supporters on both sides of the issue. Honest to Cthulu, folks, can we at least remain civil? No names, no pack drill, but anyone who cares to scroll back up the comments can probably figure out who I mean, from both camps.

  273. Mokoto, go lecture someone else you dimwit. Go to Ahmed’s Twitter feed and tell him the 19th century is over. And no one’s maintaining there’s a shadowy cabal. Their quotes are right out in the open. Go educate yourself before lecturing others. I’ll tell you this – you got a lot of reading to catch up on.

    “Sunil Patel ‏@ghostwritingcow 8h Curious: how many of you refuse to watch/read something if it’s about Yet Another Straight White Man?”

    “Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 8h @ghostwritingcow Same is true of books. I’m increasingly less likely to pick up a book if it is another straight white dude story.”

    “Melanie ‏@grammar_girl 8h @ghostwritingcow I’m taking a yearlong break from books by men, full stop, and dramatically scaling back on stories about them.”

    “Dandy McFopperson ‏@rosefox 20h @ghostwritingcow Alas, my job doesn’t let me refuse.”

    That wasn’t a wiretap you moron.

  274. Anyone who thinks there was never slate voting before, obviously never read rec.arts.sf.written during Hugo season 20 years ago.

  275. If you didn’t want the Hugo Awards to become like the baby in the justice of Solomon then you should not have emulated the woman who was not the baby’s real mother: you conveniently skipped the start of the story, which is that her baby died so she stole the other baby and claimed it was hers.

    Despite disingenuous protests to the contrary, your SP3 slate was not an innocent attempt to present a list of possible people/works for consideration that prospective nominators might not otherwise encounter. You posted what you yourselves called a slate with only or below the allowed number of nominees for each Hugo category and urged people to “break the stranglehold of the gatekeepers.” Due to this slate voting tactic, many people object to treating this year’s ballot as a legitimate one and intend to indicate that by voting No Award, either because they object to the slate influence or because they feel that slate voting means that they are unable to vote from a field of the best of the year in certain categories because the slate tactic pushed many or all other legitimate contenders off the ballot.

    It is sad that your slate tactic punishes not just deserving works/people who ordinarily would have been nominated this year were it not for the slate/bloc voting but also deserving works/people who are on the ballot and who will suffer due to the backlash against your tactics.

  276. “It is sad that your slate tactic punishes not just deserving works/people who ordinarily would have been nominated this year were it not for the slate/bloc voting but also deserving works/people who are on the ballot and who will suffer due to the backlash against your tactics.”

    Translation of Jo: “The people I wanted to get nominated didn’t, so you’re a big poopyhead! I’m gonna take my ball and go home! WAHHHHH!!!”

  277. Dave W – I think you’ve switched your attributions there. Translation of SP3: “The things I like haven’t been getting on the ballot for years and since everyone of course must really like the things I like and only be pretending to like the things that have actually gotten on the ballot, there must be a sekrit conspiracy against me and the things I like. So, I’m going to try to get lots of people to stuff the ballot with the things I like and show them how it’s really done. *nyah nyah*”

  278. These are the front lines of a culture war. I don’t have much to add. Except that I’ve apparently I’ve missed a few battles. And, Rev. Martin Luther King would be upset that people are once again being judged solely by the color of their skin. I’m going to go plunk down my $40. I am a Hugo’s virgin. I was drawn in by a friend who posted Brad and Larry’s blog via facebook. Now to read the nominees…I’m giddy like Christmas morning.

  279. “I think you’ve switched your attributions there.”
    What was that, an attempt at fancily saying “I’m rubber, you’re glue”? No, sorry, I think I had it right the first time. Nice try, though.

  280. @Jo Phan,

    Go look at my post above for a more detailed analysis, but I’ll repeat my question here: What reasons can you list why Skin Game, Interstellar, or Goodnight Stars aren’t worthy of a Hugo award?

  281. @Julaire – I already noted the two main reasons that many people will be voting No Award as a protest vote, and they have nothing to do with the possible quality of any individual SP slate nominee. I also mentioned that it is a shame that any deserving nominees on the slate will suffer from the backlash over the SP tactics.

    (As a side note, regarding Skin Game, I don’t happen to read Jim Butcher but my husband does religiously and has said that he thinks this is one of the weaker books in the series.)

  282. Pingback: Really? | Unusual Things

  283. You already killed the baby. The current question under debate is whether to bury it or to let it sit there, rot and fester. Personally, I’m ok with spending $40 to prevent pieces of a baby ripped to pieces by rabid puppies from being handed out as awards. But some may treasure the thought of their favorite author receiving a bit of aorta.

  284. @ Jo Phan Skin Game is not worthy of a Hugo because it is not a stand alone novel. It depends for its drama and narrative on a back story that it does not reveal. Without that back story it is just a few action scenes,and jokes tied together by gnomic dialogue. One might as well award a Hugo to the middle twenty minutes of Guardians of the Galaxy.

  285. Pingback: Freeping the Hugos | ensgrigsby

  286. Pingback: Puppies in Their Own Words

Comments are closed.