Sad Puppies and the future

Many people have already seen George R. R. Martin’s optimistic (and well-intended) commentary at his LiveJournal. However, just as with George’s hood ornament Alfie awards (also well-intended) there is more than one way for a thing to be perceived. My perception — and I am not alone in this — of George’s desire for an end to the rancor, is that George still seems to think that a) the rancor was flowing almost entirely one-way, from the Puppies’ side to the Trufan side, and also b) none of the Puppies are themselves fans. Not Fans (caps f) and certainly not Trufans. No. Puppies are still an outsider bunch, who carry an outsider’s stigma.

There is also a bit too much parentalism in George’s tone: dear kids, I hope you’ve learned your lesson, now wipe those dirty looks off your faces and come give your mother a hug!

As long as that’s George’s take — and he’s certainly not alone in this — then attempts at reconciliation will be difficult at best. Because as long as Puppies are deemed to be subservient, second-class citizens within the field proper, the emotion that spawned Sad Puppies, will remain. I don’t know anybody who easily accepts being a second-class citizen in her own country. Especially not after certain people within George’s beloved community — including certain individuals at George’s own publisher — moved heaven and earth to slanderously and libelously smear all Puppies indiscriminately.

Also, consider the carpet-bombing of the Hugo awards in August. And the infamous wooden asterisks — the CHORFholes.

An analysis of the post-Hugo numbers identifies a 2,500-vote block of individuals who seemed to think the best way to annihilate the infamous forces of the Kurgan — Vox Day — was to accept Vox’s challenge to play chicken. Now, I warned everybody that chicken is the Kurgan’s favorite game. But that 2,500-vote block went ahead and played the game anyway, nuking five whole categories, and cheering themselves in the process. It was their finest moment. It was also precisely what Vox Day wanted them to do, because it gives Vox his pretext for further assaults on the Hugos in future years, while also radicalizing and alienating many people who wanted nothing to do with Vox, but who did want to see justice done at the Hugo awards proper.

And the CHORFholes? A straight-up dick move, covered by a fig leaf of charity. Sorry, there’s no excusing that one. The CHORFholes were a deliberate insult, done deliberately, and there is no way possible to put enough lipstick on that pig to make anyone who received the insult — loud and clear! — believe it was not an insult. I don’t think George knew about the CHORFholes. I suspect strongly that this was David Gerrold and some snickering Trufans, being too-cute-by-half. Only, it was ugly. About as ugly as watching the annihilation of the categories, by people who think burning down a thing, is the equivalent of saving or celebrating that thing.

Is anyone else struck by the fact that we’re living out a They Might Be Giants classic?

Now, I don’t hold George R. R. Martin responsible for David Gerrold, nor the people who worked together to conduct the CHORFhole, nor do I hold George responsible for the 2,500-vote block bombing. George is on record opposing the game of chicken with the Kurgan, and he said he hated the results of the block bombing, in the editor categories specifically. (Note: George, I think I can speak for every Sad Puppy when I state that warm-blooded human beings with souls hated what happened in the editor categories.) So I don’t think George has to answer for the burner-downers.

I’ll say it again, for emphasis: I do not hold George R. R. Martin responsible for the burner-downers.

I bring all of this up, however, to demonstrate — for George, and any other onlookers — that there have been some horrendously poor decisions made on his “side” of the fracas. And until or unless some accounting is made for these horrendously poor decisions, I can’t see attempts at reconciliation — with the Sad Puppies — producing much fruit. Because almost nobody on the Sad Puppies side has ever received anything like an apology that is worth a damn. Far from it. What Sad Puppies gets, is being blamed for Rabid Puppies, and being treated like the Rabids and the Sads are no different from each other. It’s Putin bombing the Syrian opposition, to get at ISIS. Putin doesn’t give a damn because Putin only cares about Assad, just as the 2,500-member block bombers and CHORFholers only cared about “defending” the Hugos — from people who have just as much right to participation, as anyone else who’s in this field.

Many Sad Puppies find Vox Day and the Rabids to be revolting. It didn’t save any of the Sad Puppies from being treated as synonymous with the Rabids — which is (again) exactly what Vox wanted. And, to be truthful, it’s what many CHORFs wanted too. As long as the CHORFs don’t have to reckon with Sad Puppies honestly — as long as Vox gives the CHORFs an excuse to be zealously hateful toward all things even remotely canine — the CHORFs will happily use that excuse, and hate with a clear conscience.

Knowing what I know about the personalities behind the CHORFholes and the block-bombing, they will never, ever regard any of it as a mistake, because for them, it’s been blood sport from day one. All is fair in love and war, and for the block-bombers and CHORFholers, this was absolutely a war. Before, it was a cold war — when they could treat the not-quite-good-enough-fans like shit, and nobody said or did much about it. Sad Puppies became an exercise in second-class citizenry demanding full participation and recognition, which caused the block-bombers — and the CHORFs, with their crybully accomplices — to launch not just a wide media slander campaign, but a deliberate destruction of the Hugos proper; in direct violation of their own stated principles. Remember how many people were so upset at Sad Puppies, because Sad Puppies was supposedly a block vote, and block votes are bad?

So, while I respect George’s sentiment — I truly do think his heart is in the right place — I think George still isn’t recognizing the full scope and nature of what’s gone on, and how what’s gone on has its roots in the deeper divisions which trace back through fandom and science fiction publishing for decades. This isn’t a fight that manifested from nothing. 2015 was all of that shit — years and years of it — boiling to the surface, and it was ugly, and a giant amount of that ugliness was on the Trufan side, and now that the block-bombers have given Vox Day his pretext for an all-out assault on the Hugos, I suspect what’s going to happen is that Vox will keep fucking with the Hugos — regardless of what anyone says or thinks — until Worldcon literally has to shut off the faucet. Make the Hugo a juried award, or at least cordoned off from direct public participation — voters being screened and vetted. Because it’s obvious (at this point) that the defenders of Hugo propriety do not want everyone being able to have a say. Too much of the “wrong” people, and the village will get burned down; so as to save the village.

I don’t know how bridges get built from here. Most of the CHORFs and the crybullies will hate Larry Correia and myself forever. I knew in April that for me specifically, there would never be any kind of going back. I was, and would forever be, an outlaw in the minds of the CHORFs and the crybullies. And since the CHORFs and crybullies occupy numerous seats of prestige and influence within the SF/F establishment, this would relegate me to the role of desperado — forever riding the fences. I can get away with it because, as I told one critic, my career path doesn’t depend on me bending my knee to the SF/F establishment. That’s a big reason why I knew I was a good pick for running Sad Puppies 3 in the first place.

But the future of Sad Puppies isn’t in my hands. It’s not mine to say.

I will, however, hypothesize.

I suspect that in order for a genuine mending to take place, between your average Sad Puppy, and the SF/F establishment, there would need to be several things.

1) A very public admission by the establishment that the NO AWARD bombing of the 2015 Hugos was a gross error.

2) A very public admission by the establishment that the CHORFholes were also a gross error.

3) A very public apology from the establishment, for the deliberate conflation of the Sads, with the Rabids.

4) A cessation of the endless game of shibboleths and street cred checks, on the part of Trufans, as conducted against everybody else (looks hard at Steve Davidson.)

Frankly, I think the chances are slim to none that any of this could come to pass. And while some Sad Puppies might be wooed by enticements and promises of amnesty — we saw this leverage playing out over the summer — most Sad Puppies are not in the mood. They are, if I put my finger to the wind, quietly determined. And this is not a hot thing. It’s the old, tired sentiment of a people too long ignored, spurned, neglected, overlooked, even mocked and derided, who played by the rules in full view of the arena — so as to have their place in the sun — and were shut out and shouted down, by an establishment that pretended (falsely) that it was the afflicted party in the whole affair.

Meanwhile, I fully expect the quiet manipulators of Hugos past, to double down on that manipulation. I suspect the behind-closed-door games are going to be hotter and heavier than ever before. Now that they know there is competition from a competent body of people. I also expect the crybullies will continue framing the Hugos as part of their larger culture war — the Hugos are exactly that at this point, no question — which means they will have to attack future iterations of Sad Puppies, regardless of who is running the store. (aside: can the crybullies bring themselves to admit that women are running Sad Puppies 4? That’s a bit like asking zealous Democrats to admit there are black Republicans.)

I suppose it’s always possible that people just mutter to themselves, reach a hand over the fence, and hope somebody takes it — sans joy buzzer. This would require a kind of across-the-aisle, deliberate amnesia. A mass forgetting: that what has happened, has not happened. There may be a few willing to do it. But my finger to the wind (again) tells me that the Sad Puppies are not in a mood for forgetting. On the contrary. There is memory here — like wormsign! — the likes of which even God has never seen.

Advertisements

500 thoughts on “Sad Puppies and the future

  1. Good sir, sad to say that I think your scenario is more likely than GRRM’s. I would point out, however, that so long as you say things like CHORFholes and crybullies, you’re part of the problem. I thought that, as conservatives, it falls on us to be the adults.

    Here’s a thought: Large unranked recommendations list without the nudges and winks implicit in a list of five or fewer choices like SP3, which was the opening RP and VD needed to use SP3 as a vehicle. Or, better yet, no “lists” at all.

  2. It has seemed to me that the opposition shrieks and faints at the first sign of a label — yet eagerly applies labels however and whenever it wants. Sooner or later, you simply have to put names to things. The opposition had plenty of names for the Sad Puppies — racists, sexists, homophobes, nazis, etc. — so that when they clutch their pearls over CHORF . . . this bleakly amuses me. Especially if you consider the fact that fandom has a loooooong history of inventing acronyms for itself, not all of them flattering.

  3. We did not create “disemvoweling”,”CHORFholes”, or “no awarding” entire categories, yet that and worse have been thrown at us for a couple of years now. “War to the knife, and the knife to the hilt” is what they wanted, and what they will get. They deserve everything Vox will do to them, and more. If they want reconciliation, then they need to show remorse for past offenses, and I have seen none.
    TOR is on my “do not buy” list due to the TNH actions, and I will not relent until they are fired. I don’t read GRRM now, and will not again. I don’t need to be patronized and condescended to by a has-been (if he ever-was); Modesitt, Weber, Ringo, Correia, Hoyt, and company are plenty enough to keep me happy. All the CHORFs can go write in a closet for all I care, or ever will again.
    There are limits, and they have found them. Let them go their way without any help from me or my wallet; life is too short to buy books from folks who hate, discriminate and lie to you.

  4. Fully agree Brad. The old saw about taking two to tango is applicable here. Until the trufen side even sees a problem, and that the problem is not just the puppy people, then not a dang thing will change one iota.
    And appellant of cry bullies is entirely appropriate. Safe spaces, shields, and all sorts of putrid nonsense is used to stop any form of dialectic from happening. These forms of combat and combat they are, are used by those who call themselves social justice warriors, as a stratagem to cause stop any argument from the other side in its tracks. It is dishonest and immoral. When someone uses these tactics, they have no interest in having a conversation. They want to count coup. This tactic was applied to people like Brad and Larry C from the beginning. While Larry is happy to mock and belittle these characters, Brad actually attempted to communicate with them and I use the word communicate in the sense that this was his purpose, to communicate, the reach common ground. Then they got dirty, and brought his family and his military service/job into it. One particular author, a self described coast guard spy (yeah I know 🙂 ), a true blue falcon, tried to call him out based on his service. They even got the full crew of the anti-gamergate loonies on the case. Then when this was not working they got their media friends to write articles calling him a racist and homophobe. I am surprised that he was not transformed into fury incarnate. In short they were trying to Vox him.
    We can act like adults (although I am neither liberal or conservative), but sometimes, a throat needs punching and a groin needs kicking.

  5. Mr. Torgersen, I’ve been disabled since birth and I’ve had labels attached to me for as long as I can remember. I try to avoid them because of that.

    Mr. Bowman, you might want to actually try responding to what I said, as opposed to a false interpretation. There are other options between calling people names like a 12 year old at recess and remaining silent and letting people trash you. Those aren’t the sole choices. I don’t particularly care whether or not you believe I’m a conservative. I am one even if you choose not to believe me Look up Barry Goldwater and his positions some 50 years ago.

  6. When people start crying foul at even ASP used a descriptor (litterally Anti-Sad Puppy) I start caring less about their insistance on no labels.

    Especially when labels like racist, sexist, and Nazi come back from their group.

    You complain about CHORFhole, why? Do wodden assholes given to the nominees to remind them that they don’t count because the “wrong” fans nominated them, that their work isn’t worthy, deserve any consideration?

    Reconciliation would be a fine thing to have. It cannot, however, happen while one side persists in treating the other as second-class citizens and and their own as blameless.

  7. Robert, the ‘in between’ options have been tried many times already, see Sad Puppies 1 and 2 for some examples. How many times do you continue to do the same thing while expecting a different result? Also remember that it was not the Puppies that nuked the awards and slandered everyone associated.

  8. Looking at who the Guests of honor, little h, I think we can make pretty good guesses on how it is going to go. I will give one more try at an honest vote, but fully expect to be made a fool out of myself.

  9. I for one will never forgive anyone who appeared in that pre-Awards “90-minute-hate-the-Puppies” TV show, nor anyone who called me a neoNazi. Though some were, I had thought, nice acquaintances if not actual long-time friends, their behavior before, during and after the Hugos simply meant that I shut them out of any future consideration of any kind, meaning no purchasing of their products, no voting for their works, no attendance at any function at which they are honored or prominent, no reviews of anything they are involved with, and no defense of any criticism of them. As a very minor player in fandom/prodom, despite 60+ years of fanlife and 35+ years of prolife, those people will seldom notice nor long remember what I do here, but if thousands of others do likewise, the effects may be meaningful. All of the SP3 experience this year has been enlightening, and a tiny reflection of the national schism between those who cherish Freedom and those banding together to enforce Collectivism. I thank Brad and Larry and the Jovians for graciousness in the face of fire. And next Worldcon, I will definitely attend. (Does Missouri have Concealed Carry?) 🚀

  10. Arlan, I forgot about the Jovians! Your trophy is gorgeous! Frankly, if there is to be a future peace, these Jovian folks may be the conduit. Their web site seems fairly self explanatory, though they’re obviously not in a hurry to identify themselves by name. After the craziness of the past twelve months, I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t want the Trufan Inquisition showing up on my doorstep either, declaring, “Your papers, they are not in order!”

  11. I’m still curious as to how GRRM knew how many of his own awards to bring to make up for the no awards. Because it seems to me, from what I saw, that he had just the right amount.

    But yeah, he is an elitist, he thinks only he can define what a fan is, and unless you meet his very peculiar description, you’re not a fan. So rather than control what you can vote on, he just wants to control who can vote.

  12. For me the fact — as you peripherally touch on, Brad — that when the nomination and voting numbers became public – that the only ‘bloc’ or voting unread, to orders, on the basis of bias… was done by… the Anti-Sad-Puppies. George’s friends. We had been accused of ‘slate voting’ ergo bloc voting, voting unread, to orders, over, and over and over. It was our principal sin. We repeatedly, every one of us, said publicly that people should read, that people should make up their own minds. They told us we were liars, they accused us of cheating, of ballot stuffing, of voting in lockstep.

    When the evidence, clear unequivocal evidence, that the numbers of nominations, and votes for puppy nominees varied enormously (and therefore could not possibly be locstep bloc-vote to order) — after the unforgivable performance at WorldCon and David Gerrold’s wooden arsehole awards — and the evidence that roughly 2500 of Anti-Pups voted in lockstep, unread and to orders… Not one of them, not George-the-olive-branch or those who had called us liars (and racists and sexists and etc – none of which held up under rigorous examination) said “We attacked and vilified people we don’t like, but are not guilty of what we accused them of.” None, not one, had the courage, decency, or integrity to say ‘we were wrong, we’re sorry. We apologize.” They took no steps to deal with those who had (and I believe often knowing full well they were vicious lies) spread those lies. Just as they were silent about the obvious corruption accidentally revealed by PNH knowing the novel nominees in advance, leaped to the defense of Irene Gallo’s libel… they will not clean their own house.

    I will be happy to forgive and forget when they actually clean up their act. The longer they take the less likely and harder that becomes.

  13. The puppies (SP & RP) have brought me back to SFF, and for that I’ll always be grateful. For nearly a decade, I didn’t buy SFF books, because there was nothing to read. I switched to mysteries or re-read my old books, but I was convinced that nothing worth reading was being published. Then, I stumbled across the puppies, and realized that I wasn’t alone.

    Now, I’ve got lists of recommendations for new & old books … both types of puppies have been enthusiastic about educating the n00b about the classics … my TBR list keeps growing by leaps and bounds as I add all sorts of authors, so I’m resentful of people who try to push me back to the way things used to be, who tell me that I shouldn’t waste time or $$$ on “those” types of books.

    Not certain whether I’d describe myself as SP or RP (maybe mournful?), but interacting with the puppies & seeing how “real” fans/pros have reacted towards them has certainly undermined my respect for the TradPubs & pros. Maybe I’m not important in the larger scheme of things, but I can certainly vote with my $$$, and I have no inclination in supporting people/pubs who treat me with contempt.

  14. @Dave Freer: “When the evidence, clear unequivocal evidence, that the numbers of nominations, and votes for puppy nominees varied enormously (and therefore could not possibly be locstep bloc-vote to order) — after the unforgivable performance at WorldCon and David Gerrold’s wooden arsehole awards — and the evidence that roughly 2500 of Anti-Pups voted in lockstep, unread and to orders…”

    Your rhetoric is carrying you away from the numbers there Dave. There certainly was variation in the size of the combined Puppy vote (no simple way of knowing which kind was which as far as the numbers go) but it wasn’t enormous within categories and there didn’t seem to be much spill out to other works. The variation was bigger between categories but that doesn’t help the Sad Puppy case much. As for people voting ‘locstep’ – you’d expect a very high correspondence in how people vote in a final ballot but even so your estimate of 2500 is way off – the highest possible number for people who voted No Award over Puppy nominations in all categories would be 285 (the number of 1st Pref. No Awards in Best Dramatic Presentation-Long Form). The ‘2500’ number is from Brad’s previous ‘crybully’ complaint regarding Best Editor – Long Form. 2500 was the number who voted ‘No Award’ in that category as 1st preference.

  15. It seems to me that all three sides are misreading each other’s positions here.

    First off, Vox admitted after the voting was over that the actual “burning down” outcome was exactly what he was trying to achieve. He doesn’t care about letting the voters choose, on the merits, between “politically incorrect” works and works by SJWs. He wants to destroy the Hugo awards, and maybe Worldcon itself. And he’ll try to keep doing it the same way he did it in 2015 — by baiting and scaring average fans (especially those opposed to him!) into voting NO AWARD en masse. That is Vox’s stated goal. But it is not my goal, and I hope not that of the Sad Puppies either.

    It seems to me the main thing that enabled this to work is the fact that the Puppies (both kinds) were able to capture entire major categories during the nomination process. This will probably happen again in 2016, because “E Pluribus Hugo” (the motion to change the rules to prevent that) must be ratified at Worldcon 2016 and will not take effect until 2017 (assuming it passes).

    The result I’d like to see, and I believe most of you would too, is to have some, but not all, works nominated in each category that are “politically incorrect.” Therefore, I propose that we show some forbearance in 2016 by nominating only two or three works in each category. (Even this may not work — the ballot in 2015 seems to have had a lot more Rabid Puppy than Sad Puppy votes. But we can at least try to prevent Vox from “burning them down” this time.)

    I also propose that GRRM and the other CHORFs similarly try to prevent a “burn down” by sending in more nominating ballots. The better they do in the nominating round, the less likely they are to panic and vote NO AWARD. And there are more of them than us, or even (us plus the Rabids).

  16. Methinks you give George R.R. Martin too much credit. Im sure he wants peace and for sad puppies to go away but other liberal types don’t want peace and I very much are going to accept anything from other than social justice type solutions Jim >

  17. James McCain on December 27, 2015 at 7:14 pm said:

    Methinks you give George R.R. Martin too much credit. Im sure he wants peace and for sad puppies to go away but other liberal types don’t want peace and I very much are going to accept anything from other than social justice type solutions

    Of course this is true to some extent because lots of people want to do lots of different things. One of the greatest tactical victories Brad gave everybody opposed to the Puppy slates was to start labeling everybody ‘CHORFS’. Instead of the usual infighting, backbiting and overall disunity that you would expect to see among a very broad grouping of center and left, Brad’s rhetoric helped people act with a degree of common purpose. There isn’t one ‘anti-sad puppy’ but a whole plethora of people.
    1. Slates
    2. Poor quality nominations
    3. Politics
    These three things all played a role in people’s opposition to the Sad Puppies – and the impact of each on different people was necessarily different. I’m way out on the left, so I’m going to think and act differently than say, GRRM or even David Gerrold.

    If Sad Puppies want to make a difference then they need allies in the center.

  18. As an old fart I bailed out of SF back at the turn of the century. I saw the genre being subverted by queers, by feminists and socialists and it was being perverted into propaganda for those groups. There is nothing you can do, Brad (never mind Vox Day) – to redeem the Hugos. To me that thing is a red flag for bad fiction. I don’t care if your chorfs or whatever they are – are defeated. I wouldn’t know a sad puppy from a rabid one and could care less. All I want is for some sane author to write an ENTERTAINING story, and from there…to shut up and take my money. I don’t care which one of the 150 genders you self-identify with, I don’t care what you think of that black baboon in the Whitehouse, I don’t care what you think of me – my sole interest in any work of fiction is entertainment – and SF is not delivering. This social justice BS is spreading to other genres now too. Fact is – any more of this puppy/chorf/Hugo crap just looks like so much gimmick marketing. I am not going to by a book written by a moron like Vox Day any more than I will buy dreck penned by Martin or Scalzi. At the end of the day their work is shite and not worth my money much less my time.

    I did read a fun little ripper called Chaplain’s War awhile back. Yeah, it had its flaws and wasn’t perfect but IT WAS FUN. The guy that wrote it was just a guy wanting to tell a story and not a social crusader or a sexually disturbed ideologue out to change the world. I can tell you right now I will buy another one or two of his books when time permits me to read them. As for you, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Scalzi – and your lickspittles in the publishing industry: Fuck you. Anybody that plays dirty once will do it again if the opportunity permits, and frankly, I have better things to do than compromising with literary poseurs who have ripped me off by promising me a story and delivering turd polished political tripe instead.

    Here’s an idea: instead of petty feuds, why don’t you guys try and actually WRITE GOOD BOOKS for a change instead?

  19. Camestros I lack the interest or patience to pull your sophistry apart. Suffice to say you devoted thousands and thousands of words to defend the indefensible last time, to finally — after more squirming than a Byzantine lawyer had to admit that yes there was a bias and to find a myriad excuses to say it wasn’t significant. You’re doing precisely the same thing this time. I conclude you simply don’t have what it takes to say ‘I was wrong. Sorry.” but will quibble trivia forever.

    As for the puppies need to offer more compromises and become the slow-boiled frog: This is wishful thinking and self-delusion on your part – the far left of sf (or society) is tiny and needs the center and the tolerance of at least the moderate right to survive as anything substantial. Grasp the nettle if you have the integrity and courage: it’s not the Puppies who need allies to the center. We are already far more of the center than your side. The only reason for us to wish to make a difference to the genre as a whole was historical affection — which your friends have largely burned — not need. We’re doing quite well. It’s the old establishment (your side – the reactionaries trying to maintain the status quo) that is losing staff, losing sales, losing readers. It needs to move back to the center to be able to afford to support voices from the extremes (and yes, I mean both extremes). And the only way you can do that is to toss your extremists out, and admit you screwed up. Brad tried compromise and reason last year — not one micron of the same from your side. Your lot took it as weakness and attacked more viciously instead. What logic would see us offer compromises and generosity again? Your side would not do the same. They would merely lie, libel and attack. If this is not the case you’re going to have to prove it, to show us by action. Because we have no reason to trust you.

  20. “… Or, better yet, no “lists” at all.”

    Heck No! I for one found the lists helpful. I don’t have a lot of spare reading time so having a nicely laid out recommended reading list was and is nice.

    It has been admitted several times that both sides have the lists, so why is that I only see people telling us that we shouldn’t have a list?

  21. davefreer on December 27, 2015 at 9:31 pm said:
    As for the puppies need to offer more compromises and become the slow-boiled frog: This is wishful thinking and self-delusion on your part – the far left of sf (or society) is tiny and needs the center and the tolerance of at least the moderate right to survive as anything substantial.

    I actually agree with you 100% there. Necessarily the far left is small and even then it is fractious. I’m quite far to the left but I squabble with Marxists. Philip Sandifer is far to the left but his occultism is at odds with the scientism I favor etc etc. Such is the nature of the left – as well observed by Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

    The far left only gains influence by persuading the center left and from there the center left pulling the center and the center right along with it. You know what really helps in that circumstance? When people further to the right start name calling people in the center and to the center right.

    Grasp the nettle if you have the integrity and courage: it’s not the Puppies who need allies to the center. We are already far more of the center than your side.

    OK, then you’ll need to find thousands more people to support you than last time, while at the same time not inadvertently mobilizing even more people to vote against the Puppies. You don’t need to listen to my advice Dave – you are good enough with numbers to crunch the figures yourself. The last round certainly mobilized many more voters but it was disproportionately towards people voting against Puppy slates. Yeah, yeah I know we all magically cheated somehow.

    We’re doing quite well. It’s the old establishment (your side – the reactionaries trying to maintain the status quo) that is losing staff, losing sales, losing readers.

    That isn’t my side. I’m on the far left. Some transnational corporation not making the profits they used to because of the means of production coming under greater control of the people who do the core work is something I’m absolutely fine with. Viva the publishing revolution comrade Freer!

    However, Sad Puppies did little to end the dominance of publishing conglomerates.
    * Skin Game: Published by Roc i.e Penguin Random House
    * Dark Between the Stars: Published by Tor i.e. Macmillan (way to defeat the evil influence of Tor books there Dave)
    * Two more by Baen (Correia and Gannon) and the nearest thing to an independent, Marko Kloos Lines of Departure published by Amazon (hardly a tiny mom & pop cottage publishing house).
    ..and of those only the Macmillan and the Penguin got to the final ballot. As revolutionaries go the Sad Puppies put an awful lot of effort into helping Tor win a Hugo.

    I don’t have a problem with stirring rhetoric but there is a point when you need to check reality against what sounds good. After a major campaign to mobilize votes by both sides, one side ended up with a lot more voters. You can dream up conspiracy theories about that if you like or you can consider a simpler explanation – you were always pulling from a 15%-20% view of society (which is what my figures suggested repeatedly).

  22. Camelwhatever… the left is fond of talking about someone or other’s “truth”. My truth. Your truth. Checking rhetoric against reality sounds like a really good idea but if you utterly refuse to understand that my truth, Brad’s truth, the next guy’s truth, the truth of the experiences of so very many people over the last year who responded to something that I wrote about my experiences with “OMG, I thought I was the only one!” Then what good is it?

    There are thousands of individuals (at a conservative estimate) who, when someone says how they feel invisible and disrespected and insulted and shoved into a closet… or when someone asks what happened to space stories and what happened to adventure and what happened to humans being the good guys and where are the heroes… and they’re lied about and slandered for asking… individuals hear this and respond with “OMG, I thought I was the only one!”

    And then they get called a racist for it or told that all they need to do is accept the horrid racist history of the white male patriarchal sin that is the history of science fiction and why, we’d all get along if they’d just condescend to the deluded idiots insisting on this particular “truth” and why don’t you refuse to read anything written by a white man for a year because justice, you hater, and it’s really very important to keep your politics and your faith a secret and be “classy” unless, of course, you’re an A list author on a panel at a con decrying the evils of Christianity or Republicans.

    Because public manners only goes one way.

    And you should really think HARD about what it means if you’re right that the dissident view is only 15-20% of people and think HARD about what you believe that justifies.

  23. julieapascal on December 28, 2015 at 1:39 am said:

    Camelwhatever… the left is fond of talking about someone or other’s “truth”. My truth. Your truth. Checking rhetoric against reality sounds like a really good idea but if you utterly refuse to understand that my truth, Brad’s truth, the next guy’s truth, the truth of the experiences of so very many people over the last year who responded to something that I wrote about my experiences with “OMG, I thought I was the only one!” Then what good is it?

    (It’s ‘Camestros’ 🙂 It is a type of syllogism. The vowels are a code – aeo.)

    I don’t doubt that your feelings, or indeed Dave or Brad’s feelings are genuinely felt. Ordinary people on the right hand side of American politics who feel marginalized and disenfranchised by a society that on one hand is changing rapidly in terms of faith and morality while other sections of society that people felt they should be able to trust (government, banks) letting them down repeatedly. All this amid an economic malaise that seems to drag on like a lingering broken promise of prosperity and then strange threats from abroad that are unpredictable and malignant. A world in which old certainties seem to have been written on the sand of a beach as a tide rises.

    That doesn’t mean you represent a majority because there are lots of people who experience the same reality but whose feelings about it are different – perhaps only in a small but significant way.

    Where Brad fails and has failed repeatedly, is to accept that people who disagree with him do so because they genuinely disagree with him. Consequently he frames everything as if it were a plot against him (or people like him), while it is is just people expressing what they like. I’m not going to start apologizing to Brad because I voted against the things he tried to dictate to us that we should like. I didn’t think the stuff that the Puppies nominated deserved a Hugo award and voted accordingly. I shall NOT apologize for that – why should I?

  24. Camestros, the very fact that you feel compelled to come here, demonstrates your defensiveness. If you don’t feel like you have to apologize, why bother coming here to comment at all? Could it be that you recognize the mistake in block-voting the destruction of five categories? Especially Best Editor, for both long and short form? I don’t doubt that you genuinely felt the categories deserved to be burned to the ground. But just because you feel a thing genuinely, doesn’t mean you’re blameless. In block-voting the destruction of the categories — especially the editor picks — you and everyone else who did likewise, essentially put the lie to the lofty Trufan talk of celebration. It became a pure exercise in control — Trufans, showing the whole world, that if they don’t get to make the picks, then nobody gets to make the picks. You don’t love science fiction. You love yourself. You love being the chooser. Not others. You. If you can’t be the chooser, nobody gets to be the chooser. Congratulations. That’s the reductionist logic of five year olds.

  25. Brad tried compromise and reason last year — not one micron of the same from your side. Your lot took it as weakness and attacked more viciously instead.

    Dave, I have to say, this — above — was by far the most frustrating aspect of SP3. Compromise only works, if the people on the other side don’t have their fingers crossed behind their backs.

  26. Brad R. Torgersen on December 28, 2015 at 3:25 am said:

    Camestros, the very fact that you feel compelled to come here, demonstrates your defensiveness.

    So by this brilliant argument each time you commented at GRRM’s LiveJournal or at File770 or at Philip Sandifer’s blog you were demonstrating your defensiveness or conceding you were wrong?

    Sorry but no Brad. I commented here for the same reason I might comment in other places – there was an interesting discussion happening – not as some bizarre confessional act.

    Could it be that you recognize the mistake in block-voting the destruction of five categories?

    You do realize that the categories are still there right? It was a vote not a magic ritual. Some people didn’t win a Hugo Award, that’s all that happened.

    I don’t doubt that you genuinely felt the categories deserved to be burned to the ground.

    Yeah, that whole reality thing seems to have escaped you again. The categories haven’t been burned to the ground. They are still there. I’ll be nominating stuff in those categories as will your comrades – yet you think they’ve been ‘burned to the ground’.

    You love being the chooser. Not others.

    All I chose is how *I* voted. I get to make my choices and I take responsibility for those. Unlike others. But yes I do like to make my vote based on my own thinking. I don’t demand that everybody vote for the things I pick out. I’m happier that way. And if my picks don’t win I don’t then claim victimhood and demand that the establishment apologizes to me because I lost.

  27. What the Spokane Worldcon showed readers of science fiction and fantasy is that the Hugo awards are an industry in-group award and that input from fans will not be allowed. That may not have been the message that the con committee intended to send, but it is what was delivered and received loud and clear. What’s more, every time some high profile author writes another post about how they were forced to close down the awards to prevent the wrong people from winning, the impression is strengthened.

    I don’t think there is any way to redeem the awards at this point. The capital that the awards once had has been long since used up. Readers today see “Hugo Award Winning” and it means nothing.

  28. Camestros, pay attention to what Misha wrote. Can Trufansplaining — your apparent calling in life — repair the public image damage done in August? When you did that (both singularly and collectively) you threw away all the good will you were building up over the summer. You were ahead in the PR department. Then the results became known, and there was a huge toilet-flushing sound as all that good will went to waste — because you and the other Trufans broadcast yourselves delighting in a childish and petty act. But don’t just take my word for it.

  29. Geez louise. Another… “hey, you’re just a minority and also you’re just a racist because the world is changing around you but I understand you feel abandoned” defense.

    Think HARD about what it means when you imply that being a minority opinion makes it okay to exclude a group or to insist that they conform to the majority, Camelstros. Think hard about what it means when someone is vilified for insisting that “story comes first” or that there ought to be some adventure and heroics in the genre up to and including charges of racism or being a nazi.

    Meanwhile the biggest-name anti-pups are making a fortune writing adventure while rubbing the bums of the activists who couldn’t be bothered to nominate last year but rallied the forces to block vote no-award for social justice and genre purity. To SELL they write pretty much what, oh, Larry writes, or they write exploding spaceships and get movie deals (good for the rest of us for sure) with exploding spaceships because that’s what sells. Exploding spaceships. They just don’t ever SAY “hey, if you’re a new writer writing science fiction you need to deliver an adventure.” They say something else to rub those bums.

    Brad, on the other hand, writes a simple post about how the space ship on the cover should mean that there is an adventure inside and he’s the farking anti-christ for suggesting it.

  30. After all the negative things that Camel has written about SPers at F770, ad naseum, that person wants to lecture here? HERE? I’m laughing.

  31. The part that Camel Toe doesn’t get is SF is dying because the gatekeepers who ran Tor and Hugo have lost their way but refuse to admit it. Larry Correia’s initial premise – that nominations were driven by politics instead of quality – was proven the first year and reaffirmed every year since. We can’t reconcile until the Lost admit they’re lost and let us help them steer back on track.

    Like millions of small-f fans, I read SF to escape modern politically correct bullshit. I don’t want to be hectored with the same bullshit while reading SF, regardless who wrote it. I want characters that I care about doing interesting things in a story well-told. For Leftists, the bullshit IS the story and the characters merely props to emphasize the author’s victimhood at my oppression.

    Sad and Rabid nominated a slate of Good Stories and the Antis voted no without reading them. They didn’t need to read them: David “Dimsdale” Gerrold told them the stories were doubleplus ungood badthink that that’s good enough for the Chavs with old Dimsy. I have no doubt it’ll happen again and again until the Hugo is strangled into irrelevancy.

  32. >>Some people didn’t win a Hugo Award, that’s all that happened.

    …You are delusional if you think that’s “all” that happened. They certainly got burned to the ground for 2015. And I’m not seeing anything from the puppy-kicker side that shows me they think this was a bad thing.

  33. julieapascal on December 28, 2015 at 9:46 am said:

    Think HARD about what it means when you imply that being a minority opinion makes it okay to exclude a group or to insist that they conform to the majority, Camelstros. Think hard about what it means when someone is vilified for insisting that “story comes first” or that there ought to be some adventure and heroics in the genre up to and including charges of racism or being a nazi.

    Oh please. In a vote for a single award obviously the less popular choice isn’t going to win. What you are effectively arguing for their is positive-discrimination for the steadfast conservative side of society when it comes to SF awards.

    Nobody is stopping you or Brad or anybody *writing* whatever kind of book you like. If Brad wants to write a book about breakfast cereal spaceships I’m glad for him. Would you like more rocketship books? Then write some. Here is what you need:
    1. a basic computer
    2. an internet connection
    3. an amazon account
    I’m not stopping you. Tor isn’t stopping you. Whatever SJW bogeyman you think is out there isn’t stopping you.

    Meanwhile the biggest-name anti-pups are making a fortune writing adventure while rubbing the bums of the activists who couldn’t be bothered to nominate last year but rallied the forces to block vote no-award for social justice and genre purity.

    Great for them. Seriously, I’m happy that Larry Correia enjoys great success with his books and I hope Brad finds as big an audience as well. The Mad Genius crew (Dave, Kate, Sarah et al) they do sterling work helping people write and publish their work – putting the politics aside I think their site is great.

    Why does any of that mean that I should now vote for a book I didn’t thing was great to win an award?

    Here is the problem: the Puppies essentially demand that people vote for works that those people didn’t like – and when they don’t we get the kind of tantrums we see above – all this stuff about destroying categories or burning down the Hugos or throwing people under the bus etc etc etc. Gosh it is just so awful, awful of those non-Puppy people to have their own preferences and their own likes and dislikes, I guess once again Brad needs to tell us that we are bad wrongfans having wrongfun and awful, awful people because are tastes (as diverse as they are) aren’t his.

    Brad, on the other hand, writes a simple post about how the space ship on the cover should mean that there is an adventure inside and he’s the farking anti-christ for suggesting it.

    Well not the antichrist, just the guy who demanded to the world that you should be able to judge a book by its cover 🙂 The Nutty Nuggets post was more funny than awful.

    More to the point, there is no shortage of space adventure books available. Aside from multiple tie-in series (e.g. Halo) just look at the range of MilSF available or space adventures from people like Chuck Gannon – heck even the hated-Scalzi primarily writes space-adventures. Was Brad trying to tell us he doesn’t know how to use Amazon? I’m not really sure. I note he never identifies which of these terrible books with evil deceiving covers he is talking about – that trick him into reading a story about feminism (oh the horror! Poor Brad).

    Meanwhile, you do get that is OK for other people to not only LIKE books that you don’t like but to want to give them awards?

  34. Joe Doakes on December 28, 2015 at 12:58 pm said:

    Like millions of small-f fans, I read SF to escape modern politically correct bullshit. I don’t want to be hectored with the same bullshit while reading SF, regardless who wrote it.

    I’m sorry, I missed the point where your country was taken over by an evil dicatorship that forces you to read books you don’t like. If there are books you don’t want to read then I suggest you try not reading them.

    What you are actually objecting to is OTHER PEOPLE liking and enjoying and celebrating books you don’t like. You think those people are bad people and they need to be taught the error of their ways.

    The part that Camel Toe doesn’t get is SF is dying because the gatekeepers who ran Tor and Hugo have lost their way but refuse to admit it.

    So conspiracy theory time, hoorah. So Macmillan are deliberately trying to lose money because of a leftwing plot to control SF? Putting aside for a moment that you seem to be implying that basic economic imperatives of major-multinational capitalism don’t work, NOTHING stops you buying and reading books for other publishers or independently published books. Heck, I would actively encourage you to do so. There is great stuff out there.

    Secondly Tor? You do realize that Sad Puppies *campaigned* for a Tor book to win and that Rabid Puppies claim credit for a Tor book *actually* winning? Once again the rhetoric runs away from simple checkable reality.

    Sad and Rabid nominated a slate of Good Stories and the Antis voted no without reading them.

    Not only did I read them, I reviewed a lot of them. Put please, go ahead and demonstrate that I didn’t read them.

  35. Julie Frost on December 28, 2015 at 12:59 pm said:

    >>Some people didn’t win a Hugo Award, that’s all that happened.

    …You are delusional if you think that’s “all” that happened. They certainly got burned to the ground for 2015.

    Well the Hugo Awards are still there. All the same categories exist for 2016 and lost of people (including Sad Puppies 4) are planning on nominating for them. So in terms of any actually evidence that anything ‘burned to the ground’? Zero.

    Yeah, I get it *sounds* good to say that but it is just empty words.

  36. In my day it was the Trufans vs. the Sercons. The latter actually liked Science Fiction, not the pretentious English Lit fan fiction favored by the Trufans, who were mostly a bunch of would-be hippies and failed revolutionaries.

  37. Good points Brad. I do not expect the real cause of the problem to ever back down, except if they feel they have completely lost. They would only do it then if they think it will allow them to remain as an active infection.

    I am more of a rabid puppy, but I did sign up when it was only the sad puppies. I am a long time SciFi reader. Camestros is full of it.

    The CHORFs et. al. will only allow peace when it is their peace. Not happening now. This is why you can never appease them. Just like trying to appease ISIS. The peace only comes when you fully submit to their decisions.

  38. There is simply no way to sell the narrative that a couple of thousand people read all of the books (and editorial output) available and spontaneously came to the conclusion to vote “No Award” rather than abstaining from voting altogether. Something like that could only happen by collusion.

    At this point the relative merits of the works in question is irrelevant. What is crystal clear is that one group decided to throw the awards rather than allow someone outside of their clique to win. Why it happened doesn’t matter.

    When we speak of the Hugo awards being “destroyed” what we mean is that the credibility of the award as being fan-based is destroyed. They meant something only so long as they could be demonstrated to be the opinion of fans–not publishers, not authors, not celebrities, but ordinary people who read and enjoyed science fiction.

    That is gone. The Hugo Awards have been revealed as a political prize given out to and by the publishing industry. As such, it’s meaningless. It’s like the restaurant reviews in an entertainment paper supported by ads–wow, another five star review for one of our major advertisers? What a madcap happenstance.

    The long string of awards given out–purely by random chance, I’m sure–to the president of the SFWA was bad enough, but this is the death blow. You have turned a once-prestigious award into the equivalent of an “employee of the quarter” plaque–it looks pretty on the wall, but no one who doesn’t work for the company cares.

  39. MishaBurnett on December 28, 2015 at 3:18 pm said:

    There is simply no way to sell the narrative that a couple of thousand people read all of the books (and editorial output) available and spontaneously came to the conclusion to vote “No Award” rather than abstaining from voting altogether. Something like that could only happen by collusion.

    Collusion or, you know, reading the vast volumes of stuff written about the Hugos or looking at at the Sad and Rabid campaigns or just not keen on being called a ‘CHORF’ by Brad or reading a substantial amount of what was on the slate and seeing that (if I’m being very, very charitable) it was somewhat varied in quality. The very best thing on the slate (Totaled) I thought was OK but not really what I’d vote for as Hugo winning. The worst? Tough competition: Zombie Nation was not good, Wisdom From My Internet was pretty dire (and a shame that Brad picked that as the example of Michael Z Williamson who wrote much better stuff in 2014 e.g. Soft Casualty) and on from there various stuff that was at best OKish.

    So no, it didn’t take ‘collusion’ for people to read stuff in the packet and see a major drop off in quality (from their subjective viewpoint) and think ‘hmm Sad Puppy slate created a weak field this year – No Award looks like a good choice’. We are talking literally thousands of people with different view points, politics and fandom-histories but three axes were in play:
    1. objection to slates
    2. objections to poor quality work
    3. objections to politics – not just Rabid’s but things like Brad’s ‘affirmative action’ claim about some past winners
    Brad brilliantly hit the trifecta and ensured there was ample reason for people to vote ‘No Award’ on any one of those. The number of people who voted No Award on *everything*? Small, probably very small – certainly no bigger than the number of 1st pref No Award votes in Best Dramatic Presentation – Long (and probably less than that as it is a category that some traditionalist vote No Award in)

    What is crystal clear is that one group decided to throw the awards rather than allow someone outside of their clique to win.

    Well if by ‘group’ you mean thousands of fans with differing politics, viewpoints, interests an tastes then that sentence begins to make sense. But if you want to call all those people a ‘clique’ then the much smaller number of people that constituted the Sad and Rabid campaigns were even more of a clique. But, you know, go right ahead and start demonizing ordinary fans expressing their opinions.

    When we speak of the Hugo awards being “destroyed” what we mean is that the credibility of the award as being fan-based is destroyed. They meant something only so long as they could be demonstrated to be the opinion of fans–not publishers, not authors, not celebrities, but ordinary people who read and enjoyed science fiction.

    A group of authors (Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, Sarah Hoyt, John C Wright) and an author publisher (Vox Day) who have semi-ironically christened themselves ‘The Evil League of Evil” (per Dr Horrible) have run various campaigns under ‘Puppy’ labels – initially to ‘Get Larry a Hugo’ and later for less well defined purposes (Vox’s Rabid campaign primarily for publicity, lolz and trolling). Each time fans (predominately not publishers, not authors, not celebrities, but ordinary people who read and enjoyed science fiction) voted against them and in response the various authors who ran the campaigns have responded by calling those ordinary people names and demonizing them in various ways.

    You can pretend, if you like, that all those thousands of people aren’t fans but you’ll be deceiving yourself.

  40. Right. One morning thousands of people who had no knowledge of each other’s existence woke up and thought, “You know, I have never before cared about the Hugo Award for Best Editor: Short Form, but today I find myself struck with a burning desire to ensure that only the best of the best receives this prodigious award and–gadzooks!–none of the nominees is worthy! I must go and vote forthwith!”

    That’s your story?

    Sell it to Scalzi, it’s about his speed.

  41. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    Reconciliation might possible if the puppy kickers didn’t insist on burning every bridge and torching every con. But since they have, well war is what they want, war is what they will get. No puppy asked for anything other than the recognition that yes we are fans too, we read books and we, as fans have every right to nominate books that we like even if they are not published by Tor Books.

  42. the Puppies essentially demand that people vote for works that those people didn’t like

    Translation: only Trufans get to determine what goes on the Hugo Final Ballot. That’s just proper. If anyone other than a Trufan gets to decide what goes on the Hugo Final Ballot, it’s dictatorship, and the category needs to be destroyed . . . to save the dignity of the Hugos.

    Camestros, people are always demanded-of in this way, because the Hugo Final Ballot always contains selections they don’t like, and does not contain selections they do like.

    I find it bleakly hilarious that having the shoe on the other foot — being faced with a ballot that contained a lot of work they didn’t like — resulted in Trufans pitching the genre’s all-time greatest temper tantrum. Equivalent to a toddler throwing its dinner against the wall.

    Well, you just keep pounding your plastic fork and knife on your high-chair table. Show the world your (im)maturity. You had a chance to be magnanimous. That chance was wasted. Now, the Trufans have to deal with the public relations debacle. Your spending thousands of words in my comments doing your typical long-winded Trufansplaining, doesn’t advance your cause.

    If more of you were emotionally mature enough to admit you overreached — and were petty and vindictive in the process — there could be great good that resulted from it. Perhaps even a sea change in a claustrophobic hot-house culture (yours) in great need of same.

    Not gonna hold my breath waiting, obviously.

  43. “Lester Boutillier on December 28, 2015 at 2:34 pm said:
    In my day it was the Trufans vs. the Sercons. The latter actually liked Science Fiction, not the pretentious English Lit fan fiction favored by the Trufans, who were mostly a bunch of would-be hippies and failed revolutionaries.”

    Sounds like nothing has changed, sadly. Except now the Trufans are former hippies and bitter failed revolutionaries.

  44. I would like to wish Kate (and Sarah and Amanda and whoever else is helping out) the best of luck with SP4 this year. It will be an uphill battle.

    As for me, I’m undecided about whether or not to join in or just say ‘fuck it all’ cheer Vox on as he burns it down. I see Brad, Dave, Julie and Mischa offering fairly reasoned arguments for joining SP4, and then camelwhatever comes on here and gets pedantic arguing semantics and I’m sorely tempted to throw in with VD.

    I do know one thing. If things get as divisive this year as last, the Hugos will be dead to a lot of people, not just me. The credibility of the awards took a major hit in 2015. They can’t withstand another such hit without people walking away with the idea that if it says Hugo Winner on it, stay away from it as if it has the sign of the devil on it.

  45. MishaBurnett on December 28, 2015 at 6:35 pm said:

    Right. One morning thousands of people who had no knowledge of each other’s existence woke up and thought, “You know, I have never before cared about the Hugo Award for Best Editor: Short Form, but today I find myself struck with a burning desire to ensure that only the best of the best receives this prodigious award and–gadzooks!–none of the nominees is worthy! I must go and vote forthwith!”

    No, over several mornings people with an interest in the Hugo Awards (some regular voters, some occasional, some just people who liked to check out the winners each year) woke up and read about the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy campaigns. Some read that according to people like Brad that if they enjoyed something like Redshirts or Ancillary Justice that they were ‘CHORFS’ or that they were destroying science fiction. Some went and looked at what Sad Puppy nominee John C Wright had to say on his blog about gay people or women. Others went to see what Rabid Puppy leader and previous Sad Puppy nominee Vox Day had to say about noted murderers on his blog. Others, perhaps people who had regularly volunteered their own time to help a Worldcon be a fun and happy place discovered that they were being called other names or elitists or branded as radical leftists.

    People then started looking at what was being nominated and many people thought getting an opportunity to say ‘no’ to this mess was a good idea. People sough out supporting memberships (as indeed both Puppy campaigns encouraged people to do). With those memberships came the Hugo Packet and people started reading what Brad had picked out for people to vote on. People who regularly posted reviews started reviewing those works, people who hadn’t posted reviews of SF works before (e.g. myself) started to do so as well. Soon lots and lots of people who had not been actively involved in discussing the Hugo voting before were doing so – gosh Sad Puppies 4 even boasts about the improved participation this caused. What people found wasn’t good.

    Meanwhile Sad & Rabid Puppy supporters defended their slates. Brad posted messages at Philip Sandifer’s blog, at GRRM’s Livejournal and at File770. Typically his defense was not well done and often deeply counterproductive. The net effect was more people actively getting involved in working against the Puppy nominations. Vox Day continued to post inflammatory things which certainly helped encourage people left of center to get involved.

    Meanwhile people kept reading the Hugo packet. People (e.g. myself) also started looking at works that otherwise might have got nominated and compared the relative quality of both. What became increasingly clear was that Brad’s picks seemed primarily on the basis of personal acquaintance (not 100% of course) and of very mixed quality. The gulf between the stated lofty aims of Sad Puppies 3 and what was actually nominated became clear, as did the obvious overall drop in quality.

    People suggested different approaches. GRRM said read and vote, Sandifer said No Award all categories regardless, others produce lists showing what was and wasn’t Puppy nominated. Personally I advocated reading what was nominated but comparing it with un-nominated works, anything less good than a ‘comparison work’ I’d vote No Award – I know others shared that idea or variations on it.

    All of this happened pretty much in the open. Lots of blog posts, lots of arguments, it’s all there for people to see.

  46. You know, Camestros, you like to come here and pretend to be reasonable, but then you go back to your blog and File 770 and talk smack about us. I have to wonder what it is you think you’re accomplishing here. We don’t trust you. Stop trying to play the concerned friend. That only works if you are actually our friend.

    And making Vox Day and John C Wright the face of Sad Puppies is typical CHORF misdirection at its most crudely obvious.

  47. Brad R. Torgersen on December 28, 2015 at 7:45 pm said:

    the Puppies essentially demand that people vote for works that those people didn’t like

    Translation: only Trufans get to determine what goes on the Hugo Final Ballot. That’s just proper. If anyone other than a Trufan gets to decide what goes on the Hugo Final Ballot, it’s dictatorship, and the category needs to be destroyed . . . to save the dignity of the Hugos.

    Camestros, people are always demanded-of in this way, because the Hugo Final Ballot always contains selections they don’t like, and does not contain selections they do like.

    Still trying to push that noodle up-hill Brad. You succeeded in nominating a set of stuff that a MAJORITY of *voters* didn’t like. It is as simple as that. Having offered nothing but spam, spam, spam, people said ‘no thanks’. At which point the howls about how that wasn’t fair and the stamping of feet and the continued crying about how people once bullied should stay bullied. Sorry Brad but it doesn’t work that way.

    Sure, in any competitive election some people will be disappointed. In most elections I have to pick between least-worst political candidates and I’m sure there are people on the right who have a similar experience. However, even a Hugo ignoramus could have worked out before hand that Hugo voters are going to find a diet of multiple John C Wright works less than appetizing. People simply voted for the none-of-the-above option. Good for them. I wish I could do that during real election time.

    Try as you might Brad you can’t MAKE people like your taste. There isn’t some clever rule gambit that will work to do that. Even if No Award hadn’t existed as an option, the subsequent victories would have felt hollow for you and you would still be railing about how your choices won fair and square and demanding people respected them in the same way.

    You had a chance to be magnanimous.

    You had a chance to be gracious in defeat. Instead you chose to start slandering ordinary fans and Hugo voters – presumably as part of a brilliant vote winning strategy in which if you are mean enough to people they start respecting you? Who knows!

  48. Christopher M. Chupik on December 28, 2015 at 8:55 pm said:

    You know, Camestros, you like to come here and pretend to be reasonable, but then you go back to your blog and File 770 and talk smack about us. I have to wonder what it is you think you’re accomplishing here. We don’t trust you. Stop trying to play the concerned friend. That only works if you are actually our friend.

    And making Vox Day and John C Wright the face of Sad Puppies is typical CHORF misdirection at its most crudely obvious.

    I was aiming more for truth-to-power rather than concerned friend. If I thought you’d trust me and act on my advice I’d be a lot more circumspect 🙂

    As for Vox Day and John C Wright – what I did was FACTUALLY portray them as part of the Evil League of Evil as they portray themselves and as Sad Puppies have portrayed them. You can read John C Wrights comments by looking at his blog 2014/5/2 and then on 2014/6/3 and then on 2015/5/13 (year/month/day). To quote the man himself:
    “Here is my announcement of the formation of the Evil Legion of Evil as a particular literary movement with a particular purpose, initially called the United Underworld, later called the Sad Puppies. [link] ”
    According to Larry Correia (at his blog 2015/2/2 post entitled Sad Puppies 3: The Slatening):
    “Brad Torgersen is this year’s banner carrier in our ongoing war against Puppy Related Sadness. Now that the registrations for memberships to nominate for the Hugo are closed, here is what the Evil League of Evil authors came up with in discussion. ”

    So wow, what a bunch of CHORFS! Larry Correia, Vox Day and John C Wright. By all means if you think they were all lying or being misleading then speak up. All I’m doing is reported HOW THINGS WERE PORTRAYED BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. Sorry if that doesn’t fit the we’ve-always-been-at-war-with-eurasia narrative of the week.

  49. Camestros: What I find interesting is how in the past few days, you, Steve Davidson and Cat Rambo have turned up in the comments at Mad Genius Club. Knowing what all of you have said, and continue to say about us, I find it very peculiar that all of you have all of a sudden started posting at one of the main Puppy blogs, acting like you’re friendly with us. Which I know for a fact you are not.

    When I see a bunch of people on your side doing the exact same thing at the same time for no apparent reason, it makes me very suspicious.

  50. Christopher M. Chupik on December 28, 2015 at 10:31 pm said:

    Camestros: What I find interesting is how in the past few days, you, Steve Davidson and Cat Rambo have turned up in the comments at Mad Genius Club.

    Firstly: wow, you put me in comparatively august company. You do get that I’m a nobody? I can’t say I’ve encountered Steve Davidson very often online and I don’t think I’ve ever exchanged words (virtual or otherwise) with Cat Rambo (might be wrong, my memory is shocking). All I can say is that I wish my name was Cat Rambo because seriously that is a brilliant name. But as I said, I really am a nobody – a loud mouthed leftist who likes drawing bad pictures and reading SF/F.

    Secondly: I’ve been posting comments occasionally at Mad Genius for some months and I read the blog regularly. I *like* the blog, OK not the politics so much but I like the writing and publishing advice. I did post a Merry Christmas the other day when I was collecting Force Awakens reviews from multiple blogs and I had previously linked to Brad’s review there in another post.
    I also drop by SuperversiveSF from time to time also and occasionally Dr Mauser’s blog also. Past month or so I’ve also been involved in discussions at Larry Correia’s blog (on the topic of guns no less – which was, um, interesting!) and I’ve had a few rounds of disputation with the estimable John C Wright.

    I don’t know if it is a cultural thing but I’m from a background were people can have vigorous arguments about stuff and still wish other people well.

    Hmm, but you do raise a good point. I have also noticed that recently, particularly around last Friday people being surprisingly *nice* to one another, often wishing people well or even reaching out to people they don’t get on with and being *pleasant*. Now that I think about it I noticed similar behavior around this time last year. Plus there were reports of ‘decorations’ and ‘gift giving’ and even unwarranted ‘good cheer’.

    I think you are just the man to look into this rash of bonhomie – indeed I suspect a sudden rash of people demanding that old acquaintances should not be forgot by the end of the week. Also where did all the turkeys go?

  51. I visited the GRRM post linked and perused the comments to get a feel for what’s going on in circles I don’t frequent. Wow. He’s really doubling down on his divisiveness. All this talk on what it takes to be considered a Fan ( apparently the capital to him is very important ). Now I’m not sure exactly what his definition of and difference between fan and Fan are. But apparently in order to be a Fan, you have to be actively involved in the convention circuit. Not just attending, but also being involved in the behind the scenes work.. You also can’t just read the works, you have to own them and have a collection on hand ( he very explicitly said that a voracious library patron is only a reader, not a Fan ). And all this must be done over the course of years, not just as a sudden interest. So my take on it is that you can’t be considered a Fan unless you have a good amount of disposable income and time. Which means that you can only buy your way into Fandom. Huh.

    Now again, I’m not sure what special privileges and qualities go to fans vs Fans, but I do know that in the English language, capitalizing it makes it a proper noun. And proper nouns tend to take on a more important meaning than basic ones. Which means that a Fan is somehow more important, or more prestigious than a fan, or reader, or patron, or customer, or consumer. So, since I don’t qualify for his definition of Fan ( GRRM of course meets it ), it seems to me that he somehow considers me not just different ( I can handle different ), but less than someone who is a Fan. And that idea simply goes against nearly every belief I have. He of course doesn’t explicitly say that readers and fans are less than Fans, but the implication is certainly there. And I find it shocking that a creator would view some of his fan base and patrons as better than or worse than others.

    I may not know a whole lot in this world compared to others, but I know a good way to generate antipathy is to suggest that one person is inferior to you based on a completely subjective and arbitrary quality. As someone who makes his living by writing, you would think GRRM would understand the idea that words, definitions, and grammar do matter.

  52. Again, the impression that all this leaves us with is that the Hugo awards are a purely political prize and that no one who doesn’t have access to well funded media outlets has any business getting involved.

    This is exactly why I took the “Science Fiction” label off my novels.

  53. MishaBurnett on December 29, 2015 at 4:10 am said:

    Again, the impression that all this leaves us with is that the Hugo awards are a purely political prize and that no one who doesn’t have access to well funded media outlets has any business getting involved.

    Well the winner of the headline Best Novel category was a book that Rabid Puppies leader preferenced first, that occult Marxist and blanket No Awarder Philip Sandifer has praised, which was published by Tor and which only won because it garnered votes from both critics of Puppies and supporters of Puppies. It was both a classic SF piece and a novel about society and politics and broke new ground in terms of Hugo Awards in terms of it being Chinese. Even people who didn’t vote for it thought it was a worthy winner.

    Shame Brad’s efforts nearly kept it off the ballot but thanks to Larry Corriea and Marko Kloos withdrawing The Three Body Problem was a worthy winner that enjoyed support across this years battle lines.

  54. Camestros You’re again trying to construct your favorite false narrative. -That Worldcon attendees, Hugo voters, most of the trad publishers and the kind of people who hang out in the cliques at File 770 or Making Light are a normal representative sample of sf/fantasy readers, or in fact the US or first world countries, and that therefore their/your tastes are typical and representative, and we are minor outlier that you conclude is about 20%. It’s a narrative that comes apart at the first hurdle: if this were the case, indy writers, and those who do not match the socio-political demands of your clique would fail, and Traditional publishing industry would be blooming. The data coming out of PW and other sources say that the inverse is true. My assessment is that your cliques closely match the hard core Democrats (to whom there is no too far left, so you’re in along with your friend Phil) – about 6% of the US demographic according to Gallup. In a normal environment, occasional extreme viewpoint books are financially carried by the center. Once in a while these outliers are brilliant and have broader appeal. However, if they end up identified as ‘books for the far left’ they will have to make do with the income from that. And that will see you lose most of the authors who share your worldview. I have warned your lot before that ‘do unto others’ would be a wise idea for when the worm turns, but long-term thinking isn’t something the Anti-Sad Puppy are famed for. To put it in ball-sport terms you’re like the Carlton barracker who thinks the world of team ball sports is Carlton.

    You do realize that the term ‘CHORF’ was coined to separate ‘tru-fans’ and SMOFs who are welcoming decent folk from the exclusive and reactionary subset of the same trying to preserve the old order and their control. So far from including a diverse group, some of whom are may be quite decent, it’s literal description of the behavior of a specific subset. Clique-ish (a perfect description of your normal group) Holier-than-thou (a perfect description of your behavior here) etc etc. It would stop being used if it were not so accurate. Perhaps because dishonest labels for us (such as ‘sexist and racist’ – for no descriptive purpose, but to damage reputations and abuse by your crowd – who display greater levels of such behavior) is a norm, you don’t see this.

    I’m mildly amused by what I suspect is Chardonnay socialism. Have you spent much time doing your actual labour? I do some work as farm laborer for extra cash and to help out now, and grew up on small commercial fishing boats, so I actually understand both labor and its value. Has it occurred to you that for all your loud talk that the ‘exploited working class’ are… not the people you’re supporting? You’re doing your best to help their exploiters. If you’re opposed to big corporates – Baen isn’t one, and for that matter, neither is Castilia. Baen’s treatment of the workers – writers like myself is considerably BETTER financially and contractually. Don’t believe me – ask Eric Flint (who is a real socialist who was a union organiser and did manual labour for decades). I believe Castilia is also more generous than the big Corporates who want to maintain the status quo. Whose contracts have unpleasant restrictive clauses which parallel modern indentured service, if not genteel slavery. You’re silent or supportive of them and their gentry. You attack the folk MGC — who actually put their time and effort into helping the exploited. We build. We help battlers. We do NOT exclude people on the basis of ideology, or any other trait. Your 770 clique only break and try to hurt to protect the wealthy and powerful – how do you square that with your principles? You squall about sex and race — but take a careful look – most of those you protect and rally around are the products of upper upper-middle class wealth and privilege, born with advantages that the women and people of color (to use the PC term) on the puppy side had none of (and yes, they are real, independent, opinionated people and deserve support and admiration). People like Cedar have done it tough, held down a day job to survive, raised kids on her own, escaped real abuse and battled up against circumstances that should make them icons. For them, you have nothing but more abuse. You save your praise for white-bread pampered dahlings whose parents could afford to let them be dilettantes at the very best colleges, with time and money on their hands to play at writing, and all the crony contacts in publishing. Because they’re ‘women’ – and you don’t see this as discrimination?

    Don’t talk socialism to me. Show me.

  55. To put it another way, the anti-Puppies rallied their thousands and in the processes alienated millions.

    “Science Fiction Fans” is a shrinking demographic. It has been for decades. You have the old school fans–people my age and older–who grew up on Heinlein and Asimov and Clarke. Younger readers are looking at Martin and Scalzi and Gerrold and getting the impression that Science Fiction is a closed group that doesn’t want anyone who won’t toe their line.

    The SFWA big shots don’t care because they don’t get paid by readers–they get paid by publishers. The publishers will continue to give huge advances to their chosen few, and make up the losses on their mid-list. Well, up until the point where they go out of business, but the top authors don’t believe that could ever happen.

    I don’t have that luxury. I don’t get advances and I don’t get to operate at a loss. I have to listen to what my readers are telling me and respond to it. What I am hearing is that my fans are people who want speculative and fantastic elements in fiction, but are so soured on polemic that passes for Science Fiction these days that they won’t pick up anything with those words on the spine.

    You can continue to keep Science Fiction pure and untainted by outside influences. That’s fine, enjoy your walled city with it’s vanishing peoples. I’ve got the whole rest of the world.

  56. LMAO that Camel thinks he’s “speaking truth to power.” What the hell universe is he living in where the puppies have any power whatsoever? This is more him lecturing us on how our taste is terrible and we should feel terrible and it’s all our fault that people didn’t actually read the works in question and just voted No Award because we made them angry.

    Also, the elephant in the room, which he is studiously ignoring, is the Best Editor Long Form category, in which 2500 people decided that No Award should win over Toni Weisskopf. Not only did they burn that category to the ground for 2015, they did it at the expense of one of the hardest-working women in the industry. So, uh. Good going, there, guys.

    And if people honestly think that Toni didn’t deserve the award, or that Skin Game and Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine or Totaled or Mike Resnick placed below No Award because of anything other than sheer politics and bitterness… well. See my remarks above re: delusional.

  57. I’ll add a datapoint on the subject of Best Editor – LF: personally, I placed votes above No Award in that category despite slated nominations, and the stats suggest that a substantial number of other people did likewise, significantly more than can be accounted for by puppy votes alone.
    However, I did not vote for Toni Weisskopf. My reason was simple: neither she or anyone else gave me good reasons to think she was the best editor of specific long-form works published in 2014, which is what the award was for. She gave no substantive packet submission, identified nothing that she’d edited, and made statements to the effect that as Baen team-edit, she couldn’t point to anything in particular as her work. With no evidence to consider, how was anyone to judge her as the Best Editor working in 2014?
    Clearly a number of people feel that she could, and should, have been judged on the totality of Baen’s output, but the award isn’t a proxy for Best Publisher, it’s for specific editing work. No doubt she did a whole lot of very worthwhile editing work in 2014, but as she didn’t say what it was, you couldn’t judge if it was the best.

  58. Robert Reynolds, you ask (very reasonably) that people judge you by your actual words, not by the meanings they impute.

    In return, I ask (reasonably, I hope) that you judge Brad by his actual words, not by “nudges and winks” that you imagine.

    Or is consistency too much to ask?

  59. John Van Stry, a correction: GRRM had three Alfies left over at the end of the night.

  60. The other side always assumes we’re talking in code. That’s why they freak out over seemingly innocuous things.

  61. Camel Toe trumpets that the Puppies’ slates were rejected by a majority of Hugo voters. What he won’t admit is they were rejected because of who nominated the stories and not based on the quality of the stories themselves which is THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE HUGO AWARDS. That’s what Larry Correia set out to prove – that the award for Best Science Fiction has been twisted into an award for Science Fiction By A Politically Correct Liberal and the gates are so jealously guarded that the insiders will burn down the village rather than let in outsiders. QED.

  62. Mr. Shoemaker, that is, indeed, a reasonable request. I’m not referring to Mr. Torgersen’s remarks here when I said “nudges and winks”. I refer to some of the phrasing in the SP3 run up to all that happened last time. Most specifically to the “If you agree with our slate below-and we suspect you might” part, which at least strikes me as a wink at the intended audience. It isn’t as egregious as the RP1 absolute, but it’s interesting at the very least. Thus far, SP4 is doing things differently. I have no problems with a recommendations list or lists.

    https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/sad-puppies-3-the-2015-hugo-slate/

  63. Joe Doakes, as another datapoint, I placed a number of works below no award based on having read them and found them below par. There were a large number of other people who followed the same approach and came a similar conclusion. There were then others who voted against anything on a slate on principle, a stand I considered perfectly valid but decided not to follow. You may not agree with either of the approaches that led to people voting no award, but the canard that no award was exclusively used without reading and considering is not correct.

  64. It sounds to me like you’re still imputing behavior that was never stated. I will do you the courtesy of not doing the same in return. When someone recommends a book, of course they do so expecting that you will like it.

    Look at sales figures. Every book that SP recommended had huge sales spikes after. If people were just blindly following nudges and winks, they wouldn’t have to buy the books.

  65. Mark, it is equally a canard, equally incorrect that the SP recommendations were a slate that people nominated without reading and considering. I, for one, nominated only works that I had read and enjoyed. I also nominated Brad’s book, despite it being explicitly NOT on the slate, because it was the best novel I read that year.

    If we must assume that voters and nominators have agency and choose for valid reasons (and I think we should), then we must assume that of ALL voters and nominators. To do otherwise is bias.

  66. >>There were then others who voted against anything on a slate on principle, a stand I considered perfectly valid but decided not to follow.

    So, slate-voting against a slate “on principle” without reading the works in question and even giving them a bare chance is “perfectly valid.”

    Seriously?

    I have absolutely no objection to people actually reading the works and giving their honest evaluations. I applaud anyone who did so. What I do object to is the wholesale dismissing of entire categories based on who nominated them and how.

    And the notion that “Skin Game” is so terrible that it deserved to be placed below “No Award” is patently ridiculous. I will admit to being entirely biased here (I want to be Jim Butcher when I grow up, and Skin Game was my favorite book published last year–that I read–for so many reasons), but come on.

  67. Martin, it’s a fair enough point, one that I’ve seen plenty of people make about how they personally nominated. Indeed, the nomination stats make clear there was variation in how SP voted, but they also make clear that there was a core voting for everything slated no matter what – Chaos Horizon estimated 50% for the SP core, which seems reasonable to me. The question would be then, if a slate is only 50% effective, does that stop it being a slate? I would say not – it is still a slate.

  68. By that measure, then, No Award was a larger, more effective slate. Remind me again: slates are bad, right?

  69. Julie: yes, I think voting against the use of a slate is perfectly valid. Slates are not a good thing, they give unfair advantages to those promoted by them, and unfair prominence to the opinions of those who make them. Those people who simply rejected the use of slates by voting against anything on them were entitled to do so, as a mechanism to discourage their use.

    Skin Game: well, I’m afraid I read it and it wasn’t great for me. Nothing bad about it as such, but I don’t think he pulled off the “caper” element very successfully. When you add to that that the 15th installment of a series will always have issues catering to people who haven’t read the backstory, I don’t think its poor result is that surprising. There were plenty of reviews of it during Hugo season that had similar opinions, and I’ve chatted to a couple of Dresden fans who say they don’t think it was a particularly strong installment either. That’s not to take away from your own personal view on it as a big Dresden fan, but the fact is that it wasn’t shared by a substantial number of people who read it, so I don’t think it was “patently ridiculous”.

  70. Martin: The primary point is that no award was a reaction to slating. No-one was organising no award in January, in fact no-one organised “no award slates” at all, although after the nominations came out a number of people publicly declared that was how they would react. Is the reaction to something capable of forming its justification?

    Was it a valid reaction? There are a couple of ways to approach this: first, the rules-lawyer approach, where slating was technically within the rules because there’s no formal mechanism to reject it, in which case any reaction technically within the rules was allowed as well. In this approach, No Award was in the rules and therefore available for use.
    The alternative approach would be to ask whether slating (whether disciplined or not) is unfair. If so then actions to counter that unfairness can be justified. No Award is the lightest touch way to act under that approach. I don’t know which of those lines of thought people who applied a “no award slates” approach followed, or if they had other lines of reasoning, but they lead to the same conclusion: no award is a valid reaction to slating.

  71. In light of past (behind closed doors) efforts to load the ballot — five nominations in one year, for Seanan, ring a bell? — it seems Trufandom is selectively choosing when to be outraged enough to pull the nuclear card.

  72. No, over several mornings people with an interest in the Hugo Awards (some regular voters, some occasional, some just people who liked to check out the winners each year) woke up and read about the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy campaigns. Some read that according to people like Brad that if they enjoyed something like Redshirts or Ancillary Justice that they were ‘CHORFS’ or that they were destroying science fiction. Some went and looked at what Sad Puppy nominee John C Wright had to say on his blog about gay people or women. Others went to see what Rabid Puppy leader and previous Sad Puppy nominee Vox Day had to say about noted murderers on his blog. Others, perhaps people who had regularly volunteered their own time to help a Worldcon be a fun and happy place discovered that they were being called other names or elitists or branded as radical leftists.

    For someone who has apparently been following events quite closely, you seem to have suffered from a very peculiar bout of selective amnesia. For starters, there were the numerous hit pieces. The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly, The New Yorker, Slate, Wired and many others gave very negative views on the Sad Puppies campaign. Some went the smear route, with titles like “Sexism is Way Bigger than the Hugos”, “Science Fiction’s White Boys’ Club Strikes Back”, and the since-corrected “Hugo Award nominations fall victim to misogynistic, racist voting campaign”. Others were more subtle, claiming, “The Puppies are taking science fiction’s Hugo awards back in time” and “Sci-fi’s right-wing backlash”. If those had been my only source of information about the topic, I too might have been taken in by their lies, exaggerations, and snide implications.

    A lot of people were lied to. They were convinced that they were saving the Hugos from a bunch of Stormfront bigots. Then we had the campaigning from the anti side where people were not only encouraged to purchase memberships to vote, but some authors and activists actually paid for memberships. Oh, of course they said things like, “Please vote for the works you like”, but do you really think that, after months of campaigning by the antis, the people who snapped up those free slots or paid out of pocket were doing so because they just wanted to see a fair vote? The well was thoroughly and truly poisoned by that time, and those 2500+ voters were purposefully mobilized to make a point.

    What people found wasn’t good…. The gulf between the stated lofty aims of Sad Puppies 3 and what was actually nominated became clear, as did the obvious overall drop in quality.

    A voter in Mr. Existential Fallacy Syllogism’s world: “Well, gosh, there’s these two dozen-or-so articles that tell me these mysogynist/racist/puppy killers are up to no good, but dagnabbit, I’m going to give these works an honest read-through and give my informed decision. Alright, let’s see, ‘Totaled’, page one…Gah! My eyes! This is objectively horrible! How could this be rated 4.7 out of 5 stars on Amazon! Gasp, must remove from sight…there. Quick, No Award! Okay, breathe. Calming thoughts. Better now. Alright, let’s see about his Mike Resnick guy. Ugh, what terrible editing! I can’t imagine how this pretender managed to net five Hugo awards except that his skills must not translate from one domain to another within the craft of writing! He probably hates women and Galaxy’s Edge is surely a reference to racist colonial empirialism. I hate his ugly face!” And so it goes.

    So, no, I don’t think that it is likely that the majority of those 2500+ new voters who voted “No Award” really took the time to read and research before rendering the judgment that had been proscribed to them by the above-mentioned articles and numerous blog posts vilifying the Puppies.

  73. >>no-one organised “no award slates” at all, although after the nominations came out a number of people publicly declared that was how they would react. Is the reaction to something capable of forming its justification?

    *loud snort* The disconnect is strong here. How is encouraging people to vote “no award” across the board (out of hate) any different than encouraging people to nominate works they actually liked across a board? And are you actually positing that there wasn’t a concerted effort to vote No Award?

    And there were plenty of people who loved Skin Game, Enough that it debuted at #1 on the NYT Bestseller list, enough that it’s got a 4.7 rating on B&N, 4.8 on Amazon, and a 4.6 on Goodreads. So. Yes. “No Award” being put above it most certainly is “patently ridiculous,” and I venture to say that if it had not been a puppy pick and made the ballot in a different way, it would not have placed below No Award.

    No Award was a knee-jerk, burn-it-down, take-my-ball-and-go-home reaction. It was petty, and I had thought it beneath the denizens of the WSFS until it happened. I felt alienated from my chosen genre for nearly 20 years before (yes) Jim Butcher brought me back into it, and I’m sorry to say that it looks like there’s a certain very large corner of it that still doesn’t want me here.

  74. > I suspect what’s going to happen is that
    > Vox will keep fucking with the Hugos

    Since it costs him almost nothing, and the return on his investment is so high, I think we can take that as a given.

  75. “In light of past (behind closed doors) efforts to load the ballot — five nominations in one year, for Seanan, ring a bell? — it seems Trufandom is selectively choosing when to be outraged enough to pull the nuclear card.”

    Brad, I rather hesitate to ask given your dislike of answering questions, but do you actually have any more proof of your theories in this regard than when you started touting them months ago? The last time you were peddling it, it was Patrick Nielsen Hayden getting Hugos for Tor authors, particularly Ann Leckie (publisher: Orbit). Now it’s someone getting Hugos for McGuire (publisher: DAW). Haven’t you cracked the cabal yet?
    I mean, this is a super-secret conspiracy that directs hundreds of members of a fandom with a decades-long tradition of gossiping and sniping, and yet not one email has leaked? It makes such crazy decisions as to load up 5 nominations for a single person, and yet not one member has broken ranks because they thought it should have been Kowal’s year instead? That’s a well-organised conspiracy there.

    I mean, there have actually been organised attempts to game the Hugos in the last decade, and there’s evidence hanging around of those if you want to look for it. Of course, those attempts were aimed at promoting Baen, so you’re not screaming too loudly about those.

  76. BassmanCO: “I think this sums up Camel Toe, Mark and Robert.”

    I’ve seen members of SP, including Brad, bemoaning that SP didn’t do well enough in terms of PR. I’d suggest that one of the reasons people looked at the SP campaign and went “nuhuh” is that you’ve been unable to resist the urge to refer to people and groups with petty, infantile nicknames. I don’t blame you of course, Brad set the tone with CHORF and it was just downhill from there.

  77. >>Brad set the tone with CHORF and it was just downhill from there.

    Au contraire. They set the tone with accusations of “racist, misogynist, homophobes” first. I am amused that it’s perfectly fine for them to throw loaded terms like that around with nary a blink, and then get butthurt by the term “CHORF.”

  78. Julie Frost

    “How is encouraging people to vote “no award” across the board (out of hate) any different than encouraging people to nominate works they actually liked across a board?”

    You think that “no award” was voted out of hate? That’s rather overstating it. People’s reactions undoubtedly ranged as far as outrage that slate tactics had loaded categories with mediocrity, but hate?

    Is encouraging no award different from the SP slates? Absolutely. There is a significant difference between encouraging people to vote for something to “make literati heads explode”, defeat “affirmative action”, or combat liberal bias, and reacting to that by encouraging people to reject unfair tactics. The first one is heavily laden with politics and culture war, and tries to get people to vote on those lines rather than on merit, and the second is an apolitical rejection of those tactics. As I said to Martin above, it what way can the reaction to something be used to justify it?

    Skin Game: again, you’re a big Butcher fan, you liked it, fine. So did other people, fine. I didn’t think it was close to the top 5 of the year, and neither did a whole bunch of other people who read it, reviewed it, and discussed it. Surely that’s also fine?

    “Au contraire. They set the tone with accusations of “racist, misogynist, homophobes” first.“

    CHORF was coined 31st March, Irene Gallo’s post was in May. Again, why is the justification retroactive?

  79. Mark,

    I couldn’t care less what your opinion is. You are a disingenuous troll that ignores any past comments that don’t fit your narrative and moves goalposts at a whim.

    I was mocking you for the amusement of the people here. To borrow terms from Vox, you have no intention of speaking in dialectic terms, so I will use rhetoric. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away before I taunt you a second time.

  80. I guess I should withdraw my suggestion that BassmanCO is a good example of the SP’s need for namecalling, as he’s a RP. Instead he serves as an explanation to Brad of why people might have conflated SP and RP so much.

  81. Personally, I’d love to see Camestrosfelapton’s honest response to this comment by Dave: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/sad-puppies-and-the-future/#comment-17573

    It’s not that different from other things Dave (I’m strongly supressing my urge to write “Mr. Freer” instead of “Dave”) has written on the subject, but it does nicely summarize some of the points that Camestros is so fond of dodging and tiptoeing around like a snide, pompous, ill-mannered rascal. It amazes me that there exist people who can honestly look at “CHORF” “ASP” and “Anti-Pup” and pretend that they are just as terrible (in the pantheon of terrible labels) and hurtful as “Nazi” “Misogynist” “Rape-Apologist” “Wife-Beater” and “White Supremacist”. Truly a fascinating, frightening illustration of the rhyming (not repetitive) nature of history as embodied in human personalities and psychologies. Moral equivalency is alive and well and living.

  82. >>CHORF was coined 31st March, Irene Gallo’s post was in May. Again, why is the justification retroactive?

    Dude, please. The accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia have been tossed at Larry and Brad since long before the Sad Puppies thing blew up.

    >> I didn’t think it was close to the top 5 of the year, and neither did a whole bunch of other people who read it, reviewed it, and discussed it. Surely that’s also fine?

    Certainly. But the fact is that a bunch of people did like it enough to get it on the ballot, and it’s garnered overwhelmingly positive reviews. To insist that it didn’t deserve to be on the ballot because Slates Are Bad and therefore No Award should beat it is specious at best (especially when voting No Award as a slate) when plenty of people thought it was excellent. See, again: NYT Bestseller (which is not necessarily a hallmark of excellence, but certainly is a hallmark of popularity, and the Hugos are, at heart, a popularity contest–although at this point I have to say that popularity only counts if you are the Right Kind of Writer with the Right Kind of Fans), and ratings of 4.6 or better at Goodreads, Amazon, and B&N. If the “whole bunch of other people” thought something was better, then maybe they should have gotten off their asses and voted for the better thing instead of whining about it after the fact and then throwing a giant temper tantrum.

  83. Brad – in the original post, you are demanding “very public” apologies and statements by “the establishment” for perceived wrongs.

    I ask you, who specifically could apologize for the no award votes? The Hugo administrator just counts the ballots – he doesn’t cast them. The only person who can apologize for the “CHORFholes” is David Gerrold. He didn’t consult with anybody else prior to bestowing them.

    Who, specifically, could apologize for conflating Sad and Rabid Puppies? Seems like hundreds if not thousands of people did that, if for no other reason than they used the same logo by the same designer.

    Who, specifically (other than Steve Davidson) would you like to order “A cessation of the endless game of shibboleths and street cred checks?” And why should I, for one, listen to or follow whomever you nominate as the leader?

    There is no “establishment” which can give you what you seek.

  84. Julie Frost:

    >>”Dude, please. The accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia have been tossed at Larry and Brad since long before the Sad Puppies thing blew up. ”

    Why would anyone toss anything at the leaders of the various SP campaigns before those campaigns started? Why don’t you identify what you think is the first stone thrown and we’ll take it from there.

    >>Skin Game: “But the fact is that a bunch of people did like it enough to get it on the ballot”

    Yes, and a fair proportion of the people voting for it did so as part of a straight slate, probably without reading it, and that is what people were objecting to. A different proportion were voting for it after reading it because of the slate, I agree. If it could have got on by its own merit, why not just let it do so?
    You appear to be convinced that no-one could think it was merely an ordinary book, despite the existence of actual real people who hold that opinion, such as me. I read all the novels, and my opinion was that there was a real gap between Skin Game and Goblin Emperor/Ancillary. (Not as big as the gap in quality between Dark Between the Stars and everything else, mind you.) Obviously my mileage varies, but again: the existence of people who didn’t particularly rate Skin Game is an objective fact, so it’s perfectly possible for people judging on merit to have decided not to vote for it.

    >>“maybe they should have gotten off their asses and voted for the better thing instead of whining about it after the fact”

    People did vote for their choice of better thing, both in nominations and final voting. They nominated Lock-In, City of Stairs, The Martian (which would probably have been ineligible for Best Novel, but it’s still a fine book; pity Brad didn’t think Andy Weir should get his Campbell nom), Words of Radiance. They then voted for 3BP, Goblin Emperor, and Ancillary. People didn’t throw “a giant temper tantrum”, they reacted to having really good books that they’d voted for knocked off the ballot by slate voting tactics.

  85. Brad, it sounds like might be coming down with some of the symptoms of hydrophobia. All the actions of the Anti-puppy side continues to do is swell the ranks of the Rabid faction in it’s various forms. Please know they did not vote in lockstep, and severely overestimated their ability to influence the graphic story vote(they should have nominated something instead).
    Carthago delenda est

  86. >>Why would anyone toss anything at the leaders of the various SP campaigns before those campaigns started? Why don’t you identify what you think is the first stone thrown and we’ll take it from there.

    …you’re kidding me with this. I have watched people take potshots at Brad and Larry for years. If you haven’t, then you’re either new, or you haven’t been paying attention. Larry, in particular, is a lightning rod because of his outspoken support for the Second Amendment.

    I guess we’ll agree to disagree on “Skin Game.” Have fun with your anecdotal evidence, and I’ll have fun with the Amazon, B&N, and Goodreads ratings. And Jim will sleep on a mattress made of money, crank out more excellent NYT Bestsellers, and do these things while being a super nice guy.

    >> (pity Brad didn’t think Andy Weir should get his Campbell nom)

    Oh, yeah, how dare he think that Kary English should, that misogynist.

  87. (pity Brad didn’t think Andy Weir should get his Campbell nom)

    Andy Weir would have been No-Awarded along with the rest. Maybe a few of you would have felt bad about it, but I have no doubt on this front.

  88. >>Andy Weir would have been No-Awarded along with the rest.

    QFT, because, yep. Slates are terribad, don’tchaknow, no matter what, no matter how deserving the nominee would otherwise be…

  89. @Chupik, @Julie

    Like how Guardians of the Galaxy was No-Awarded because it was on the Puppy slates?

    Oh wait…

  90. Here’s a problem I see: no one on either side of this dispute wishes to admit to any wrongdoing whatsoever. Brad says, yeah, it’s cool that GRRM wants to fix things, but first we need an apology and, by the way, we did no wrong! And you guys did lots of wrong and first you must grovel before us with your faces in the dust before we will even allow you to have an opinion about the works that we think are best! And if you don’t, we’ll destroy you!

    It’s sort of what’s going on in Washington writ small. The whole idea of diplomacy — the give and take of compromise — the “you give some and I’ll give some” of negotiation — is completely absent. You can’t resolve a dispute without both sides giving something. It’s a saying lawyers have: a settlement is a resolution from which everyone walks away unhappy.

    Alas, I have no suggestions on how to fix things. I do know that I, individually, and the website I review for, have started reading more widely and into areas that I normally wouldn’t. I’ve asked for recommendations, especially of shorter fiction (i.e., not novels — those are a lot more obvious), from folks on this website with absolutely no short stories, novellas or novelettes being recommended, but I’m still open to suggestions. (I understand I should go to Kate Paulk’s site, and I’ll do that.) So far, my favorite bit of short fiction from 2015 was “Folding Beijing” by Hao Jingfang, translated by Ken Liu, which was published in Uncanny Magazine (http://uncannymagazine.com/article/folding-beijing-2/). Can’t really imagine anyone not liking this story. I don’t know a thing about the writer, whether he’d fall into Puppy or non-Puppy territory; I just know it’s a hell of a good story. And isn’t that really what it’s all about, when you come right down to it?

  91. Trufans didn’t even know who Andy Weir was, until long after Andy Weir was a commodity. As usual, Trufans tend to be a day late and a dollar short — the last ones aboard the bandwagon.

  92. Also: if people are upset at being labeled as CHORFs, they shouldn’t act and talk like CHORFs. If that’s your button that can be pushed, I will happily press that button, and hold it.

  93. So, no, I don’t think that it is likely that the majority of those 2500+ new voters who voted “No Award” really took the time to read and research before rendering the judgment that had been proscribed to them by the above-mentioned articles and numerous blog posts vilifying the Puppies.

    I saw comments on Facebook essentially agreeing with this. Since Sad Puppies had been declared automatically terrible, people were not bothering to read their packets — it was a straight NO AWARD vote for everything with a dog collar on it. As one anti declared proudly, “Well, this Hugo ballot is going to be quick to fill out!” Which doesn’t mean I doubt the fact that the snobs hated the contents. Snobs are snobs. But many of their activist fellow travelers absolutely did not read the packet. They were down-voting purely for political reasons. And openly saying so. Which proved part of our point for us.

  94. Folding Beijing is my recommendation for Best Novelette. I’ve posted it, with my review, on Sad Puppies 4. The best short fiction I’ve read this year (and the worst: http://www.futureslesstravelled.com/?p=786) has been translated from Chinese.

    Guys & gals,

    Camestros is a British lefty who hangs out on File770 and otherwise blogs about craft beer, politics and rendered pictures. He took the time to post on MGC to wish everyone Happy Christmas and every time I’ve encountered him, he has been more-than-happy to engage politely with people who don’t agree with him. He does not deserve to be called ‘Camel Toe’. You are not seizing the moral high ground here. This thread reads like File770 on a bad day.

    Until April this year, I bought Hugo- and Nebula-award nominated fiction and was increasingly disappointed. Although Redshirts was mildly amusing, it wasn’t Red Mars. The fact I know what Camestros blogs about tells you everything you need to know about *why* the nomination process has gone wrong (i.e. it’s a small insular community and a large proportion of them appear to be SFWA members, explaining the crossovers with the Nebula nominations). Most of the online Puppy commentary is coming from about twenty people. About half the posting on Sad Puppies 4 is coming from the Sad Puppy core circle and the other half from File770 – from what I can tell. No one else gives an airborne f**k.

    The Hugo-nomination system worked at some point at identifying exceptional SF – otherwise, the award wouldn’t have the reputation it does. Presumably this was when geek culture wasn’t as mainstream and when there wasn’t social media/the internet, which compresses distance. There are now thousands upon thousands of readers of fantasy and SF, and millions of people who enjoy SF&F franchises including superhero movies. And literary authors want to get in on the action.

    The post above is not Brad’s finest hour. He sounds like Jonathan Haidt’s Culture of Victimhood. There’s no real reason for this EXCEPT a feeling of butthurt & betrayal. Most of you are indie authors and don’t need to suck the toes of big publishing to get a contract. You can tell anyone who uses ‘Fan’ with a capital letter to go f**k themselves with the sharp end of a ‘fan’ (small letter). You’re not second-class citizens because no one can make you feel inadequate without your consent. You don’t need a literary award and – to be frank – the reason why Sad Puppies didn’t attract wider support is probably that your readers don’t give a s**t about literary awards and, thus, can’t be bothered to pay $40 to vote.

    The sort of people who will pay $40 to protest the punking of a literary award are likely to be people who enjoy literary fiction with a fantastical bent and think the problem with SF is that it’s not ‘literary’ (and, thus, ‘prestigious’) enough. See the Guardian columns about the Battle for the Soul of SF (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/apr/08/adam-roberts-political-soul-sf). There are more than 2,500 of those people. They are – however – not representative of the wider culture, as evidenced by all the hissing over Fifty Shades of Grey from the usual suspects (clue: women’s desire can be problematic). You know this, I know this. It’s not going to affect who now controls the Hugos. Literary intellectuals make their career talking about literature. Most pulp writers (and similar) have day jobs.

  95. >>”Dude, please. The accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia have been tossed at Larry and Brad since long before the Sad Puppies thing blew up.”

    OK, so you are arguing that the insults thrown by the leaders of Spx at the opponents of SP were justified by insults thrown at them prior to SP, by different people? You do get that the group “Opponents of SP” couldn’t exist prior to SP? Again, retroactive justification isn’t a real thing.

    >>”Oh, yeah, how dare he think that Kary English should, that misogynist.”

    Pure putting words in my mouth. Please don’t do that.

  96. Brad

    >>”Trufans didn’t even know who Andy Weir was, until long after Andy Weir was a commodity.”

    If you knew about Andy Weir before “Trufans” did, then point to where you were banging the drum for Andy Weir in 2011. You can’t. On the other hand, “Trufans” knew that Andy Weir was eligible for the Campbell for best new writer, and wanted to give him a nomination, and you actively stopped them from doing so.

    Go look at the nomination stats for the Campbell. Who is hovering just below the dividing line, missing out on nomination by a nose? Andy Weir. Why is he below the dividing line? Because you put Cordova, English, Raymond and Nelson above the line.

    The facts are incontrovertible, Brad. If it wasn’t for SP3, Andy Weir would have been a Campbell nominee. You kept him off the ballot. Why can’t you admit that?

    >>”if people are upset at being labeled as CHORFs, they shouldn’t act and talk like CHORFs.”

    Have you taken a leaf from the John C Wright school of argumentation, where statements defending himself just sink him further into the mire?

    >>”I saw comments on Facebook essentially agreeing with this.”

    Well, that’s all proven then, QED, prosecution rests.

    Seriously, there is absolutely no-one arguing that some people voted “no award the slates” out of pure principle. They publicly said they would, they made public blog posts declaring they would, then they did it. The objection is the claim that everyone did that. They didn’t. A substantial number of people said they were going to read the packet, they made public blog posts declaring they would, then voted on merit.

    The thing is that both approaches yielded almost exactly the same results. You didn’t just slate the Hugos, you slated with really mediocre works. Pretty much the only items of merit were either ineligible or withdrew in haste because the writers didn’t agree with you. No awarding on principle was a valid reaction, justified both by the unfair tactics it was reacting to, and by the actual quality of the slate.

  97. Terryweyna

    Folding Beijing is a good story (and as Vivienne notes is a novelette), I read it some time ago and it’s been on my longlist since then. I’ve seen it mentioned in quite a few venues since then as well.

    >>”Here’s a problem I see: no one on either side of this dispute wishes to admit to any wrongdoing whatsoever.”

    One is the problems is the lack of any real side to do the admitting. The puppy side is split into two diffuse factions, with people floating between the two, and even the motivations of people firmly in one camp differ quite radically. Brad’s motivations differ somewhat from Larry’s, and John C Wright’s motivations differ still further, and so on. To follow your political metaphor, it’s more an uneasy coalition than a party.

    The “other side” is even worse, because it doesn’t exist. It’s just “everyone who doesn’t agree with the slates.” Fair enough, there are some identifiable big names making a lot of the commentary, and some sites where a number of people with similar opinions have coalesced, but there’s no campaign title, no logo, no steering committee. There’s literally no-one to negotiate the truce.

    Luckily, there’s a fairly easy way to solve this. Fandom is used to arguments, kerfluflles, and feuds. Once they stop, things settle down again (well, with the occasional outbreak, but that’s people for you). If SP4 doesn’t turn out to be a campaign to get an unfair advantage again, no-one will care. We can all go back to reading and nominating, which is exactly what GRRM was suggesting.

  98. Folding Beijing is one of the two or three top stories of the year. GRRM’s heart is in the right place but he sometimes sounds like he wishes the Puppies would go away so everything could go back to like it was in the good old days. For ages there was indeed a hardcore group of some few hundreds of hardcore “trufan” Hugo voters who read all the usual magazines and took the nominating process very seriously. But the pool of nominating voters has been more diverse than that for years now, and the numbers have kept rising. Puppies are just part of the larger trend.

  99. Mark, I love how you completely glossed over the fact that if Brad had put Andy Weir on his list, the puppy-kickers would have no-awarded him just as hard as they did everyone else. The movie category notwithstanding, the bare fact is that they burned five other categories to the ground in a temper tantrum of epic proportions, no matter how deserving the nominees were. The fact that Snowcrash pointed at Guardians of the Galaxy as some kind of counter-argument is frankly pathetic. They tossed every other puppy nomination under the bus and attacked not just Brad, but the nominees (who had done nothing worse than write things that he enjoyed) as well.

    Also, if you think that the people who hated Larry and Brad before Sad Puppies and the ones tossing insults at them after the fact were different people, you are, again, delusional. You don’t think there’s crossover between “anti-Larry-and-Brad” and “anti-Sad-Puppy”? Seriously? It’s an ideological war (unfortunately). Larry and Brad are clearly bad people with bad taste who should feel bad (oh my God, they’re Baen authors, that explains everything! Except Bujold, she’s cool, for some reason), and anything they say about the state of SFF is automatically discounted because BadThink and WrongFun.

    People who casually toss around loaded terms like racist, sexist, misogynist don’t have a leg to stand on when the target of those words hits back. They most certainly shouldn’t be surprised and outraged. I mean, I realize that they’re used to the argument being over once they throw those words into the ring because most people turn tail and run or at least shut up–but it didn’t happen this time. Too damn bad. There’s a saying about heat and kitchens they should maybe take to heart.

  100. What always gets me is that the other side waited until after Weir was ineligible to demand that Puppies put him on the ballot. If you guys liked him so much, why didn’t YOU vote for him?

  101. But the pool of nominating voters has been more diverse than that for years now, and the numbers have kept rising. Puppies are just part of the larger trend.

    The Progressive left had been pushing to get more people involved in the process. They just wanted those new people involved to be Progressives like them. Complaints that there’s not enough minorities / women / victim-group-du-jour and Science FIction needed to open up and bring more of these people in were their stock and trade. But now that this expansion of Science Fiction has brought in more undesirables, that is, non-Progressives, the Progressives that served as gatekeepers have realized that this expansion may end up dethroning their power.

    Take GRRM’s statements “I define “Fan” as a member of Fandom. Fandom is a community that has existed since the first cons in the 30s, whose roots go back to the lettercolumns of prozines in the 1920s. FIAWOL… and for me, and tens of thousands of others, fandom IS a way of life. Fandom is my family, its values are my values (well, mostly), and worldcon is my annual family reunion, a place for joy and celebration.” and “That doesn’t mean every reader is a Fan (or every Fan a reader, for that matter). You are seeing elitism where none exists, and assuming the pose of victim when no one victimized you.” and imagine what the response would be if they were used against someone complaining about the under-representation of victim-group-du-jour in Science Fiction.

  102. Julie Frost:

    >>”Mark, I love how you completely glossed over the fact that if Brad had put Andy Weir on his list, the puppy-kickers would have no-awarded him just as hard as they did everyone else.”

    I didn’t gloss over it, I ignored it because it wasn’t a fact. As it’s a scenario that Brad prevented happening, it can only be a fact in some alternate universe. Also, it’s pretty well established that people’s attitudes towards slate noms were influenced by whether the recipient knew or cared about it, with the best example being the Dramatic Presentation categories. Really, an argument about what you claim I might have done isn’t very compelling when placed next to an argument based in undeniable facts: Brad denied Andy Weir a Campbell nom.

    >>”Also, if you think that the people who hated Larry and Brad before Sad Puppies and the ones tossing insults at them after the fact were different people, you are, again, delusional.”

    “Delusional” is rather heated.

    Your theory is easy enough to prove. Find some pre-SP insults, find some post-SP insults, show that they were the same person.

    All I can say is that I neither knew nor cared about Larry and Brad except in the vaguest terms before SP.

    >>It’s an ideological war (unfortunately).

    Only on one side. Claims of liberal bias, and the need to get conservatives nominated, have been used as justification for SP, but without any actual proof. Larry claimed, long long after the fact, that people were mean to him at Worldcon because he was a conservative, despite never having mentioned this before needing to justify SP. Dave Freer attempted to prove a bias against conservatives in the Hugo noms, had his argument comprehensively demolished, then refused to engage with his critics. It’s a smokescreen to draw in people on a culture war argument.

    >>oh my God, they’re Baen authors, that explains everything!

    This Baen thing is one of the odder claims that gets thrown around, because, as you say, Bujold has been nominated plenty, and is generally a highly-respected figure in the field. You could throw in other figures associated with Baen like Catherine Asaro (Nebula noms, former SFWA president) or that John Joseph Adams edited a good anthology for Baen (which I bought!) despite also editing the Hugo-winning Lightspeed and having 4 noms personally, neither of whom have either rejected Baen out of some prejudice or been damaged by working for them. And that’s just the A’s.
    (And in the B’s, you have Jim Baen’s own nominations and generally high standing in the field).

    Christopher M. Chupik:

    >>”What always gets me is that the other side waited until after Weir was ineligible to demand that Puppies put him on the ballot. If you guys liked him so much, why didn’t YOU vote for him?”

    You’re getting confused between the book and the man. The Martian was eligible as a 2011 book for 2012 Hugos, so when it was reissued in 2014 it wasn’t eligible. However, Weir was then eligible for The Campbell Award for Best New Writer as the criteria work differently, and the organisers have explicitly confirmed his eligibility. The released Hugo nom stats make it clear that were it not for SP3, Weir would have been nominated.

    So, to answer your question, the other side did vote for him. You voted against him. Why?

  103. @Julie

    Mark, I love how you completely glossed over the fact that if Brad had put Andy Weir on his list, the puppy-kickers would have no-awarded him just as hard as they did everyone else. The movie category notwithstanding, the bare fact is that they burned five other categories to the ground in a temper tantrum of epic proportions, no matter how deserving the nominees were. The fact that Snowcrash pointed at Guardians of the Galaxy as some kind of counter-argument is frankly pathetic.

    You and Chupik claimed in your posts that people voted against slated nominees, no matter what and regardless of how “deserving” they were. GotG was on the slates. It won, both in terms of preferences as well as in first-past-the-post tabulations. Why? Because quite simply a majority of voters found that it was good. So to keep claiming that people voted against the slates no matter what is easily disproved. Trying to magically ignore a fact because it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative doesn’t hold much water with me.

    FYI Chupik, as you can see, people did vote for Weir. From the nominations data:

    229 Jason Cordova 26.9%
    224 Kary English 26.3%
    219 Eric S. Raymond 25.7%
    143 Rolf Nelson 16.8%
    106 Wesley Chu 12.5%

    95 Andy Weir 11.1%

    A surprising list of finalists – not just to me, but to some of them as well – Eric S Raymond outright said that, given his one published short story.

    Now I don’t know if Weir would have won if he made the Campbell list. I do know that I would have ranked him pretty damn high on my preferences. Unfortunately I and many others, weren’t given that opportunity because the he was knocked out by some surprising candidates. Who quite coincidentally appeared in the slates. Slates which didn’t include Weir, despite Brad’s insistence that he was on the Weir bandwagon before it was cool (hipster Brad?)

    Also FYI, Weir is in his second and final year of eligibility this year. So if you do like him, and think he’s worthy of a nomination, please do nominate him!

  104. So, you guys are claiming that GotG won on its merits (even though it was on a terrible terrible slate, and slates should be voted against no matter what because they are Bad), and Kary English and Jim Butcher and Mike Resnick and Toni Weisskopf lost because they were objectively awful? Is this what you are seriously positing?

    Or did the “anti-slate” thing just go out the window because the “principle” lost its shiny in the dramatic long form category?

    FWIW, I ranked GotG 3rd after Edge of Tomorrow and CA:TWS. I loved all three, unashamedly, and also thought Interstellar and The Lego Movie were good (though The Lego Movie rankled a bit with the whole “you’re playing with your own toys wrong” message at the end).

  105. So, you guys are claiming that GotG won on its merits

    No, that enough people liked it and voted for it. I certainly did – it was my second preference (TWS 4-evah!). Why do *you* think it won, especially since you keep repeating your “people voted against slates no matter what” narrative?

    (even though it was on a terrible terrible slate, and slates should be voted against no matter what because they are Bad),

    As I said previously…. End of the day, GotG was on the slates. GotG won. So your claim that people voted against slates no matter what is factually incorrect.

    and Kary English and Jim Butcher and Mike Resnick and Toni Weisskopf lost because they were objectively awful? Is this what you are seriously positing?

    Who’s claiming they were objectively awful? I didn’t vote for them because I didn’t think they were good enough. English was good, but I had read a much better brain-in-the-jar story at the time as well as previously. I’ve read Butcher for ages, but Skin Game wasn’t the best Butcher (Codex Alera) much less the best Dresden (Dead Beat). For both Resnick and Weisskopf , it was entirely unclear what they had specifically edited in 2014 – Resnick provided just the Table of Contents, while Weisskopf didn’t provide even that – it was just a link to Baen.com.

    Or did the “anti-slate” thing just go out the window because the “principle” lost its shiny in the dramatic long form category?

    What principle? There were many voters, and almost as many principles. Some of whom voted for or against the slate without reading. Some of whom voted for or against the slate after reading. Some of whom read everything, and voted according to their own differing individual schemes – “Is this “Hugo Worthy” to me?” is one. Another is “Is this better than anything else I’ve read last year?” is another. There are various principles at play. Please specify.

  106. Julie, we don’t have to seriously posit anything – people who were openly declaring they would follow a “no award slates” strategy were also openly declaring they would make exceptions in categories where it was clear the nominees weren’t remotely interested in or involved in the Hugos, such as BDP. This was all out there in public, why are you surprised by it?

    And no, “objectively awful” wasn’t the criteria or the judgement, and as I’ve given you my opinion on Butcher at some length I’m surprised you categorised it as such. I’ve also explained why I, personally, didn’t vote for Weisskopf, and I believe the same reasoning was applied by others.
    Kary English produced the best puppy-nominated story IMO, and it’s clear from it ranking 2nd that others agreed. However, after a serious amount of thought (it was my toughest choice on the ballot) I didn’t think it was good enough to be nominated without a slate assisting it, when compared to the other stories out there that year, and I put it below No Award on that basis. That’s not “objectively awful”, that’s not hating it, that’s judging it to not quite be among the best of the year.
    (I honestly can’t remember what I concluded on Mike Resnick or what he put in the packet, or what I voted for in longform, but all the longform nominees were good)

  107. We could put Weir on the ballot. But I don’t have any illusions that he would stand any chance even if we did.

  108. Christopher M. Chupik

    >>”We could put Weir on the ballot.”

    That’s a strong statement given that SP4 isn’t supposed to be any sort of slate, and will not grant any sort of unfair advantage to anyone.

    Anyway, the question is why you stopped him getting on to the ballot this year. So: why?

    >>”But I don’t have any illusions that he would stand any chance even if we did.”

    Why wouldn’t a fairly-voted Weir stand a chance?

  109. Whatever. It’s like talking to a wall. “No Award” is a nuclear option, people did it in lockstep other than the long form category, and they were proud of themselves for doing so. Maybe these works weren’t the “best of the year” in your opinion, but they were the best on the ballot, and I’m willing to bet that there’s plenty of times that something didn’t make the ballot that you thought should have…. and you still didn’t vote for No Award over what did make the ballot.

    As for Weir, let’s face it. If he’d been on Brad’s list, the puppy-kickers would have voted him below No Award, just like they did everything else. As for the lame excuse that Weisskopf and Resnick didn’t put anything in the packet, well, they’re not obligated to. “Three-Body Problem” wasn’t in the packet in its entirety either, but that wasn’t a problem–even if something that starts promisingly can completely muff a landing. It’s not that difficult to look at an editor’s body of work on the year, with the internet being what it is, and make a judgment.

  110. Keep mind there was some confusion about the eligibility of Weir and The Martian as well.

  111. >>“No Award” is a nuclear option, people did it in lockstep other than the long form category, and they were proud of themselves for doing so

    Nothing has blown up, the Hugos are back on next year. I’ve demonstrated to you by personal example that it wasn’t lockstep; I know you feel that your own organised campaign is justified if there exists a counterpart campaign with a clever logo and a set of secret orders to all it’s members, but I’m sorry to tell you that it doesn’t exist. I wasn’t proud, but I was glad that the result rejected slating tactics, in the hope that it would dissuade future slating attempts.

    >>”there’s plenty of times that something didn’t make the ballot that you thought should have…. and you still didn’t vote for No Award over what did make the ballot.”

    Actually, that’s precisely what some people use No Award for.

    >>”As for Weir, let’s face it. If he’d been on Brad’s list, the puppy-kickers would have voted him below No Award, just like they did everything else.”

    Again, pure speculation ignoring the actual reality of what happened: Brad kept Weir off the ballot.

    >>”As for the lame excuse that Weisskopf and Resnick didn’t put anything in the packet, well, they’re not obligated to.”

    No, they’re not obligated to, but without any evidence how can anyone whose not personally worked with them that year judge? Others provided a decent body of evidence, and I voted accordingly.

    >>”It’s not that difficult to look at an editor’s body of work on the year, with the internet being what it is, and make a judgment.”

    Feel free to point me to the list of Weisskopf’s specifically edited 2014 works – the list she said she couldn’t produce – and I’ll admit you’re right.

  112. Christopher M. Chupik:

    >>”Keep mind there was some confusion about the eligibility of Weir and The Martian as well.”

    There’s an official list of authors known to be eligible for the Campbell maintained at http://www.writertopia.com/awards/campbell

    You can see Weir was on it. Brad was more than capable of finding out Weir was eligible. He ignored him anyway. Why?

  113. Julie Frost wrote:

    Snowcrash pointed at Guardians of the Galaxy as some kind of counter-argument is frankly pathetic. They tossed every other puppy nomination under the bus and attacked not just Brad, but the nominees (who had done nothing worse than write things that he enjoyed) as well.

    All that does is prove the movie quote true: No one can be 100% a dick. Though the CHORFs (listens to outraged screeches with a smile) certainly exert themselves.

  114. >>Feel free to point me to the list of Weisskopf’s specifically edited 2014 works – the list she said she couldn’t produce – and I’ll admit you’re right.

    Fine: http://baen.com/schedule-archive.asp

    You realize that being the Editor in Chief at a book publisher involves much more than just going through things line by line and making sure all the punctuation is in the right place, right? There are different editors for different tasks. Some pick the books; some do developmental edits; some get into the nitty-gritty of comma placement, and some proofread.

    That being said–having now worked with an editor with a full-length novel–I’m fair certain that unless you get a before-and-after view of a novel or short story and see exactly what got edited and how and why, it’s difficult to make a judgment on how “good” an editor is. You don’t see what they start with; you only see what ends up on the finished page.

    Do you honestly think that, if Brad had put Weir on his list, the puppy-kickers would not have done what they did with every. Single. Other author. On Brad’s list? Seriously? Because, if so, I’m just gonna throw up my hands here and go do something actually productive with my time.

  115. There’s an official list of authors known to be eligible for the Campbell maintained at http://www.writertopia.com/awards/campbell

    Neat. It’s almost 2016. When do we find out who is eligible for next year? Next month? The month after? And how do we judge the accuracy of information on this website? It was built and is maintained by Bill Katz, a writer and neuroscience teacher who has no other connection whatsoever to the Campbell award. For all we know, Mr. Katz could just be making his best guess, the same as the rest of us. In fact, that’s exactly what he is doing.

    You can see Weir was on it. Brad was more than capable of finding out Weir was eligible. He ignored him anyway. Why?

    Because he’s evil.

    Or it might be that he was convinced by the rumors going around, including a statement by Andy Weir himself:

    I don’t know for sure. My interpretation of the Hugo rules is that it’s not eligible.
    The Awards are year-by-year. Although the print version of The Martian came out in 2014, I posted it to my website as a serial starting in 2012. The Hugos don’t discriminate between print publication and self-publication. Therefore, to them, I think The Martian is a work from 2012. So it’s not within the time period to be eligible.

    Considering that Rolf Nelson, also not on the slate, garnered almost 50% more noms than Andy Weir (and Nelson went on to get dead last in the voting), it would seem that many people unaffiliated with the Sad Puppies thought the same as well. Ah, but I can do even better than that. Search out “Weir” on this page:

    https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/announcing-sad-puppies-3/

    You’ll see that several people in the comments claimed that they would be voting for Andy Weir even if he was ineligible for the award. So some indeterminate number of people who participated in the Sad Puppies campaign, who might otherwise not have voted at all, could well have been the only reason that Andy Weir showed up as high as he did.

    Could have, maybe. Weak, sure. That’s the problem with trying to assert a counterfactual as evidence.

  116. Brad:
    Interesting post. Recognize a lot of the events from your description but don’t think there is a chance in the world of any compromise. For these folks, it’s money. If Tor can’t get Hugo nominations for their next generation, how can they keep the racket in business? With the new EPH rules in 2017 if the Puppies continue to impact the the nomination procees then Tor will have to concentrate their votes on ensuring that their A-list is nominated and wins. This will make it less likely that the B-list will benefit from their party loyalty. Their only hope is to convince the puppies to vote for their list. That’s why so many friendly folk from File 770 are here to help everyone select nominees. Of course you’d think they’d send better spokesmen. I mean, when did bad cop/bad cop ever work?

  117. >>>Feel free to point me to the list of Weisskopf’s specifically edited 2014 works – the list she said she couldn’t produce – and I’ll admit you’re right.

    >Fine: http://baen.com/schedule-archive.asp

    When asked about this on Baen’s Bar, Toni explained that unlike the large publishing houses where books are assigned to individual editors, at Baen, they only have a small handful of editors (2-3 I think) and so they all end up working to some extent on every book.

    Yes, this does make it harder to judge the work of one editor vs another, but since Toni supervises everything and is the one who has to sign the checks to the authors who are selected, it’s reasonable to evaluate all of Baen’s output when evaluating Toni’s success as an Editor.

    I wish why had explained this in the packet submission instead of just saying “look at the books Baen published”, but I really don’t think the explanation would have changed the vote results. Look at the way the anti-puppies distorted her post the year before when she called for Fandom to be inclusive and accepting of differences.

  118. Julie Frost:

    >>”Fine: http://baen.com/schedule-archive.asp”

    Thank you, but I said “specifically edited” for a reason, and that’s the whole Baen output, from multiple editors, on many of which TW may have done nothing more than give the nod to one of her editors recommendations (which isn’t a criticism, I imagine that as publisher she trusts her editors judgement). Whether for better or for worse, Best Editor is for the specific act of editing, not publishing (and I recognise that acquisition and development are the main activities, rather than proofreading etc). To judge Best Editor at all, you need to know what specifically they edited, not what they oversaw as publisher.

    >>”Do you honestly think that, if Brad had put Weir on his list…”

    That’s not the scenario I’m discussing, I’m discussing the scenario in which Brad doesn’t slate the Hugos and Andy Weir gets nominated fair and square. The question is, why did Brad deny a nomination to an author he has subsequently brought up as an example of someone who should have had a Hugo. Andy Weir was literally denied his shot by Brad, and Brad has the chutzpah to claim he was doing it for Weir and authors like him.

    F Harper:

    >>”And how do we judge the accuracy of information on this website?”

    As far as I am aware this is the officially sanctioned Campbell eligibility list, or as close to it as exists. The compiler contacts authors to check their eligibility, so not just guessing. There’s supposed to be a shiny new Campbell Award website coming, but I haven’t seen it yet.

    >>”including a statement by Andy Weir himself:”

    You’re getting confused between the eligibility of The Martian for Best New Novel, and Weir for Best New Writer. The book was clearly ineligible, hence Weir’s statement; Weir himself was within the Best New Writer eligibility, as Brad could have found out by reading the publicly stated rules, or looking at the publicly available website.

    I looked at the comments as requested. They are all discussing the novel. It’s very strange that no-one commenting knew that he was eligible for the Campbell, but it obviously wasn’t that difficult to find out as enough people knew to nominate him that he would have made it were it not for slating.

  119. >>You can see Weir was on it. Brad was more than capable of finding out Weir was eligible. He ignored him anyway. Why?

    >>I’m discussing the scenario in which Brad doesn’t slate the Hugos and Andy Weir gets nominated fair and square.

    …so which is it?

  120. “No Award” is a nuclear option,

    No it’s not.

    people did it in lockstep other than the long form category,

    You’re still ignoring facts just because they don’t suit your narrative. You keep claiming that people voted No Award “no matter what”, but when an example is given that disproves that, you just say “Oh, *that* doesn’t count.” Again, why doesn’t it count?

    and they were proud of themselves for doing so.

    I’m sure some were. So what? How dare they be Wrongfans enjoying their Badthink?

    Maybe these works weren’t the “best of the year” in your opinion, but they were the best on the ballot, and I’m willing to bet that there’s plenty of times that something didn’t make the ballot that you thought should have…. and you still didn’t vote for No Award over what did make the ballot.

    As Mark noted, *this* is exactly why No Award exists – when works in the ballot didn’t measure up to the voters individual tastes and preferences. I can also say with absolute confidence that I’ve never voted for something that I thought was sub-par above No Award. 2015 was my second ever Hugo, so it’s easy for me to remember.

    As for Weir, let’s face it. If he’d been on Brad’s list, the puppy-kickers would have voted him below No Award, just like they did everything else.

    For a definition of “everything” that means “not everything”.

    As for the lame excuse that Weisskopf and Resnick didn’t put anything in the packet, well, they’re not obligated to. “Three-Body Problem” wasn’t in the packet in its entirety either, but that wasn’t a problem–even if something that starts promisingly can completely muff a landing. It’s not that difficult to look at an editor’s body of work on the year, with the internet being what it is, and make a judgment.

    You’re right in that they’re not obligated to. You’re wrong in that the full version of 3BP *was* available in the Hugo packet, in multiple formats even. Are you referring to Ancillary Sword – Orbit tends not to include full volumes?

    I looked at Resnick’s magazine. IIRC, only the laest issues was available at the time, and not any of the Hugo nominated editions. Regardless, it did not wow me.

    For Weisskopf, let me know any 4 novels that she edited in 2014. I looked and couldn’t find any at Baen.com. If you’re going to provide the entire Baen schedule as her work, note that the award is not for a team effort, and also, if that’s the case, what did Jim Minz, who was also a nominee, and is also an editor at Baen, edit?

    Remember, I’m also not obligated to vote for someone. If they’re not going to at least tell me what they did or provide an excerpt, I’m not going to blindly vote for them.

  121. I was replying to Chris Chupik’s claim of confusion about eligibility in the first (and he seems to be right that SP members were confused, even though “the other side” were not). The second leads from Brad’s repeated claim that he is championing the likes of Weir while “Trufans” ignore him. This claim is provably nonsense, because Brad actively ignored Weir while preventing “Trufans from giving him a nom. That’s what Brad won’t step up to defend, and is leaving you to try to work around.

  122. Okay. I have just gone over the following Sad Puppy nominees and compared them against the Hugo results: Best Novel, Best Novella, Best Novelette, Best Short Story, Best Editor ( Long Form), Best Editor (Short Form), Best Professional Artist, Best Semiprozine, Best Fanzine, Best Fancast, Best Graphic Story, Best Related Work, and the John W. Campbell Award.

    In every single one of them, the Puppy nominees finished below No Award. There’s not a single, solitary one that finished better than No Award. None. If that’s not lockstep, someone please tell me what is.

    The only categories in which Puppy nominees finished above “No Award” were the Dramatic Presentations. That’s it. Whoop-de-freakin’-do.

    So you are now telling me that if Brad had put Weir on his slate, he somehow would have magically placed above No Award?

    What are you smoking?

    Also, Brad only had three writers on his Campbell list. So his slate didn’t prevent Weir from making it.

  123. This claim is provably nonsense, because Brad actively ignored Weir while preventing “Trufans from giving him a nom. That’s what Brad won’t step up to defend, and is leaving you to try to work around.

    Be very careful. By your logic, if I can find a better 2014 Science Fiction short story than If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love that didn’t get nominated, it counts as preventing actual Science Fiction from getting nominated.

  124. You’re getting confused between the eligibility of The Martian for Best New Novel, and Weir for Best New Writer.

    Yes, my mistake. I thought the discussion was about whether he was eligible for the Campbell. I would guess that others were similarly confused at the time.

  125. “So you are now telling me that if Brad had put Weir on his slate, he somehow would have magically placed above No Award?”

    It’s no more magical or impossible than all the slated dramatic nominations making it above No Award. Which us what happened.

    You keep ignoring facts because they’re inconvenient to your narrative. Let’s be clear – when there were works that were well liked by the Hugo voters, it was irrelevant that they were or were not in the slates. This is what happened in the BDP categories. You keep saying that BDP doesn’t count. Why not?

    “Also, Brad only had three writers on his Campbell list. So his slate didn’t prevent Weir from making it.”

    All 3 who were finalists. Weir came in 6th – without being on any slate. Ceteris paribus, he was have made it if not for the slates.

  126. “Be very careful. By your logic, if I can find a better 2014 Science Fiction short story than If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love that didn’t get nominated, it counts as preventing actual Science Fiction from getting nominated.”

    Show me an organised effort to get it nominated. Also, show me where you were appointed the gatekeeper for what is and is not Science Fiction.

  127. Snow, if you don’t see a quantitative difference between the dramatic presentation categories and all the others, I cannot help you. You seem to think it makes some kind of point, but all it does is accentuate the fact that the writers and artists and stories on Brad’s list, without a single exception, placed below “No Award,” no matter how good they were. Hell, I heard a lot of people saying that it was a shame Kary was on the Puppy lists because “she might have made it anyway,” and they still put her below No Award Because Slates Are Bad.

    I don’t know why the voters gave the dramatic presentation categories a pass.. Maybe Brad has magically good taste in movies but magically bad taste in reading material.

    Weir got a little more than 11% of the votes to put him in 6th place. There is absolutely no telling what would have happened without the slates.

  128. ” Hell, I heard a lot of people saying that it was a shame Kary was on the Puppy lists because “she might have made it anyway,” and they still put her below No Award Because Slates Are Bad. ”

    Enh. I can understand why some people voted against the slates in it’s entirety, but I don’t think it was the best possible approach, and it wasn’t my metric.

    ” I don’t know why the voters gave the dramatic presentation categories a pass.. Maybe Brad has magically good taste in movies but magically bad taste in reading material. ”

    Careful. Remember, the narrative is that the slate was openly, democratically, and transparently sourced from multiple recommendations, and not that it was selected or disproportionately influenced by Brad et al. Don’t break kayfabe. 😝

    As to BDP being “quantitavely different” – while it was on the high side when it came to number of nominations, particularly for Long Form, it did not garner the highest number of total nominations. More importantly, when it came to the final vote, there was no difference, with it’s numbers of votes cast matching up with many other categories, and quite a few surpassing it as well. So if you want to claim that BDP was somehow quantitavely different, I think some further explanation may be in order. Otherwise it’s still just handwaving away of inconvenient facts.

    ” Weir got a little more than 11% of the votes to put him in 6th place. There is absolutely no telling what would have happened without the slates. ”

    If we’re not looking at hypotheticals, I suggest that perhaps that should have been your first response, instead of going on your own hypothetical that Weir would have been no-awarded?

  129. >>If we’re not looking at hypotheticals, I suggest that perhaps that should have been your first response, instead of going on your own hypothetical that Weir would have been no-awarded?

    Oh, please.

    Whatever. You have no desire to see what’s right in front of your eyes, which is that every single category except the dramatic presentations were no-awarded over every single Puppy pick. I don’t know why you think that Weir would have been treated any differently than every single other writer that the Puppies picked.

    I’m off to do something productive with my time, like watch a bad werewolf movie.

  130. “Also, show me where you were appointed the gatekeeper for what is and is not Science Fiction.”

    Erm, @Snowcrash, like to explain why Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections isn’t science fiction? If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love has the narrator imagining their lover as a dinosaur (they don’t actually BECOME a dinosaur). The Corrections has an man with dementia imagining he’s talking to his own poo. What is the difference between these two works? Would you not agree that if forty-one Worldcon-nominating voters had independently nominated The Corrections in 2001 then it would have been legitimately a Hugo Award nominee?

  131. Snowcrash, since Toni Weisskopf received more first-round top-block votes than any nominee or winner in Hugo history — with many ASPs breaking ranks to up-vote her — I think we can safely say that Toni not only qualifies as “good enough” she does so to such an overwhelming extent, it took the greatest act of self-immolation (on the part of the Trufans) to derail Toni’s overdue win.

    I await your eight-paragraph reply telling me everything I say and do is wrong.

  132. @Vivienne

    Given your hypothetical example, yes, of course The Corrections (which I’ve never heard of, but that’s me I guess) would be a legitimate nominee. Why wouldn’t it? And if I, or anyone else disagreed with that, the option to leave it off the voting ballot, or to place it under No Award would be available.

    Also, please feel free to come up with an universally accepted definition of SF, and then we’ll continue this discussion.

  133. @Brad “vivienneraper gets the coveted, “I am superior to all of you, stupid Puppies and File 770 alike, so fuck off!” award for this comments block.”

    That may be the sharpest putdown ever… by possibly the nicest guy on the Internet.

    I’ll fetch me black cloak, pointy hat and hockey mask :/

  134. “Brad R. Torgersen on December 31, 2015 at 12:58 am said:”

    Firstly, you may need to read up on how a preferential ballot works as opposed to the first past the post system. Secondly, Ms Weisskopf did not receive the highest number of first preferences this year. Saying that she should have won because she got more votes than a previous years nominee is like saying that in 2004,John Kerry should have been president because he got more votes than the year 2000 candidates.

    Btw, can you tell me what works Toni edited in 2014? As opposed to, say, Jim Minz? And how a layman is supposed to know that?

  135. All of this focusing on minutia is missing the point. The facts are these:

    1) In 2015 there were as many “No Awards” given as in the entire history of the Hugo awards to date.

    2) The casting of these votes has been widely celebrated as a victory by high profile authors, many of whom are prior winners of the award.

    3) The accusations of racism/sexism/homophobia that were used to justify the “No Award” slate are so demonstrably false that a major media outlet had to retract a news story based on those accusations.

    Those three facts represent a serious public relations problem for Science Fiction as a genre. Potential readers don’t care about this bickering regarding percentages or what the bylaws of WordCon state regarding eligibility. They see a group of wealthy writers crowing about how they kept the riff-raff out of their personal award.

    You won your battle, but you lost the war. You’ve got twenty-five hundred Trufans who will vote the way you tell them. That’s great, but twenty-five hundred sales is not going to earn back Scalzi’s multi-million dollar advance.

  136. Snowcrash, you are a slippery eel. Or is it a hagfish? I’ve not yet decided. Toni got over 1,300 “Yes, we think Toni deserves it,” votes. Far in excess of any prior winner, much less nominee. NO AWARD is not a person. NO AWARD is the refuge of cowards. NO AWARD is the sound of people claiming to celebrate professional excellence, then shitting themselves with a smile on their faces, while failing to celebrate professional excellence. If you want to see Toni’s work, simply look at the list of Baen titles released every year. Toni’s hand is in all of them. Some to an overwhelming degree. She edited me, that much I can tell you. But then, for long-form editors, there has never been a metric. That you suddenly need to manufacture a metric in the instance of Weisskopf, tells me that your specific argument in the long-form category debate is not an honest one. But then, I’ve learned (the hard way) that honesty among the 2,500-vote nuclear block, is in short supply. Likewise, so is self-awareness. Again, you all shit yourselves with smiles on your faces, then cheered the stench filling the room. Bravo. Helluva way to celebrate science fiction.

  137. Julie Frost:

    >>”So you are now telling me that if Brad had put Weir on his slate, he somehow would have magically placed above No Award?”

    No, I haven’t made any comment saying that, because it’s a hypothetical when there’s a factual situation that’s much more relevant. I’m saying (repeatedly) that Weir would have been on the ballot fairly without the slates, and Brad’s invocation of Andy Weir as someone he is championing ignores the fact that he did the opposite of championing him – he denied him a nomination.

    >>”Weir got a little more than 11% of the votes to put him in 6th place. There is absolutely no telling what would have happened without the slates.”

    Yes, there is. Remove the slated nominees, see what the list looks like. Without slates, Weir is nominated. No-one was reacting to the results of the slates when they cast their votes, because the results of the slates weren’t known yet.

    Julie, haven’t you noticed that you’re arguing the Weir point pretty much alone? Brad has dropped in several times since the point began, and hasn’t said peep about it. He’s dodged the point in other venues too. He knows he’s got nothing, and he’s leaving you swinging in the wind.

  138. Brad, “the list of Baen titles released every year” is Toni’s work as publisher. This was an award for Best Editor. This isn’t an invented metric, it’s looking at the title of the award. I’m quite sure that among those books are ones that Toni personally edited to such a degree that she counts as the editor for the purposes of the award, but which ones?

    Seeing as you’re here, how about a comment on why you denied Weir a nomination?

  139. MishaBurnett

    1) Yes.

    2) No, what was considered a victory was the lack of success of the slates in getting anyone an undeserved award. No-one was happy that No Award was the result – they’d much rather have been voting for fairly nominated winners.

    3) No, the justification for No Award was as a reaction to unfair slating tactics.

  140. Those three facts represent a serious public relations problem for Science Fiction as a genre.

    Misha, my suspicion is that the 2,500-vote nuclear blockers are so unused to discussing anything beyond the comfort zone of their own kind, they cannot imagine that there is another point of view which can see the events of 2015 through a lens that is not theirs. For them, there is their view, and all else is simply wrong — or does not matter, or does not exist. Which is, I suppose, a natural assumption if all your friends, and if all the people you respect or care about, say (more or less) the same things about the same stuff.

    But the world is big, and people make up their own minds. The full-court press media slander stampede definitely pushed perception in one direction. But like slowly-lapping waves eroding the base of a sand castle, I think the inertia of time and reflection is undermining the ASP narrative. Not all at once, obviously. But a little bit here, and a little bit there. The heat of the event is gone. Curious people — not partisans — are poking their noses into things, and discovering the facts, and reaching their own conclusions.

    Funny how, if any of these individuals speak up, snowcrash and camestros and a small herd of other Trufans usually rumble over to that blog’s comments, and try to shout down the heretic.

  141. Seeing as you’re here, how about a comment on why you denied Weir a nomination?

    Mark, you’re also a slippery eel. You (and the other Trufans) didn’t even know Weir existed, prior to his rise as a commodity. Weir should have been on your lists years ago. The Martian was not his only work in circulation. You are all Johnny-Come-Latelies. If Weir had been on the SP3 list — this year — I am sure you would have all thrashed Weir, as you thrashed the rest of the SP3 suggestions. There is ZERO HONESTY in your argument.

  142. @C.M. Chupik: Well lets see; my last comment at MGC was to add some information to a post about contracts, a subject I have some familiarity with… nothing whatsoever to do with puppies.

    I thought the people who read that site might benefit. Excuse me for being able to compartmentalize subjects. I don’t let one bit of politics bleed all over everything I do, though I have noticed that it seems to be a favorite tactic of puppy-affiliated people to “never go to that website/buy their stuff/read their stuff” whatever when they run across thoughts they disagree with. I (obviously) do not play that game. Not with the sites I visit, not with the coverage of the field at Amazing. Call me the eternal optimist, but I believe keeping the lines of communication open is important.

    @Camestrosfelapton: “August company”? MMM, more like June….. Yeah, I’ve got some trademarks, but as you know, in Fandom, my voice is but one of many, many, many. Now Cat Rambo on the other hand – yep, that really is a cool moniker, fronting for an even cooler person.

    @Brad: keep on looking sideways like that and your eyes are gonna stick that way. At least that’s what my mother always said whenever I went cross-eyed. 🙂

    Here’s the skinny: you guys – SP, RP and self-identified affiliates – made one major mistake. You attacked the foundations of a community that has thrived since the mid-1930s by gaming one of the few institutions it has managed to collectively get behind, despite philosophical, political and cultural divisions.

    Whether that was your intention or not, that was the perception, and that perception of your actions was what led directly to the resounding response of No Award votes last year.

    Vox can crow about his “victory” as much as he’d like to, but the fact is, what he says carries no weight and has absolutely no impact on Fandom, or its own views of what it accomplished. Fandom’s view is that it righted a wrong. He tried, you (collectively) tried, doing something almost entirely without precedent in the history of the awards and the vast majority of Fans rejected it. Rejected it culturally and institutionally.

    All the name calling & etc., (and that’s not all on you guys I must point out because otherwise someone will suggest I’m saying otherwise) is ignorable (most of it’s pretty funny actually). What isn’t are the perceptions you’ve created. Talking votes and real purposes and true motivations and all the rest is now just meaningless blather because the perceptions have been set.

    The perceptions you all have created (SP) are: you reject Fandom, if not claiming that it is a cabal that somehow manages to influence all of Fandom for some political/economic agenda; that Fandom is an elite group of people who do not want you to participate; that Fandom is hypocritical (complaining about your bloc voting while bloc voting No Award itself); that the reason the awards have not gone to works/people you believe are deserving is because of the Cabal/politics/meanness; that somehow after 79 years ALL of Fandom is WRONG and you are the bearers of ‘truth’ we’ve failed to see; that you all are going to continue to attack the institutions of Fandom until you get your way; that you will continue to reject any and all efforts at reconciliation by mis-characterization, changing the subject, substituting meanings and intent; and that you will continue to reject the idea that the solution(s) to whatever issues you have are already in place within Fandom, but you are unwilling or unable to avail yourselves of those solutions for some reason.

    The other perception you’ve created is that name-calling and absurdist arguments are the proper way to handle this discussion.

    You guys pissed me off. You directly attacked something I take very seriously. Obviously I was not the only one who had that reaction. What? The way the Hugos have gone down since 1953 pissed you off? Join the club. I got really angry when Robert Heinlein didn’t win….

    If you want to stop this kerfuffle, there’s only really two things that need to be done. First – give us some real indication that SP and RP are not “riding in the same car”. Second – drop the final stage of the SPIV effort. Leave it as a pure recommendation list. (It will save Kate a lot of work to boot.)

    Do those two things and I can pretty much live with the rest. Do those two things and I’d be comfortable starting discussions about how to change perception(s). Otherwise I’ll have no choice but to continue to rely on perception, as I’m sure the vast majority of Fans will do as well.

    What would I do if the above were to transpire? What’s my quid pro quo? If SPIV becomes a legitimate recommendation list, I’ll consult it. (I’ll even add some recommendations and comments to prove I’m doing so.) I’ll CONTINUE to keep the pages of Amazing stories open for all works/people in the field (all you have to do is take advantage of the opportunity. Try it: Brad got a good review…). For bloggers, the platform is STILL open to anyone wanting to send me a note.

    When it comes to nominating and voting for the Hugo Awards, I will CONTINUE to do what I have always done (well, except that one time I voted a particular way as a thought experiment) and that is to nominate what I believe is worthy and then read/view/listen to everything on the short list (everything I can lay my hands on) and make my picks accordingly. If you will assume that this is the methodology I employ, I will assume it is the methodology you employ.

    If you put a proposal before the Business Meeting to, say, add a category for novelizations/tie-ins, or to open up the vote to a wider audience, I’ll give it due consideration and then vote what I personally believe to be in the best interest of the SF community – just as I expect and assume you will do.

    You all claim to want a level playing field. I’ve no objections at all to that. Take those two steps I outlined above and we will move much closer to that level field. It should be relatively easy as both steps seem to be things you are claiming you want.

    One final thing. I’m unilaterally placing a moratorium on ASM posts critical of SP/RP for two weeks as of today (12/31/15 – 1/14/16). I await SPs actions and will maintain or lift the moratorium based upon them.

  143. Brad, I have to admire your chutzpah in constantly accusing people of the things you are doing yourself. “Slippery eel” is a perfect description of your months-long evasion of the very simple question about why you denied Weir a fairly-acquired nomination.

    As I said to you elsewhere, if you want to criticise people for not having spotted the Martian in its first year of original publication way back in 2011, first point to where and when you were banging the drum for it at the time.

    No matter what hypotheticals you throw out, you can’t escape the simple facts: “Trufans” knew Weir was eligible for Best New Writer, “Trufans” fairly nominated him for Best New Writer, and then you denied him that nomination. Why?

  144. You guys crack me up. Red herrings galore. Fingers crossed behind backs. Do you think if you gerbil-pile my comments section, it magically “wins” this debate? Please, deploy yourselves throughout my digital parlor. Tell the world — from my own front door — what a terrible and evil man I am. And how the terrible and evil puppies are spoiling everything good and pure about science fiction. Those nasty, dastardly puppies!

  145. “Far in excess of any prior winner, much less nominee. ”

    But she wasn’t running against a prior nominee. Again, saying that she should have won because she got more votes than a previous years nominee is like saying that in 2004, John Kerry should have been president because he got more votes than the year 2000 candidates.

    “If you want to see Toni’s work, simply look at the list of Baen titles released every year. ”

    So I guess Jim Minz – again, also a nominee, also a Baen editor – did sweet Fanny Adams? If it was a team effort from Baen, why even split the nominees then?

    “But then, for long-form editors, there has never been a metric.”

    Are you sure? Are you really, *really* sure?

    This was my second ever a Hugo Awards. And yet I keep getting surprised at how little you seem to know about it. That No Award was an option blindsided you, despite the fact that it’s been around since probably before you were born. You also don’t appear to understand the criteria for some of the candidates.

  146. Brad – the Iron Law of Bureaucracy is nice and largely accurate, but it doesn’t apply to WSFS: there is no bureaucracy in an “unincorporated literary organization”.
    The only semi-permanent positions are those people appointed to the Mark Protection Committee; the people who do the appointing are the members of Worldcon – which is anyone who buys a membership.
    The great thing about WSFS is – it has done such a tremendous job of maintaining a truly democratic society in which any individual can participate at any level merely by joining and taking part.

  147. older research (3-4 years) suggests that there are 6.5 million “self-identified readers of science fiction and fantasy” in North America. If we blithely assume that the percentage of the whole population in NA is the same world-wide (a stretch) it only comes to 134 millions world-wide.
    Not that I’m complaining about that.
    Other research (recently conducted) suggests that there are some 120,000 people who attend at least one convention of the traditional type during the year (survey of 100 trad cons, 73% response yielding prior-year attendance numbers of approximately 43,000 attendees, including overlap.) That’s subject to a wide range of critiques, but on the other hand – 1 to 2 percent of the entire population of “readers” sounds about right.
    As does the relationship between those people and Worldcon membership/attendance (approx 5/11 thousand).

  148. Steve,

    You yourself have spent all damned year demonstrating Pournelle’s Iron Law. You consider yourself a self-appointed spokesperson for Fandom (caps f) and have expended untold amounts of energy on defining — in not-so-subtle ways — who gets to claim the title of Fan (again, caps f), all in an effort to explain to the world why there are fans (little people) and Fans (the only ones who matter) and how it’s the Fans who count. Because little people shouldn’t meddle in affairs that they’re not qualified to meddle in. (*spit*)

    In essence, you fancy yourself a keeper of the club. The dour kid at the entrance to the alleyway, double-checking to make sure all the other kids measure up: that only the ones who know the signs, the secret handshakes, and the code words, get to pass. Everyone else is second-class. You have blared that message at high volume for the better part of twelve months. NO AWARD blared that message. The CHORFholes blared that message.

    Go away, second-class fans! You’re not good enough for us!

    Which is a horrible PR strategy, in the long run.

    But, what’s been done, has been done. No going back, now. You can try to pretty it all up, or make it my problem that your club is not just broken, but in love with its own brokenness. It won’t win you hearts and minds.

    I am just gonna sit here and wait for you to get bored. Thanks for paying my parlor a visit. The sincerity of your pique has been noted, and logged.

  149. Steve,

    You’re missing something. I’m *British*. I’m here in London right now. Someone in one of my writing groups here in the UK went to Sasquan this year, but he’s a wealthy retired guy. It would cost me £100s just to fly to the convention, never mind participate. I’ve read your editorials and your definition of fandom seems massively exclusionary to me.

    You wrote that you’ve been reading SF for 47 years and these decades of experience are part of what makes you a Fan (http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2015/09/real-fans-real-reasons-puppies-think-fans-stupid/). I haven’t even been alive for 47 years. I wouldn’t mind, if you didn’t use Fandom and fandom interchangeably. I bought a supporting membership to the Hugos this year and voted. According to the rules, that makes me a member of Worldcon. Does that make me a Fan? Or a fan? Or a reader?

    Most of the cons you’re talking about, e.g. Dragoncon (and Nine Worlds here in the UK) are full of people younger than me who enjoy all forms of SF&F media. They are *not* readers or viewers. They are fans. They make costumes, write fanfic, read fantasy, post pictures on Deviant Art. They haven’t rejected the Puppies (or No Awarded the Puppies)… because they’re nothing to do with Worldcon!

  150. Davidson does the one thing that to me is the most heinous thing people do in public, and that’s claim a place of self-importance for Fandom. And as a self-appointed spokesman for Fandom he comports himself in a manner that colors all of Fandom in a dubious light.

    I’ve had productive conversations with Fandom members before, but it only happens in private settings.

    Too often in public, conversations turn into poo flinging, and I simply want to throw my hands up when it happens.

    What Davidson and others like him have lost sight of is many things – in fact they’ve probably never accepted SP’s reasons for doing what they do.

    SP realizes that people will have differing opinions and in so realizing that, SP chooses to widen the audience in which a vote on what is the “best” is important. Expanding the membership and expanding the vote from an insular group to a more representative group cannot be bad. To argue against it is to argue against the democracy that even Davidson has claimed to be what WSFS is about and WorldCon in general.

    Yet with Davidson (and his ilk’s) self-importance flying strongly for all to see, they conflate any SP action with a conspiracy of evil and are accusatory of the SP-base with things like homophobia, racism, or even being Nazis – without ever pointing to any actions that would support such things.

    I find that pathetic and to all who watch (even the non-partisans), it is obvious to others that the poo flinging and name-calling is largely one-sided. And before an anti-SP person points and says CHORF or puppy-kicker, I’d note that those are truly names many in the SP crowd use to describe the rabid Fandom reaction. But those are quite literally descriptions of their perception of Fandom that are reasonably based on their perspective. CHORF being an acronym to describe Fandom as cliquish obnoxious and reactionary. And puppy-kickers is their perception of Fandom wanting to kick anyone not agreeing with Fandom to the curb.

    No sane person would see such descriptions, which are based on reasonable observation, to being called homophobic or mysoginist or racist or even a Nazi.

    Davidson’s modus operandi isn’t that far off from the most bitter and vocal of the anti-SP crowd. Conflate, accuse, and belittle.

    The SP crowd members have some of the same problem at times, but I’d note that the organizers such as Brad and Larry have all comported themselves in a manner which I find to be heartfelt, convincing and largely productive. Sadly, I don’t see Davidson helping with any of his utterances, and the world would likely be better if he sticks to memorials for recently dead, reviews of books, and other SFnal and leave the topic of SP and WorldCon alone – because he only perpetuates what he claims to hate. Maybe just maybe he’d actually honor Gernsback and do something with the trademark he acquired other than use it for venting his spleen and bring back some actual stories. Wouldn’t that be nice?

    Unlike GRRM who extended an olive branch and had a very nice note to the world (which included the SP crowd), Davidson can’t seem to control himself and is just a bitter and unpleasant personality in the Fandom population. Fandom can do better.

  151. Personally, I didn’t care for a lot of nominations, but that’s a matter of taste. If the real problem had been the weakness of the nominations, there would’ve been no need to accuse the Puppies of being a bunch of racist misogynistic white male homophobes trying to kick women out of science fiction. What we saw was 6 months of Arson, Murder and Jaywalking. “Those Puppies are horrible monsters who hate women, want black people to be shot in the streets, and also have questionable taste in fiction!”

  152. Steve, when are you going to stop pontificating all the time and get around to actually publishing an issue of that magazine you bought? Because you seem to be more concerned with showing how “real” a FAN you are, and how much you’re one of the “cool kids” . . . but you don’t do much of anything besides blogging about how much you hate all those notfans for not behaving how YOU think they should. And building strawmen to knock over. And over. And over. Really, it’s getting boring. I get it, you’re the keeper of all that is true and right in FANDOM, and anyone who disagrees with you is NOTFAN. Keep telling yourself that, keep fanning the flames, because you have to secure that place in the TRUFEN world for yourself. You don’t even see how much of a pure example of everything Brad and Larry were talking about you are. Check the mirror, dude. You’ll see what the real problem in the “TRUFAN” world really is. The rest of us don’t live in a cesspool of insecurity like that. We want good stories, with good writing, and are going to nominate them, regardless of what you think. That gate you’re trying so desperately to guard has been wide open for a while now, and your attempts to close it just prove Brad and Larry’s points completely. I’m sure Mr. Gernsback is pretty damned tired of your endless trampling about on his coattails. How about you go add to the genre, rather than thinking you’re some special protector of the right-and-true FANS of it?

  153. Pingback: Sad Puppies – Still Sad, More Determined | The Liberty Zone

  154. camestrosfelapton on December 27, 2015 at 7:33 pm said:
    I’m way out on the left, so I’m going to think and act differently than say, GRRM or even David Gerrold.

    If Sad Puppies want to make a difference then they need allies in the center.
    – – – – –
    Well at least you are honest. You are “Way out on the left” so what makes you think you can even see or understand the middle?

    Based on comments like this, I would say that it is the SPs are not only reaching the middle, but they are reaching the fans who have been driven away from SFF.
    – – – – – –
    Freddie_mac on December 27, 2015 at 5:04 pm said:

    The puppies (SP & RP) have brought me back to SFF, and for that I’ll always be grateful. For nearly a decade, I didn’t buy SFF books, because there was nothing to read. I switched to mysteries or re-read my old books, but I was convinced that nothing worth reading was being published.

  155. “Joanna Hayden – we published an issue this past April. We’ve got five books out now and more coming.”

    April 2014 or April 2015?

  156. Funny….this last April? April of 2015? There’s a cover on your site, Steve…but not a single link anywhere obvious to actually buy it. Pretty poor management, that. There’s a 2014 issue…and a lot of flogging of back issues and art…and lots of notes about how people can work for you for free. And blog for you for free. You’re kind of the SF Huffington Post, wanting all sorts of content without having to actually *pay* anyone. And spending a ton of time telling everyone how you’re a real fan and love SF. If you really love the genre, stop expecting everyone to support you for free–do the work, pay the authors, and make it a real business.

  157. Brad, your desire to simply evade and obfuscate while throwing out insults mixed with talking points is clear. I think the proof of the pudding will be in whether you ever have the chutzpah to claim you were doing this for the likes of Weir again.

    A good new year to all in the thread, either early or late depending on your timezone.

  158. A useful New Year’s resolution would be if fans of all stripes would agree to stop suggesting that anyone violated the rules during the Hugo nomination and voting process last year. The puppies’ nominating slates were not against the rules, and the fans who voted for No Award were also following the rules. Despite all the ill feeling, at the end of the day, EVERYONE followed the rules.

  159. I gather that since voting “No award” is such a foul and heinous action, all Puppies will vow never, ever to do such a thing.

  160. @Joanna Hayden. Everyone writing for me knew exactly what they were doing when they began doing so. Every bill I have committed to has been paid on time or before hand.
    I’ve got nearly 200 contributors and have been running the site since 12/12 – with steadily increasing memberships, traffic and sales. (We’re over 25,000 registered members at this moment). Authors writing for Amazing have gotten book deals and increased sales as a direct result.
    But hey, I get it. Since you don’t agree with my politics, go ahead and attack the business. How about you just don’t visit anymore, seeing as how you’re only going to be disappointed….

  161. Don’t worry, Mark. You needn’t abuse Brad. Allow me to cut through the Gordian Knot. I’ll just put Andy Weir on for Best New Writer on Rabid Puppies 2.

  162. Well, thank goodness there are no connections between the sads and the rabids, otherwise someone might conflate this.

  163. @mark
    so if VD were to go over to file770 and post something there, does that mean that he’s ‘connected’ to the people there and that they support him?

  164. davidelang,

    He has, actually, and on many occasions. He got a bit fed up of being disagreed with and stopped posting towards the end of April, IIRC.

  165. @mark, you again are completely missing the point.

    you are concluding that VD is connected to Brad and Sad Puppies because he posted a message here. And as a result Sad Puppies support him and it’s our fault that people conflate the two groups.

    By that same logic, he’s ‘connected’ to File770, so by the same logic, you should be attacking the owner of file770 for supporting Rabid Puppies

  166. @davidelang

    You are quite correct, no-one should posit more than the most trivial connection based on a single post. A stronger connection, leading to the conflation Brad complains of, would require Brad, VD, and the other SP members to have been exchanging emails, discussing strategies, nominating VDs authors and bloggers, having supporters in both camps, and so on. Without any of that, a single post today means nothing.

  167. “Well, thank goodness there are no connections between the sads and the rabids, otherwise someone might conflate this.”

    This is not indicative of a connection between Brad and me, Mark, but rather between you and me. I am taking YOUR suggestion into account. YOU are the responsible connection here.

  168. Oh, I’m sure a master of 4GW takes all sorts of things into account. Your victory is assured in all eventualities, after all.

  169. I guess all the hundreds of messages I left in the comments section of Scalzi’s blog means I am tight with the man. Who knew Scalzi was a secret Sad Puppy sympathizer? Y’all better get over there with the torches and the gasoline.

  170. Brad, I think you’re being horribly unfair when you compare these… individuals to slippery eels. The eels deserve better.

    Why not something like a Kowakian monkey-lizard? It’s probably still unfair, but I doubt people will care. 😉

    Though I’m amused at Mark’s belief that you have the arcane power to “prevent” people from being nominated for something. Amused in a “what a pathetic train-wreck” sort of way.

  171. Are we still getting lectures on quality from the people who thought that “Harry Potter for adults, now with more rape-as-backstory and extra racism” (The Goblin Emperor) was worthy of a nomination?

    Unbelievable.

  172. @s1al you have a much higer opinion of “The Goblin Emperor” than I do. If it’s supposed to be “Harry Potter for adults”, where’s the magic in it? (there was one person who could ‘feel the past’, but no other magic that I remember)

  173. Of course, Andy Weir’s The Martian was not eligible for the Hugos. It was self-published on a website/then ebook in 2011 and would only have been eligible in 2012. Crown Books purchased the rights and re-released it in 2014.

    I believe one of John C. Wright’s stories got taken off the ballot for a similar reason – some part of it had been published as a preview at the end of 2013, making it not a ‘2014’ story. (Even though such teaser portions haven’t been used to disqualify other publications in the past.)

  174. Oh, I’m sure a master of 4GW takes all sorts of things into account. Your victory is assured in all eventualities, after all.

    What’s your over/under on No Award in 2016? Anyhow, I’m curious to know what you think I could possibly have to lose with regards to the Hugo Awards?

    Not winning a Hugo? Losing the good opinion of the Worldcon community? The liberal media calling me names? Where, exactly, is the downside for me?

  175. Brad, re Queen Theme Music. I’m torn between suggesting “Under Pressure” and “I Want It All”

    VD, I totally agree that for you “The Only Way Is Up”

  176. Hello Brad. You sure are wordy. But let me just look at a few words…

    “Because as long as Puppies are deemed to be subservient, second-class citizens within the field proper, the emotion that spawned Sad Puppies, will remain. I don’t know anybody who easily accepts being a second-class citizen in her own country. Especially not after certain people within George’s beloved community — including certain individuals at George’s own publisher — moved heaven and earth to slanderously and libelously smear all Puppies indiscriminately.”

    Eh, Brad – dear Brad. No one cares about the puppies except that you tried to ruin someones convention by exploiting the nomination process. Then you hate mongered about the CHORFS and SJW. And then they you couldn’t bring home the bacon at the awards and were humiliated to the applause of the fans. I don’t expect you to learn from that.

    But you don’t have to learn. The hole in the nomination process was plugged with the passing of EPH. There is one more year of Correia/Vox/Torgensen/Paulk trying to ruin the awards. And then the pups will be regulated to their numbers, which will get smaller. Not being true fans, you folk will soon stop with the $40 membership fee.

    My challenge to you/Vox/Correia/Paulk is have your fans freep the Goodread Choice Awards. Your books are not doing any better in that contest. Scalzi is doing fine, yes? Go get em General Brad. You know why you won’t/can’t? Because your numbers are tiny. The market isn’t buying what you are selling. The market… it is a bitch.

  177. No one cares about the puppies except that you tried to ruin someones convention by exploiting the nomination process.

    I.e., followed the rules and nominated someone they liked.

    Then you hate mongered about the CHORFS and SJW.

    I.e., pointed out the behavior of the CHORFS and SJWs.

    Just looking at a few words…

  178. WSFS HUGO delenda est. After the chorfholes passed out by that asshole Gerrold, I will play no more with SFWA or the WSFS. They won’t miss me and God knows I won’t miss them.

  179. @RP, you do realize that you are giving them exactly the result they wanted, you are going away and leaving them as the gatekeepers

  180. @george “The market isn’t buying what you are selling. The market… it is a bitch.”

    actually, the market (as in the people who actually pay money for books) _are_ buying what they are selling. The royalty checks are the proof.

  181. A long long time ago I picked up a book with the “Hugo Award winner” label on it. It was by Spider Robinson. I figured….”Good book, I’ll look for more Hugo winners.” And then less than a year later I said to myself “That must have been an aberration with Spider cause this shit has sucked ass since.” And at the end of that year I realized that I could use the Hugo Award Winner label to weed out the books I didn’t want to read…because they were uninteresting, preachy, dictatorial in what I should agree with, and more than a little full of themselves. Yeah yeah, Scifi has always been ahead of the curve socially. No shit. I couldn’t give a good goddamn what skin color someone has or who they bang in the privacy of their own home.

    But when some one tells me that I “must believe this way”, well, it gets my back up and my contrarian nature comes alive and says “Oh yeah?! Watch this shit!”

    The tits, twats, assholes and shitsuckers that ran hugo for so long have gotten my back up I don’t give a shit. Scalzi writes red shirts and I’m supposed to kiss his ass? Really? He gloms onto a social injoke, convinces someone that that is a book, and then expects me, a guy that doesn’t read trek stuff, to buy it cause social justice? Fuck him. And fuck you if you expect that from me. I read what I like, nominate what I like, and will do so til I die.

    I do want big spaceships and high scifi in my scifi. “We’ve moved on, society has moved on!” Yeah, to “cerebral” bullshit that got shows like Enterprise canceled. It wasn’t fun or exciting, it din’t hold interest and people left in droves. Now, you expect us to buy books like that and think we are the problem when we say you aren’t interesting, exciting or fun to read. And you think WE are the dumbasses?

    In the words of the great Bunny of Bugs… “Whatta poltroooooon! Whatta Marooooon!”

  182. And George Kirby, “the hole was plugged”….which just means your side is a bunch of chickenshit pussies that don’t want real talk, real debate, and real opposition. “Can’t hear you, got me fingers in me ears!” seems to be your position. Pussy.

  183. Hi Brad, I just listened to you on the WrongFun podcast from a week-or-so-ago … you spoke about how SFF might fade away as an industry due to publishers dying out … I kept waiting for you to speak substantively about indie publishing, but you didn’t. I think that is where the future lies for SFF, in indie. I understand you’re tight with Baen, and blessings upon them. But I literally cannot remember the last time I bought a dead-tree fiction book. I remember being in the Borders at Gateway sometime between 5 and 9 years ago. I have maybe 20 credits on PaperbackSwap (obtained from trading home schooling materials – yes we home schooled for several years, as Buffy says “not just for scary religious people any more.”), and I’ve gotten 2 vintage SF titles from PbackSwap within 2015. Everything else has been indie ebooks. I just received about 20 of them for Christmas. One was Correia, the remainder were various indie authors. I don’t think I’m alone in that. Indie takes more time to vet, but following certain authors online has brought me an Amazon wishlist numbering 83. Do I even have time left in my lifetime to read them all? So, yeah, Baen will be all right, but indie is really the future. Who cares about the others?

  184. @davidelang, @Mark,

    ….so if VD were to go over to file770 and post something there,….

    He has, actually, and on many occasions. He got a bit fed up of being disagreed with and stopped posting towards the end of April, IIRC.

    Actually, he still shows up occasionally to clutch at pearls and make poorly-veiled threats.

    Regardless, Happy (belated or early, as per your timezone) New Year to everyone!

  185. @birthday girl

    just because it’s an e-book doesn’t mean it’s an indie published author. Baen has been publishing everything as an e-book since the last century.

  186. From that blog with the 47 Hugo nominations:

    “Mike Glyer on December 31, 2015 at 12:47 pm said:
    Camestros Felapton: God forbid there should be many more occasions to quote Chupik. It’s bad enough reading him there.”

    Oh no! I’m crushed! Devastated! I’m dying . . . with laughter.

    Happy 2016. 🙂

  187. With one addition, everything I have to say about the Hugos is here:

    http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/08/30/guest-post-by-ken-burnside/

    That one addition is that I got a Jovian Award, and it’s a gorgeous trophy and placque. As soon as I clear space to actually have an ego-wall, they’ll be put into it.

    I still contend that the winner of this kerfluffle is Vox Day. I wrote in August about how he won; I got told I was an alarmist. I wrote about what he’ll be doing next…it wasn’t hard, he just posted it in the clear. He’s following the plan I described in August in that link.

    I wrote in August about what needed to be done – silence the culture-war artillery on both sides.

    Neither side will. Ah well.

  188. And in the interest of fairness, I also note this over at File 770:

    “Jim Henley on December 31, 2015 at 7:09 pm said:
    I think Gerrold should apologize for the asterisks because it was the wrong thing to do. It wasn’t the worst thing anyone ever did, but we should apologize for wrong things we do even if they are not the worst thing anyone ever did. Even if we didn’t (mostly) intend any harm by it. It is entirely reasonable that someone would take the asterisks as a slap in the face, and it was entirely foreseeable that some people would. Are some Puppies fingering the scab a bit too lovingly? Sure. Doesn’t matter. It was the wrong thing for Gerrold to do. That’s all that matters for the question of whether Gerrold should apologize.”

    It’s not often I agree with a Filer. This is one of those times.

  189. @lang – “actually, the market (as in the people who actually pay money for books) _are_ buying what they are selling. The royalty checks are the proof.”

    The royalty checks are nothing to sneeze at. I expect “I wuz robbed” Larry is doing pretty well. That’s what this whole shtick is about. Round up the pups and get them riled over this conspiracy and that SJW and sell them some books by good conservatives. Larry is just target marketing like he did when if first introduced MHI to his gun nut buddies.

    But it isn’t top of the genre stuff. You guys freeped a ballot – put a bunch of crap on it and got embarrassed. Look at the Goodreads Choice Awards. Where are your authors? Ringo got nominated but he finished pretty far back.

    crankymcbastard on December 31, 2015 at 6:26 pm said:
    “And George Kirby, “the hole was plugged”….which just means your side is a bunch of chickenshit pussies that don’t want real talk, real debate, and real opposition. “Can’t hear you, got me fingers in me ears!” seems to be your position. Pussy.”

    Yes, I knew you guys would be having difficulty with this one. Look – you will be represented in accordance with your numbers. It’s just that you have really small numbers. That’s why you got your ass handed to you during the vote. And its going to get smaller. Once EPH goes into effect people will stop forking over $40 just because Bard/Larry/Vox tells them them TOR is controlling the Hugos. Again – look at the Goodreads Choice Awards. How are the pups doing? Why don’t you freep that? Because you can’t. Your numbers are tiny.

    But to DLang’s point – Larry and Brad and Vox will still be able to rabble rouse and target market. Royalty checks do matter.

  190. *yawn*

    The usual “you’re outnumbered and doomed! DOOMED I SAY!” gloat.

    Whom are you trying to convince? We icky awful “Sad Puppies” … or yourself?

  191. We’re so tiny and insignificant that Wired and Entertainment Weekly have done articles on our weak, negligible effect on the Hugo Awards.

  192. Yep, the Puppies get slandered and libeled all over the place, but refering to the ones doing it as “CHORFs” and/or “SJWs”? Why, that’s hate speech!

    *eyeroll*

  193. @patrick chester said :”The usual “you’re outnumbered and doomed! DOOMED I SAY!” gloat.

    Whom are you trying to convince? We icky awful “Sad Puppies” … or yourself?”

    I am commenting on the blog. It is titled “Sad Puppies and the future”. Sad puppies have no future. They got their ass handed to them every year. Total failure last year. And after 2016 nobody notices because the hole in the nomination process will get plugged. Just like they have zero impact on the Goodreads Choice Awards. Larry Correia is never going to win that one either. Neither are any of your other fan favorites.

    It’s not that you won’t have a say. It is just that your say will be in proportion of your numbers – small and shrinking.

  194. …aaaaaand the “repeat it and hope it becomes true” mantra comes out.

    I am commenting on the blog.

    What a coincidence! So am I!

    I’m commenting on how you feel an urge to make sure the people you despise so much feel hopeless and insignificant. I’m wondering whom you’re attempting to convince.

    It could go either way.

  195. @Davie Lang
    I referenced both. Very little indie publishing is dead-tree; ask around some successful indie authors. I don’t buy ebooks from the dying Bigs any more than their dead-tree versions.

    I did forget to mention the public library. I use it for dead-tree and ebooks from good authors trapped in the dying Bigs. I don’t pay for Big publishing in any format. But I reckon the libraries as we knew them in our youth are going to pass away also, over time.

    Like I said, 83-count on my ‘zon wishlist, all indie.

  196. @patrick – It did come true. Puppies had one nominee do well – “Guardians of the Galaxy”. The fans “no awarded” everything else. And… the Worldcon Fans are not the only ones. Are your guys winning anything? It’s just a marketing gimmick. It’s good to increase royalties of puppy “leaders”.

  197. Ah, I see. You think the only goal was to win Hugos.

    Or you are hoping to make that Narrative believed.

    It’s a funny thing, George. If some group is as insignificant as you want the Puppies to be then… no one talks about them. Ever. However, if some group is hated and someone wants that group despised and ignored then that someone will expend a lot of effort in attacking them in the hopes that people (including those in the hated group) believe it and will ignore them and the members of the hated group will give up and go away.

    You know, like what you are doing right now.

    HTH, HAND.

  198. Us: “The Hugos are controlled by an exclusionary inbred clique who award their friends in turn.”
    Them: “Are not, you haters!!!eleventy!”
    Us: “Well, okay then, lets all vote for some books and authors we like.”
    Them: “How dare you invade and disrupt our exclusionary inbred clique! Get out! Get out!”

  199. I don’t know how the dramatic categories got included in the Hugos. Possibly a bone thrown to fan groups for Dr. Who or something. That the lock-steppers “we’re doing our part to fight the evil nazi homophobe racists” didn’t feel that the choice of movies mattered the way that, oh, literature, message, and the movers and shakers of the establishment getting another award mattered, is hardly surprising and proves nothing. Nor does anyone honestly think that it does.

    I really do appreciate all the many ways that all the helpful sorts express the idea that someone who is a minority opinion can be excluded by the in-group and all the many ways expressed that there really is an important in-group.

    Some of us involved in cons and fandom have tried to think of ways to expand attendance at literary cons and bring more people into fandom and expand the appeal… and now we’re finding out that there really are guards at the door requiring secret hand-shakes and it really is all about keeping the rabble out.

    I suspect that there are many on the other side (for whatever value of the “other side” there is) that are also appalled by the repeated blog posts and comments and musings on who a TruFan is and who it isn’t and who are horrified at those putting up big “Unwelcome” signs around the perimeter of Fandom.

    I mean… why fight this fight? There’s always a nearby ComicCon. Or just stay home, hum?

  200. Right Chester. No one talks about you during the Goodreads Awards. After 2016, no one will talk about you during the Hugo voting either. Your nominating gimmick will be plugged. But you have one more year to frick things up best you can.

    @Julie – The “Them” are the fans. You nominated what you thought was good. They rendered their judgement the same as always. You voted in proportion to your numbers. The Fans made their decision.

    Oh, that’s the way, uh-huh uh-huh,
    I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh.

  201. It’s amusing to see George’s gloats when if he bothered reading what those organizing SP4 want, he might notice one of the goals is to get a lot of people involved in voting on the Hugos… so no one group can dominate it.

    Or will that idea piss him off more than his derisive fantasy? Can’t let the “real Fans” like him be outnumbered by the rabble, after all.

  202. Nope. Lots of people voting will be fine. EPH will still limit any block voting. Eventually, the marketing gimmick will not have that many people voting just because Brad and Larry and Vox are stirring the pot. But by all means recruit as you will.

    I think last year may be your high water mark. It was anybodies guess what all those extra memberships meant. Was it pups? Was it fans? Turns out it was fans and the final vote rendered fan judgement.

    This year, I think fans will be more vigilant during the nomination process which means less opportunity for pups to hike their leg over the punch bowl.

  203. @George Kirby You do know Sarah Hoyt won the 2011 Promethesus Award, don’t you? And that’s just off the top of my head. And Larry Correia is a New York Times bestselling author whose fans – apparently – sometimes tattoo themselves with the Monster Hunter logo. Or are you JUST talking about the Nebulas and the Hugos?

    You know there’s a significant crossover between the short stories nominated for Nebulas and for Hugos? I assume they’re the same bunch of fans nominating/reading for both.

  204. >>Was it pups? Was it fans? Turns out it was fans and the final vote rendered fan judgement.

    So. “Pups” and “fans” are, apparently, mutually exclusive.

    That’s awesome. I really love being told I’m not a real fan when I’ve been reading this stuff for damn near forty years (though, to be fair, I did stop for a couple of decades because I felt distinctly unwelcome; I was apparently not actually wrong), and writing it for ten. Gives me that warm, included, fuzzy feeling inside.

  205. It’s just typical leftist nonsense – redefine the terms for as long as possible until you reduce the definition to as narrow a field as possible to give yourself as much of an advantage as possible in the “debate”. George, like his fellows, does not actually care at all whether SP and RP supporters are fans at all… he only cares if they agree with his side of it. If you don’t agree, he’s going to find a way to label you as not-a-fan. And, best case scenario (for him), WorldCon grays and shrinks into nothingness. Worst case scenario, it turns out that everything recently alleged about fandom at the CH blog is true and Vox Day does what he hinted at and takes it all to the media.

    I can only imagine the mental gymnastics at that point.

  206. Good for Sarah. Oh here it is:

    Yes Larry sells some books. I bought some of them. It’s good Mary Sue. He is never going to win a major award. He doesn’t deserve one. He will sell a lot of books particularly to his target market.

    vivienneraper said: “You know there’s a significant crossover between the short stories nominated for Nebulas and for Hugos? I assume they’re the same bunch of fans nominating/reading for both.”

    No. The Nebulas are voted on by the Science Fiction Writers. The Hugos are awards handed out by Worldcon SFF Fans. They are not the same.

    vivienneraper, none of your leadership is going to win a major award. Forget the Hugo Awards. Look at the Goodreads Choice Award which is the most broad based. Will Scalzi rank well in the awards? Sure. Will Correia? No. Will Ringo? No. I don’t think he made the final cut this year. How about John C. Wright that had 6 puppy nominations? No.

    All the puppy campaigns have been failures because they have no broad based market support except…. Guardians of the Galaxy which won and Jim Butcher but with book 15 in a series on a ballot that he shouldn’t have been on.

    When you look to the bottom of the puppy protest one ask – where is the great puppy novel overlooked by Worldcon Fans? And there isn’t any. Is there a great SJW SF book over looked by Fans or non-puppy writers overlooked. Sure. Multiple ones with better market support. The books were not their cup of tea. But it isn’t because of some Cabal or some campaign against SJWs.

    Keep in mind that Worldcon is a pretty small group of dedicated Fans many who have been together for years. The awards reflect their judgement. If it differs from yours that doesn’t mean they are Wrong Fans having Wrong Fun.

  207. >>none of your leadership is going to win a major award.

    Larry has won more than one Audie award, which is the major audiobook award. Brad has won more than one Reader’s Choice Award at Analog, and won a quarter of Writers of the Future. Your argument is invalid–

    Unless your definition of “major award” only includes the Hugo and the Nebula. Which, well. Duh.

    And if the Worldcon group is that small and insular, then maybe they should admit that their award is for their friends only and the rest of us should just stay home, instead of touting it as a “fan award” (small f) when it’s a “Fan award and only we get to say who a Fan is” (big F).

  208. “No. The Nebulas are voted on by the Science Fiction Writers. The Hugos are awards handed out by Worldcon SFF Fans. They are not the same.”

    Care to explain how, out of five stories that would have made a Puppy-free Hugo ballot, three of them were also on the 2014 Nebula Award shortlist (I did the research: http://www.futureslesstravelled.com/?p=388)? Do you think the pool of award-worthy stories is that small?

  209. @George

    IIRC, Ringo was one of the finalists for last years Goodreads…I think Sci-Fi? So were Butcher and Kloos.

    Though I’m not sure how…Puppy-ish any of them are, or even how such a metric would work. Kloos was nominated, but withdrew. Butcher was nominated, but AFAIK mainly kept out of most of the kerfuffle, and Ringo, while not nominated, certainly enjoyed the kerfuflle, and participated in it gleefully, but seemed to limit most stuff to his FB page.

    I give them the credit that they are due. Torgersen and Correia were Campbell nominees, and as others have noted, have picked up awards elsewhere as well – Analog, Audie et al. Hoyt’s a Prometheus winner, and all said and done, it’s good to see some diversity there, instead of the usual Scottish Socialist 🙂

    Not sure about the others. I do remember noting that none of the Puppy slated written works seemed to show up in any of the other finalist listings in 2015 – ie, Tiptree, Locus, Nebula, Prometheus, Clarke, Norton, Bradbury, BSFA, World Fantasy etc.

  210. GRRM: “I define “Fan” as a member of Fandom. Fandom is a community that has existed since the first cons in the 30s, whose roots go back to the lettercolumns of prozines in the 1920s.” Etc, etc, etc, yatta yatta…

    My my my. Y’know? Gee, thanks, Civilis, for reminding me of that. Whenever I’m reminded of George Martin’s various statements on “Fandom” and “Fans” and “Fen” and who qualifies for what category in this magical and oh-so-elite group of personages known as “TruFen” and TruFans”, my back teeth start to grind, my canines lengthen a bit, and my ears start to grow hairy points.

    Figuratively, of course. Despite my Gravatar, I’m really not a werebear. Pay no attention to what my roommate says about me before I’ve had enough morning coffee to get my caffeine to blood levels back to normal.

    I started reading sci-fi and fantasy with Andre Norton at the age of six. I went to my first comic con at age 17, and my first Sci-fi/Fantasy con at age 18. I’m 55 now – do the math. I’ve worked cons as staff, security, and con suite. Mostly Dallas Fantasy Fairs, back in the day before Bulldog folded. I’ve been to two WorldCons and a NASFiC. I’ve edited local fanzines. I’ve contributed Trek fic to ‘zines. (I *still* write and post fic) I’ve filked, and even written filk. I got drunk with some of the Dark Horde once, before I quit drinking. I’ve been well enough acquainted with a few professional personages in the industry to exchange correspondence and emails with them…

    So, gee, Mr. Martin, do I qualify for your Club? I think my freaking Fan creds, and my fan creds, are solid enough.

    If your answer is “No,” GRRM, well, I’ll just smile and wave. Guess which finger I’m waving.

    @ steve davidson: Mr. Davidson.

    Are you the same Steven Davidson that authored the plea for reconciliation that I found linked at Vox Popoli?

    http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2015/12/reconciling-with-puppies-to-dream-the-impossible-dream-to-reach-the-unreachable-star/

    If so, well then…

    I’m not a Sad Puppy or a Rabid one, nor am I a Dread Ilk or a Vile Faceless Minion. I’m not really a joiner. Hell, I used to *have* minions – why would I want to be one? On the Puppy spectrum, I’m a Wontolla. Nevertheless, I discovered Vox Popoli as I did According To Hoyt and MonsterHunterNation – as a direct result of the Puppy controversies.

    Simply put, I ran across mention of it back in, oh… 2013? 2014? First Sad Puppy campaign. Went “What the hell is a Sad Puppy, why are they sad, and what the hell does this have to do with the Hugos, anyway?” and went on a Google hunt.

    Discovered Larry’s posts and links on the topic, and Mrs. Hoyts, and then followed all of the various links until I had a pretty good overview and a good idea of what was going on. Been following and reading it, and enjoying the lovely brawl ever since.

    The idea and overview I came away with is that the various Puppies came about for the same reasons I quit being a Fan back in the early nineties. The “Community of Fandom” that you and Mr. Martin seem to be oh so proud of became something that I no longer wanted to be associated with.

    So I quit being associated with it. The reason I decided that it was no longer a club I wanted any part of was as a direct result of self-important smirking supercilious “elites” like you and Martin and all of the clowns I saw on stage in the Hugo video at the last WorldCon.

    “Here’s the skinny: you guys – SP, RP and self-identified affiliates – made one major mistake. You attacked the foundations of a community that has thrived since the mid-1930s” – steve davidson

    Piss on your community.

    “Whether that was your intention or not, that was the perception, and that perception” – steve davidson

    Piss on your perception.

    “The perceptions you all have created (SP) are: you reject Fandom” – steve davidson

    I reject your Fandom. I reject any fandom that you are a part of. Screw your Fandom.

    “You guys pissed me off.” – steve davidson

    Oh, really? Boo f*cking hoo. You and people like you pissed me off a long time before the Sad Puppies were a glimmer in Larry Correia’s eye.

    So… good. I hope the various Puppies *really* manage to piss you off in 2016.

    “If you want to stop this kerfuffle” – steve davidson

    Not really, but thank you for playing. I’m finding this kerfuffle highly entertaining. I have my beer and popcorn and I’m thinking on buying a voting membership for 2016.

    “there’s only really two things that need to be done. ” – steve davidson

    No.

    “Do those two things and I can pretty much live with the rest.” – steve davidson

    Who gives a flying rat’s ass what you can or cannot live with?

    Mr. Davidson. As I noted, I am not a Sad or Rabid Puppy nor an affiliate in any form. I do, however, fully support what they’re doing and have done to date. All three Puppy campaigns have given “Fandom” a much needed poke in the eye, and has given fandom a much needed flush.

    I hope that 2016 gives your “Fandom” a swirly.

    The Hugo and Nebula awards – for me and a lot of other readers and fans, based on what I’ve seen in the past three years – long ago ceased to be anything except a warning label on the cover of a novel.

    The Asterix Award and the mass Noah Warding finished them off in my eyes. The only question now is how many times they’re going to circle the drain before they hit the sewers.

    Your magazine circled the drain and hit the sewers quite awhile back.

    “Want to reconcile?” – steve davidson

    No. Not particularly. No reconciliation.

    The SJW and CHORF side of this “kerfluffle”, as you named it, wanted war to the knife? Have the knife up to the hilt, with my blessings.

    Piss off, Davidson. This old “Fan” doesn’t need nor want you speaking for him, and I really don’t think that you speak for all of Fandom or fandom.

    My Puppy recommendation, for what it’s worth? If Vox Day wants to burn it down – let him. Nuke the Hugos *and* WorldCon from orbit, piss on the radioactive ashes, and pave over the rubble.

    Then, once it is well and truly dead and decapitated, with a stake pounded through its shriveled black little heart, rebuild it in a new and better form, elsewhere. I suggest at DragonCon.

    And for the love of whatever gods, don’t allow SJWs or CHORFs any entry into the rebuilt awards. Keep the Davidsons the hell out too, while you’re at it.

    Oh, and the eventual new award, whatever it is? Write it into the bylaws that ONLY slates can be nominated. *wolf grin*

  211. @vivienneraper:

    Care to explain how, out of five stories that would have made a Puppy-free Hugo ballot, three of them were also on the 2014 Nebula Award shortlist?

    I think you’re right that some overlap is a factor – in “spheres of influence” if not in literal voters.

    I do think another factor is simply that the Nebula shortlist is announced before Hugo nominations are due. With such a small voting pool, *any* influential list will be, well, influential. And it makes sense for me for the Nebula shortlist to be particularly influential. More people will check in on the Nebula shortlist than most any “Best Of” list I can think of; it appeals to mostly the same crowd; and it’s short enough to concentrate nominating power on a few works instead of scattering them across a broader list.

    So I don’t think it’s the same people choosing the Nebula and Hugo shortlists — it’s not literally “the same bunch of fans”; it can’t be — but it makes sense under the current system that there should be correlation between the two.

  212. George Kirby,

    The only two truly “major” awards in this biz are a) if you’re read by eager new fans after you’re dead, and b) are you earning enough to make both yourself and your family comfortable.

    There are many, many dozens of other literary awards. I have some some of them. So does Larry. So does Sarah. I doubt any of us will ever get a Hugo or a Nebula. Not after we’ve made ourselves politically anathema to both WSFS and SFWA — which says far, far more about WSFS and SFWA, than it does about me, Larry, or Sarah. But then, you don’t see Larry or me or Sarah crying for a lack of either the Hugo or the Nebula — because neither of these awards has any impact on the truly important awards (named above) because the Nebula and Hugo don’t guarantee domestic sales, and they don’t guarantee you’ll still have an audience when you’re dead.

    Both the Hugo and the Nebula can help with foreign interest, but then again, Larry Correia’s never needed a silver dildo, nor a hunk of lucite with sparklee dust and marbles in it, to make his bread in France or Germany. Frankly, past a certain point, sales — all by themselves — overwhelm accolades. Which is why Michael Crichton is one of the all-time greatest SF/F writers who ever lived, and Connie Willis (God bless her) probably won’t be known to future generations in the way the creator of Jurassic Park will be. Even with all her many trophies.

    Am I proud of my three Analog readers’ choice awards?

    Damned right. Especially the very first one (pictured) because nobody knew who the hell I was in 2011, and like the Writers of the Future win before it, that first AnLab depended purely on people liking the work enough to vote it up. And that’s the key to the entire enterprise: writing things that make people happy. So much so, they tell their friends, who read, and then they tell their friends, and their friends’ friends, and so on and so forth.

    I know there is a taste-making crowd in this field which prides itself on being able to “decide” for all of us what’s worthy and not-so-worthy in prose from year to year. Sad Puppies (1, 2, and 3) has been a rather explicit white glove across the face of those taste-makers, because we’re daring to suggest that the Little People should also have a say in determining what gets recognized.

    Naturally, the taste-makers are aghast. Horrified. It’s criminal, that anyone should question the status quo, or rattle the cage.

    Still, I can’t blame all of Worldcon. Clearly some people still have it right. I am relieved to see that there are still some individuals with long-time roots in this strange body of people which calls itself Fandom (caps f) who haven’t completely lost sight of the original point of having a SF/F accolade in the first place. Maybe those individuals can talk some sense into the rest of you? Obviously you’re not gonna listen to a pack of dirty puppies.

  213. vivienneraper,

    My opinion — take it or leave it — is that the taste-makers are a very herd-like bunch, who greatly rely upon and anticipate bellwethers. This is why a lot of authors who desire a Hugo, make a point of trying (sometimes very hard) to show up big at the Nebulas, because the Nebulas — both the noms and the winners — can have a significant impact on the awards that follow on. It’s really a question of timing, and building inertia. Line up the awards on the calendar, pop up on one or two early, and it’s a decent bet you’ll pop up on many of the others.

    The person who really deserves admiration for having played the game to perfection, is Leckie. I can’t think of anyone who better understood (in recent memory) how this whole setup works, nor exploited that setup to a greater effect.

  214. Brad, I’m very confused, I thought you’d said that Leckie’s awards were down to affirmative action, but now it’s down to her exploiting the awards? Perhaps you could explain a little further?

    In the meantime, I’ll be off telling Asimov, Clarke, Gaiman, and Bujold that there’s something really fishy about them winning the Nebula and Hugo in the same year.

  215. Mark, you are either purposefully being obtuse or really slow.

    In case your IQ is lower than most, let me explain what Brad said in small bite-sized words.

    Brad asserted that Nebulas (due to their position on calendar) are the taste makers and heavily influence what others look at automatically as likely targets of subsequent awards.

    He also further asserted that Leckie managed to leverage that snowball effect quite effectively.

    That is all.

    Personally, I think that such a statement is intuitively obvious and reads none at all on quality or lack thereof. The Nebula forms the beginning of what ends up being a slate element that is oh so an anathema to the Fandom community, but it is what it is. People are lemmings. Easily influenced. And why wouldn’t any sane person look at the recent Nebulas and go, “Hmm, maybe I should consider that winner – it is probably pretty good.”

  216. Brad:
    This has been a most entertaining comments section. Reading the “thoughts” of the 770 folk has been fascinating. It has convinced me that the puppy experiment is a wonderful idea. It provides two separate and distinguishable results.
    1) It helps recongnize work by authors that previously were completely deselected based on lack of affirmative action entitlement credentials (either personally or within the work).
    2) It provides Vox Day and his friends enormous opportunities for sport.

    I think the chief benefit that will accrue to SFF if the puppy movement continues for a number of years will be the disruption of the current status quo. It seems to me that if a counter-balance to the current bias toward social justice criteria is introduced into the Hugo voting then the rationale for certain authors (the ones who aren’t actually true-believers) to produce social justice fiction will be lessened. And concurrently, the positive reinforcement of non-SJW related works receiving nominations will benefit those writers. It will be similar to what will happen in the market place once the government clean energy subsidies expire. The Solendras of the world go belly up.

    So it’s a real win/win. Everyone gets something to be happy about (well except for the CHORFs, but no one likes them anyway).

    I have one suggestion for the coming years. In addition to making a list of the best work of the year, I think the puppies (well maybe the Rabid Puppies actually) should make a list of the worst SJW work. Give it a special acknowledgement (maybe the annual “Dinosaur my Love” award for hard-core snowflakery).

    Well Happy New Year all you SPs, RPs, ASPs, SJWs and CHORFs. God bless us, everyone.

  217. I thought you’d said that Leckie’s awards were down to affirmative action, but now it’s down to her exploiting the awards?

    Gee, Mark, I’m not surprised that you don’t understand blatantly simple things.

    Affirmative action never helps the general run of people who belong to the groups it is supposedly intended to benefit. Most often, it helps those who already have sufficient resources and connections to succeed on their own, but also know how to gain extra advantage by gaming the system. You folks set up a system and Leckie gamed it.

    In the meantime, I’ll be off telling Asimov, Clarke, Gaiman, and Bujold that there’s something really fishy about them winning the Nebula and Hugo in the same year.

    I’ve been contending for a long time that Asimov and Clarke (and Heinlein) never won Hugos or Nebulas. The awards won them. That is, they were obviously the leading figures in the field, and their books were guaranteed to sell in massive quantities with or without any silly little fanboy awards. Attaching the Hugos and Nebulas to the names of those writers did absolutely nothing to increase the writers’ fame, which was established long before the awards existed. But it worked wonders for making the awards better known, and giving them some semblance of credibility. An entirely spurious semblance, in my estimation. The effect of awards in driving sales (and, by logical connection, name recognition) is at best lost in the noise, and at worst actually negative. (The World Fantasy Award, for instance, is widely known to be the kiss of death for a book in commercial terms.)

    Incidentally, I’m not a Puppy of any kind; I think the whole idea of trying to ‘take back’ the Hugos from the hard Leftist cabal that calls itself capital-F Fandom is a pointless exercise, since the prize is of no value and the real gains are to be made in the actual marketplace. Moreover, the award always belonged to the cabal; but when the field was much smaller, they had perforce to pick winners that had substantial overlap with the bestsellers and acknowledged giants of SF, else the exclusion would have been too obvious and the award would have been recognized as a joke ab initio. Capital-F Fandom needed the Big Three to be frequent winners, back in the day.

    But I have been accused of being a Puppy; I have been subjected to random abuse on my own blog for it, perhaps because I am occasionally employed by a known SP voter (Wendy S. Delmater, editor/publisher of Abyss & Apex) and leave fairly frequent comments on the blogs of one or two others. It’s guilt by association, you see, and any form of association is sufficient to damn the target. It amuses me to no end to be told that Wendy is male (because all Puppies are male), or that Tonya Liburd, a disabled black female atheist of Caribbean descent who works with me on the A&A staff, is a neo-Nazi white-supremacist male chauvinist pig and a card-carrying member of The Patriarchy (because all Puppies fit that description, too).

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I have had to do some significant damage control to keep my friends and coworkers from despairing in the face of coordinated and malicious attacks on them by Puppy Kickers and ‘Trufen’. I know who my enemies are, and I know which side of this pathetic pissing match thinks it good tactics to count coup by viciously attacking neutrals. You may perhaps pardon me, then, for concluding that the proper method of dealing with WSFS and the Hugos is to nuke them from orbit and pave over the ruins – build a nice wide freeway that runs directly between writers and readers, unobstructed by claques, cabals, publishing-industry tastemakers, ‘Fandom’ axe-grinders, or other intermediary parasites. But if you don’t pardon me, I won’t lose any sleep over it.

    The more people there are like me, the bigger ‘Fandom’ loses. Vae victis.

  218. Tom Simon Said: “But it worked wonders for making the awards better known, and giving them some semblance of credibility. An entirely spurious semblance, in my estimation.”

    You don’t estimate well Tom. See… that it isn’t how the Hugos work. First a Fan joins Worldcon. Many Fans have been members for many years. Then there is a nomination process by those Fans. Then the Fans vote on the nominations. Then they are given away at a ceremony. “The Hugos don’t just attaching themselves for marketing purposes. But…

    Torgensen and Correia and VD whine and cry about mean SJWs and Puppy Kickers and so forth, the more they can sell them books. So these kind of campaigns are target marketing for them because much of their fan base is susceptible to such things. Larry did it with his MHI books long before he was honored by the Fans at Worldcon. He wrote gun porn marketed to his gun nut buddies. It works well for pumping up sales.

  219. @hobanwashburne said: “. Reading the “thoughts” of the 770 folk has been fascinating. It has convinced me that the puppy experiment is a wonderful idea. …I think the chief benefit that will accrue to SFF if the puppy movement continues for a number of years will be the disruption of the current status quo. It seems to me that if a counter-balance to the current bias toward social justice criteria is introduced into the Hugo voting then the rationale for certain authors (the ones who aren’t actually true-believers) to produce social justice fiction will be lessened.”

    Say what? SFF isn’t going to the dogs just because there are some right wing authors marketing through hate mongering. The Puppy numbers are too little. We just saw that at the last Hugo Awards. Now, they Pups exert influence greater than there numbers through a flawed nomination process. But that process will be fixed next year and their influence shrinks. Then what will be there incentive to through away 40 bucks a year when they can’t exploit the system. Nothing.

    Oh the marketing will still work and you guys will still buy books. But the Hugos will then will be much the impact you have at the Goodreads Awards.

    I was reading just this morning at Tangent about how there is going to be no slate and the list will be the top 10 list including mainstream SFF writers as well as pup favorites. If you guys do that and don’t somehow wink and nod a slate for the pups to follow you won’t have much impact this year. And if that slate includes things like Seveneves, you will have even less. Remember, this year Fans see you coming so they will vote in greater numbers during the nomination process.

  220. George Kirby:

    You don’t estimate well Tom.

    Nothing that follows in your unhinged screed does anything to establish that the Hugos have credibility. It is therefore irrelevant to my estimation that their appearance of credibility is spurious.

    See… that it isn’t how the Hugos work. First a Fan joins Worldcon.

    Right. Only Fans, capital-F, are allowed to do this. We have seen the explosion of hatred and vitriol when someone who does not agree with your far-Left views dares to buy a Worldcon membership and vote on the awards.

    Many Fans have been members for many years.

    ‘Hi, welcome to my exclusive club, now piss off, newbie.’ What a way to welcome new blood. If this were not your attitude, it would not matter how many years a given person has been a member. As it is, you exclude hundreds of your paying supporters by pretending they are not ‘Fans’, and redefine the term ‘Fan’ in whatever self-serving way will achieve this end.

    Then there is a nomination process by those Fans.

    Then the Fans vote on the nominations. Then they are given away at a ceremony. “The Hugos don’t just attaching themselves for marketing purposes. But…

    Right. Now let’s talk about the block-buying of Worldcon memberships by major publishers to game the system. How many Hugo voters, for instance, are employed by Tor? How many of the people who have the money and time to jet-set around the world from one Worldcon location to the next, thereby fulfilling your rules about attendance at consecutive AGMs, are subsidized to do so by the publishing conglomerates that control them? I know how the game is played, even if you don’t – or, more likely, are lying through your teeth to preserve the idea that ‘Fandom’ has any significant overlap with, you know, science fiction fans.

    Torgensen and Correia and VD whine and cry about mean SJWs and Puppy Kickers and so forth, the more they can sell them books.

    Gee, I thought you just said the Hugos weren’t about marketing.

    So these kind of campaigns are target marketing for them because much of their fan base is susceptible to such things.

    ‘Hi! Anybody who doesn’t already agree with me on 100% of my ideology is an idiot. Join my side, idiot, or I’ll call you an idiot again!’

    Hint: This is not a technique recommended by Dale Carnegie.

    Larry did it with his MHI books long before he was honored by the Fans at Worldcon.

    Um, Mr. Correia has never been ‘honoured by the Fans at Worldcon’. He has only been honoured by those eeeeevil Puppies, and the Fans burnt their own award to the ground rather than give one to an unclean outsider like him.

    He wrote gun porn marketed to his gun nut buddies.

    Asserted but not proved. I have noticed that your claque does not deal in any kind of evidence, merely in defamation by naked assertion. Tonya Liburd has noticed the same thing.

    It works well for pumping up sales.

    No, it doesn’t, and that isn’t its purpose. Mr. Correia was selling better than most recent Hugo winners before Sad Puppies was ever started, and I have not seen evidence that his involvement materially affected his sales one way or another. People who don’t care about Hugos don’t care about Hugo politics. If the Hugos are not sufficiently well-known or credible to be of marketing value, then neither are any campaigns to win Hugos or enlarge the pool of voters to include (gasp! clutch at pearls!) small-F fans. If the teapot is too small to affect the market, so is the tempest therein. You’re trying to have it both ways, sublimely ignorant of the fact that you can’t.

  221. snowcrash said: “IIRC, Ringo was one of the finalists for last years Goodreads…I think Sci-Fi?”

    I as not be surprised about Butcher. But Ringo and Kloos. were out by the 3rd round. That is the top 10. Butcher was in the final cut for “The Aeronaut’s Windlass (The Cinder Spires #1)” which was not bad for steam punk – if you like steam punk. It’s not Dresden. But Butcher isn’t a puppy. Correia tries allude to … something because you know he talked to Butcher. But that’s just Larry BS.

    Neither is Kloos. This is what Kloos says… From wired:

    “ ‘This is the Hugo we’re talking about,” Kloos says, “The big one! It was a pretty happy time.’ ” But when he found out it was puppy activist… “I knew right away I was going to have to sit down and write an email and reject the nomination,” Kloos says. To his publisher, whose authors had never gotten a Hugo nod, Kloos was blunt. “This is the kind of stink,” he said, “that doesn’t wash off.”

    So this whole puppy whoop to do is a marketing gimmick to target market to disaffected right wingers. It’s good for that. They need it.

    The Fans of Worldcon vote for what they like. This is a Fan based award. The right wing marketing isn’t going to get your puppy leaders that award

  222. @Tom Simon – “I wuz robbed” Larry was up for a Campbell. He didn’t win and first claimed it was an honor. Later he reversed and started his conspiracy theories to whip up the faithful and market books. He’s good at it. Tried to get his fans to get him a Hugo. Didn’t work.

  223. @George Kirby: Yeah, recusing yourself from the nominations because you’re running the campaign is not a good way to get yourself a Hugo. No wonder the dumb cluck failed. Or maybe, you know, just maybe he wasn’t trying to do what your fevered brain imagines he was.

  224. Yeah, Larry Correia wants a Hugo so badly that he turned down his nomination this year and has vowed to turn down any further nominations. Because he wants a Hugo so bad . . .

  225. @ Chupik – Larry only backed out after it was clear he would never win. He wrote a whole blog comparing himself to Stephen King and concluding he should win a Hugo. He can’t give up what he can’t win. As I said – this is now a target marketing gimmick. Stir up right wing conspiracy folk and sell them books. Get them invested. It’s good target marketing but it limits one from a wider audience.

  226. Just FYI – I popped over from a reference at 770. I found 770 from a reference at MHI. You guys should pop over at 770 and make some of these same post there. It would be a lot of fun.

  227. Ummm… I have a serious question, if anyone wants to take a stab at answering it?

    I know that for years, there’s been multiple Sci-fi and fantasy book publishers. In addition to Tor and Baen, Ace, Pocket Books, Ballantine, Del Ray, St. Martin’s Press (whom I believe owns Tor?), and probably a couple of others that I’m not remembering off the top of my head.

    How in the heck did Tor manage to either get control of the Hugo Awards and WorldCon, or get to be the most influential publisher in those?

  228. @George Kirby — Stir up right wing conspiracy folk and sell them books.

    ‘It is as though in the middle of a chess tournament one competitor should suddenly begin screaming that the other is guilty of arson or bigamy.’ —George Orwell

    You appear possessed by several foolish ideas, to wit:

    1. Everyone who does not agree with your radical Leftist view of the world is ‘right-wing conspiracy folk’. (Including, for instance, our host Mr. Torgersen, a notorious centrist.)
    2. ‘Right-wing conspiracy folk’ never read voluntarily or for enjoyment, and cannot tell a good book from a bad. The only way to sell them books is by whipping them up into a frenzy with a political catfight.
    3. Any book not written from a radical Leftist viewpoint in full agreement with your own is obviously devoid of any possible literary merit. It therefore cannot deserve to be widely read, widely sold, or (horrors!) nominated for awards.

    Each of these ideas individually is risible tosh. When you combine them in one wild-eyed argument, you achieve tosh cubed, which is of dubious entertainment value for the spectators and of no value in establishing a cogent argument.

    I shan’t place any bets on your being familiar with the old legal saw: ‘If you have the law on your side, hammer it into the judge. If you have the facts on your side, hammer them into the jury. If neither, hammer on the table.’ Sir, your table is sawdust now; you can stop hammering at any time. We are not favourably impressed.

  229. Yup, we’ve exposed ourselves (and in some cases, our loved ones) to online abuse and media libel for marketing. /eyeroll /facepalm

  230. @ironbear055: How in the heck did Tor manage to either get control of the Hugo Awards and WorldCon, or get to be the most influential publisher in those?

    That almost falls into the category of questions that require a week’s answer or none at all, but I shall try for something in between.

    Tor became the dominant publisher in SF chiefly because of the business savvy and good timing of its founder, Tom Doherty. He saw an opportunity in the massive expansion of SF readership and fandom (not, please note, ‘Fandom’) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and exerted all his considerable abilities to capture the largest share of that profitable market. The previous market leader was Del Rey, which lost its way after the death of its co-founder, Judy-Lynn del Rey, in 1985; this left the field wide open, and most of the other contenders were imprints of large publishing conglomerates that lacked the agility to take quick advantage. Mr. Doherty took quick advantage, and by the early 1990s he had cemented Tor’s place as the leading imprint in the field. It has retained that reputation since, though since its acquisition by Macmillan it has been largely resting on its laurels.

    Tor’s dominance of the Hugos is partly attributable to simple vote-buying and logrolling. Tor Books has for many years employed large numbers of freelance editors, in preference to the usual practice of having a small in-house editorial staff. Many of those editors are capital-F ‘Fans’ in George R. R. Martin’s myopic usage of the word; they are connected in Fandom, they go to Worldcon and other cons attended by the Right People, and they can be fairly relied upon to favour Tor products in their Hugo voting, and to influence their friends likewise. The Nielsen Haydens, through Tor.com and their own ‘Making Light’ blog, have worked very hard to further the interests of Mr. Nielsen Hayden’s employer in promoting his products for various accolades and awards.

    A good deal of the acrimony about the various Puppies campaigns, I have observed, comes from Tor authors who may well be afraid that their own work would no longer earn much consideration for the Hugos if the award were genuinely thrown open to a wider field of entrants.

  231. Amendment to the above: Judy-Lynn del Rey died in 1986, of an illness that left her permanently incapacitated in 1985. So I had the right date for her departure from Del Rey Books, but the wrong date for her death. Apologies for the error.

  232. So I went to the great GRRM’s blog and made a simple comment, I told him that his definition of who got to vote, and who didn’t get to vote, made him an elitist, promoting elitism.

    Apparently these are not the things to tell a hypocritical communist.

    His response was to say that no, he was just being ‘precise’ with his English, and then to block any reply to him.

    What a guy! Guess I shouldn’t have called him on his BS.

  233. Interesting stuff at Chaos Horizon. Chaos is looking at Goodreads Data and Amazon Data as he gears up for his Hugo predictions. Those are due out today. But he isn’t leaving out the influence of the dog pound. He has tabulated the recommendations at SP IV and John Wright is leading the pack with a whopping 12 votes. Don’t you love it? Speaking of zero chance to win an award. But Chaos is correct that one has to consider the dog impact on the nomination process – at least this year. Says Chaos:

    “Will these recommendations operate as slate, concentrating 100-300 (or more?) Sad Puppy votes into a unbreakable voting block? Or will a longer list diffuse the Sad Puppy vote, leading to a subtler effect on the final ballot? ”

    As I said earlier, look for Fans to be more active in the nomination process. But as to the list, I suspect the pack leaders will have the list down to who they want the pups to really vote for. Looking for one more year of asterisk voting. After that … 100 to 300 votes with EPH in place? Who is going to care?

  234. Worldcon members that pay $40 get to vote. How does that make GRRM an elitist?
    Because GRRM says that only Fans (with a capital F) should be allowed to vote, and you only get to be a Fan (with a capital F) if you have engaged in HIS list of approved activities.

    I guess you never read any of GRRM’s rants on the subject. To him, reading SFF doesn’t not make you a Fan, it makes you a ‘reader’. Writing it doesn’t make you a Fan, same for editing, publishing, going to Conventions, etc.

  235. Agree with GRRM. I don’t consider myself a capital F fan and have said that many times. I am just a reader. SFF is just one genre of many.

  236. I don’t consider myself a capital F fan and have said that many times. I am just a reader. SFF is just one genre of many.
    Then why are you even here?

    However, GRRM does know the Worldcom rules. You pay your money you cast your vote – Capital F Fan or not.
    And well, maybe you should be bothering GRRM, the File770 folks, Making Light and the rest of them, because they all side with GRRM.

  237. Tom Simon on said:
    “Tor’s dominance of the Hugos is partly attributable to simple vote-buying and logrolling. …
    A good deal of the acrimony about the various Puppies campaigns, I have observed, comes from Tor authors who may well be afraid that their own work would no longer earn much consideration for the Hugos if the award were genuinely thrown open to a wider field of entrants.”

    Tom:
    Very enlightening history. Well it sounds like they’ve worked really hard to control the Hugos. It seems almost a shame to disentangle such a massive stranglehold on such a minor host. Maybe they’ll agree to just rename the genre GFF (Greivance Fiction and Fantasy) and rename the award the Oscar (Wilde). Then we can start a new award called the Philip (K. Dick). They’re always calling us dicks anyway. Now it could be an aspirational compliment.

  238. John asked… “Then why are you even here?”

    John – I looked for you comment. Coulldn’t find it at GRRM.

    To your question:

    As a reader, I read some SFF. Not be a capital F SFF fan, doesn’t keep me from being a capital F “Dresden Files” fan. I have read Correia, Scalzi, and others. I have not read GRRM but I might some day. My taste are just much broader. I do read a lot of political and nonfiction books so watching the puppy stuff is fascinating.

    One of the things I find fascinating is the “we can’t give up the Hugo’s to the SJW” vs “the Hugo’s don’t mean anything” discussions. Don’t you find this whole Kerfuffle over who Worldcon Fans vote for somewhat intriguing?

    Also, I find using the US culture war as a marketing tool by various authors/leaders to be interesting as well.

  239. I’ll point out that it doesn’t take malicious intent on the part of Tom D at Tor for him to capture the awareds. All it takes is him being a nice employer and buying his large number of employees Woldcon memberships (documented to have been happening, Tor buys ~100 memberships/year)

    These employees are naturally going to be more interested in the award than the run-of-the-mill woldcon member, and in cases where 40 votes wins nominations, 100 people from one organization are going to have a substantial influence on who gets nominated. They all have similar tastes (as shown by the fact that they are working at the same place and were hired because management of that place likes their taste), so it doesn’t even take explicit communication and agreement for them to end up with largely overlapping nominations and votes.

    In the last few years, some of the Tor staff has been getting more explicit in their campaigning (as noted above by others), but Tom has kept out of it, and/or published statements that cause the CHORFs to condemn him. My only problem with his actions is that I don’t think he has gone far enough in trying to prevent his employees from making harsh statements while pointing out their status at Tor.

  240. @Tom Simon:

    “That almost falls into the category of questions that require a week’s answer or none at all, but I shall try for something in between.”

    Okay, and yeah, I was really afraid that that might be the case. Thanks for taking a shot at it.

    That does actually answer it for me to an extent. I was active enough in fandom and cons prior to oh… ’93 or so that I can fill in some of the gaps around what you’ve said. I was aware of Judy-Lynn del Rey’s death in the mid-80s (and no apology needed for the error: I wouldn’t have gotten the exact date from memory myself without looking it up.) I *wasn’t* really aware that it had created such a… power vacuum? in the publishing industry, but I wasn’t paying as much attention to that end of things as I might have.

    “Mr. Doherty took quick advantage, and by the early 1990s he had cemented Tor’s place as the leading imprint in the field. It has retained that reputation since, though since its acquisition by Macmillan it has been largely resting on its laurels.”

    And therefore Patrick Neilsen-Hayden has kind of ah, inherited the Tor influence from Doherty’s efforts and reputation, and from what I’ve been gathering the past three years, has effectively managed to squander it along with whatever good will Tor used to have? And he’s hung onto and consolidated what influence he does have by virtue of having a lot of the “big name” capitol-F Fans on his side and in his publishing roster?

    Makes sense. Once you get past the surface, capitol-“F” Fandom has always had a kind of a viciously petty sort of office politics to it behind the scenes. Just like SCA politics: when the stakes are small, the political infighting is deadly. Fandom has always leaned heavily left-wing even before the SWJ absorption, and the Left tends to breed the kind of petty personalities that make office type politics toxic.

    “A good deal of the acrimony about the various Puppies campaigns, I have observed, comes from Tor authors who may well be afraid that their own work would no longer earn much consideration for the Hugos if the award were genuinely thrown open to a wider field of entrants.”

    Meh. I’ve gathered most of that. As I said: I went on a massive Google hunt once I ran across the Sad/Rabid Puppies and the anti-Puppies thing to find out what was going on, and who all of the players were.

    And being pretty libertarian/conservative and decidedly anti-Leftist since around 16 or so, I kinda naturally fell in on the pro-Puppy side of the brawl. Besides, my heroes have always been story tellers. 🙂

    I *think* that what you’ve gathered is only part of it, though. The acrimony would be there even without the fear of their Trad publishing dominance being threatened by outsiders. I got into the blogosphere back in 2002 through Emperor Misha’s and Blake Powers/Laughing Wolf’s sites, during the start of the war-blogging boom.

    *Just* the fact that Larry, Brad, Sarah Hoyt, and so many of the leading Puppies as well as their associates are either libertarian or conservative would be enough to guarantee the acrimony. Leftists take any threat from the right to areas where they perceive they’ve had dominion as a mortal threat to be vilified, Alinskey’d, and stamped to death before it can grow. Seen it to often in the blogosphere between 2002 and 2008 wghen I dropped out for awhile. Seen it too often in sites that I’ve adminned or moderated at from 1997 through ’09.

    The Puppies were doomed and damned to come into conflict with the SJW and Leftist dominated TruFen elements of both Fandom and fandom the minute they began to be perceived as a threat to the existing (Leftist) status quo.

    Ya’ll couldn’t have avoided it if you’d tried.

    Again, thanks for taking a stab at what I know was a complex question, Tom. Appreciate it.

  241. Birthday girl,

    Sarah Hoyt is much better prepared to speak on self-pub than I am. But I generally agree with you, that indie has been and continues to be a major destabilizing force (for the establishment) in the new century, and this probably won’t change as long as Amazon.com does not do anything untoward about its present distribution or renumeration policies. Authors can now take their product directly to the consumer, and stand a good chance of making money at it. In some cases — like Howey or Weir — substantial money. Of course, the trad pub houses are now using substantial indie success as a weather vane for determining which authors to woo with substantial contracts. Even Larry Correia — originally self-pub — has said that he’s a very happy camper, having gone over to the Dark Side. Of course, Larry’s with Baen, and Baen runs its ship somewhat differently from some of the other houses. If any of the trad pub labels is prepared to sail the high seas of an indie world, Baen is that publisher. So I am content (yes) to stay aboard with Baen, as long as they’ll have me. I like their system, and of course, I am enormously fond of the people too. It is very much a family label, and this means I can work with them in ways i’d not dare work with a bigger label.

  242. 1) You didn’t look hard enough, he’s been saying it for a year now. He most definitely said it in the post that sparked this one.

    2) It’s not ‘we can’t give the hugos up to the SJWs’ it is ‘we must reclaim the hugos from the SJWs’.
    Me personally? I think they should just change the claim that ‘it is the most prestigious award in all of scifi voted on by the fans’. Because it is none of that. The Hugo award is used by a large number of the people who read scifi (ie the majority) as a list of what NOT to read. For years the books getting the Hugo have been average at best, and crap at the worst. 2014 is the perfect case in point.

    That’s why the books getting the hugo sell like crap. Third body problem is expected to sell less than 20K copies according the publisher. How many copies did Ancil Justice sell? 20K? 30K?

    3) I wouldn’t say it’s a marketing tool, but people are (as always) voting with their money. Letting people know that you’re not some annoying self righteous idiot writing preachy screeds with no entertainment value is a good idea, because no one really wants to read that stuff. I bet most of the people voting for that garbage didn’t read it, just like the No Awards didn’t read any of it either. They just followed their marching orders, which they’re good at, because free or original thinking is neither allowed nor tolerated by these people (hence we got wooden assholes from a man who talks like he has one himself).

    4) And again, if you’re just here to ‘watch puppy stuff’ then why are you (apparently) weighing in on the puppy-kicker side? And why are you really here?

    I haven’t joined the puppies yet, though I probably will this year. The part of me who likes things to be equal and hates elitist snobs, as well as bullies, wants to see the hugos either fixed or done away with. The part of me that likes making money selling books wants to see the hugos continue as they are, because they’re driving thousands of readers my way and helping me to sell lots of books.

  243. Enh. “to often” = “too often”. “wghen” = “when”. Frigging fat fingering my keys and forgetting to proof before hitting post.

  244. @george kirby:

    ” Looking for one more year of asterisk voting. After that … 100 to 300 votes with EPH in place?” – Kirby

    Hmmm. As my understanding goes, there’s another business meeting and confirmation vote in 2016 required before EPH actually becomes Rule of Con and *then* takes effect in 2017. It’s not bylaw *yet*.

    And I were Vox Day or the Sad Puppy leadership, I’d seriously be looking at getting those of Puppydom – both Sad and Rabid – who are physically attending the upcoming WorldCon to attend the business meeting this year and do some EPH killing voting *there*.

    Don’t count your EPHs before they is hatched, d00d.

  245. “I apologize for not upgrading, so I can have a PREVIEW function. I really should do that this year.” – Brad Torgersen

    Meh. Don’t sweat it. I’ve been at this awhile in both forums and blogs – it’s *my* responsibility to reread and proofread before I hit post, not *your* responsibility to have a Preview. If I fatfinger keys, I have no one but myself to blame for me not catching it. 🙂

  246. I don’t doubt you John – I was just looking for where “He most definitely said it in the post that sparked this one”. Link and perhaps key word for a control F?

    ” I think they should just change the claim that ‘it is the most prestigious award in all of scifi voted on by the fans’. Because it is none of that. The Hugo award is used by a large number of the people who read scifi (ie the majority) as a list of what NOT to read.”

    Seems like hyperbole to me but personally, I don’t think any award is all that important because we have other sign post to consider. LC, Brad, VD use there anti campaigns to engage a readership and make the more committed. I use my own reader groups to give me suggestions of what to read. The Goodreads Choice Award gets bigger every year and has no monetary barrier to participation. Amazon markets with suggestions constantly and reader reviews are everywhere.

    My favorite award is the Goodreads Choice Award. But that won’t mean much to pups because there isn’t a lot of puppy food there.

    “And again, if you’re just here to ‘watch puppy stuff’ then why are you (apparently) weighing in on the puppy-kicker side? ”

    Oh I am definitely on the puppy kicker side. If there is an author I personally think is not a nice person it is Larry Correia. Well, and his brother in arms Vox Day. Larry was a guy who was honored by the Worldcon Fans with a nomination. He didn’t win and said it was an honor to be nominated which it was. Then he changed and used a weakness in the nomination process to try to break the award. Ultimately, it became the target marketing that is done here.

    You know, pissing in the punch bowl is just not a nice thing to do. I watched the Worldcon Awards. These fans have been gathering together no just for years but in some cases decades to talk about their passion. No reason to crash the party over a bunch of cultural nonsense.

  247. If Amazon were t decide to slit their own throat and kill off indie publishing at Amazon, it wouldn’t kill off Indie publishing overall, you would just get someone else stepping in and taking over.

    amazon has shown that there’s serious money to be made in hosting a website that lets other people write things, and list them for sale.

    It won’t be one of the existing publishers. With the exception of Baen, they don’t have the vision t see this, and unfortunately Baen doesn’t have the resources to do this right.

    But I could easily see E-Bat or Crigslist stepping in for something like this.

  248. @ ironbear055 said And I were Vox Day or the Sad Puppy leadership, I’d seriously be looking at getting those of Puppydom – both Sad and Rabid – who are physically attending the upcoming WorldCon to attend the business meeting this year and do some EPH killing voting *there*.”

    Exactly right bear. I was watching last year on you tube. You know they put the youtube up pretty quick. But I didn’t see a puppy presence. There is a big difference in commitment between buying a $40 membership and traveling to a convention. I heard later there was one puppy there that actually spoke in favor of EPH because it guaranteed the pups their proportional representation.

    But your point is the same one made on 770. EPH has to be voted on again. I just can’t seeing the Fans negating the one thing that keeps the award from being gamed.

  249. @ironbear055: I got into the blogosphere back in 2002 through Emperor Misha’s and Blake Powers/Laughing Wolf’s sites, during the start of the war-blogging boom.

    ¡Hola, compadre! Emperor Misha was my official blogfather back in the day, when I ran a small political blog (now long deceased). I actually played a tiny role in Rathergate, thanks to my wearisome geeky knowledge of what was and was not possible with 1970s typesetting equipment. (Short version: No equipment available in 1973 could have exactly duplicated the default settings of MS Word three decades later, except by laborious hand-tweaking of the output to match a format that didn’t even exist yet. Ergo, the Bush memo was fake.) Thanks for bringing back the memories.

    *Just* the fact that Larry, Brad, Sarah Hoyt, and so many of the leading Puppies as well as their associates are either libertarian or conservative would be enough to guarantee the acrimony.

    True enough. But this fight is especially acrimonious because we’re fighting on their turf. They have the audacity to claim that their little award represents the tastes of science-fiction fans in general, and then they screech and fling feces when science-fiction fans in general try to join the voting. It’s a very old Marxist tactic. ‘There is an election every day in Soviet Happyland, because the Glorious Leader consults himself before acting, and he is perfectly representative of the People. Actually giving people choices and counting their ballots is a bourgeois perversion of true democracy.’

    @davidelang: I’ll point out that it doesn’t take malicious intent on the part of Tom D at Tor for him to capture the awareds. All it takes is him being a nice employer and buying his large number of employees Woldcon memberships (documented to have been happening, Tor buys ~100 memberships/year)

    Indeed. And I absolve Mr. Doherty of any malicious intent. However, some of his employees not only have malicious intent, but have been foolish enough to announce their malice in public.

    However, it is entirely disingenuous for someone like Mr. Martin to claim that the Hugos are a ‘Fan’ award, when so many of the voters are not fans at all, but professionals in the field. Things would be a lot more sanitary in WSFS circles if Mr. Doherty had bought non-voting memberships for his people, to prevent any conflict of interest. (What’s that you say? They don’t have non-voting attending memberships? Well, they jolly well would have if he had asked. No Worldcon committee could afford to turn down a reasonable request from the biggest publisher in the field, and probably the biggest block buyer of attending memberships.)

  250. > I just can’t seeing the Fans negating the one thing that keeps the award from being gamed.

    I think it’s interesting that they backed down on releasing detailed data so that people could analyze what effect EPH would have.

    I’ve looked at the numbers a bit and I think it would have far less of an effect than what it’s advocates say it would have.

    I think it makes it more straightforward to game things, and it still doesn’t take a very large group doing block voting to swamp things.

    I also think that any voting scheme that makes it harder to understand what effect a person’s vote has on the result is going to reduce trust in the result.

  251. @Tom Simon

    “¡Hola, compadre! Emperor Misha was my official blogfather back in the day, when I ran a small political blog (now long deceased). I actually played a tiny role in Rathergate, thanks to my wearisome geeky knowledge of what was and was not possible with 1970s typesetting equipment. (Short version: No equipment available in 1973 could have exactly duplicated the default settings of MS Word three decades later, except by laborious hand-tweaking of the output to match a format that didn’t even exist yet. Ergo, the Bush memo was fake.) Thanks for bringing back the memories.” – Tom Simon

    Holy Crap! Now that you’ve jogged my memory, I think I remember some of your posts on that at the Rott from when Rathergate blew the hell up all over the blogosphere!

    I guest posted a few times at Misha’s and at Blake’s on occasion. And I used to be third blogger at Denita TwoDragons site. (And Denita used to be a regular poster at Radio Free Ironbear when I was running the forum over at elgeneralissimo’s site, and then at Old Wolves dot com.)

    I’ve been off and on friends with Mike Hendrix and Billy Beck for awhile, too, but I kinda lost contact with everyone when I went dark in 2009.

    Small internet some days. 🙂

    My usernick was just “Ironbear” there – but WordPress, Google/gmail, and Gravatar wouldn’t let me get away with my old (and long time) nick, and I had to stick the numerical on the end to get it to pass.

    Irritating, that. I’ve been simply Ironbear most places online since around 1997 or so.

  252. @ Tom Simon said: “True enough. But this fight is especially acrimonious because we’re fighting on their turf. They have the audacity to claim that their little award represents the tastes of science-fiction fans in general, and then they screech and fling feces when science-fiction fans in general try to join the voting. ”

    I think they love to take your money. They just don’t like your slate voting because they end up with things like Andy Weir not being on the Campbell list and John Wright having 6 nominations. It makes the ballot stupid. But I looked for the claim that they represent all fans. This is what I found on the Worldcon website….

    “The Hugo Awards, to give them their full title, are awards for excellence in the field of science fiction and fantasy. They were first awarded in 1953, and have been awarded every year since 1955. The awards are run by and voted on by fans….

    …Voting for the awards is open to all members of the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS), and to become a member all you have to do is buy a membership in that year’s Worldcon. It is not necessary to actually attend the convention.”

    I am doubtful about TOR buying 100 memberships a year. Link? Chaos might be interested in that for his data prediction model. Certainly a slate promoted by TOR would offset any puppy slate in the final year before EPH.

  253. I think they love to take your money. They just don’t like your slate voting

    Remember who you’re talking to, Mr. Kirby. I am not a Puppy, either Sad or Rabid. I think their goals are trivial and their tactics largely mistaken. But trust you to ignore the facts and read your own narrative into the situation, and thereby come to the conclusion that I am one of them and that you can use the second-person pronoun to lump me in with them collectively. Shame on you.

  254. @David said: ” I also think that any voting scheme that makes it harder to understand what effect a person’s vote has on the result is going to reduce trust in the result.”

    I think it is easy to understand. During nomination you get 1 vote. If you vote for five nominations you get 20% in each slot. If in round one, one of yours gets eliminated you still have one vote. Each slot is now worth 25%. And so forth. I actually like that.

    It’s not that complicated. Fill out the ballet. Vote for whomever you want.

  255. Robert Reynolds, you ask (very reasonably) that people judge you by your actual words, not by the meanings they impute.

    In return, I ask (reasonably, I hope) that you judge Brad by his actual words, not by “nudges and winks” that you imagine.

    Looking through this thread, I’ve noticed Camestros speaking politely, and addressing people by name. On the other hand, I’ve seen people replying to him from the start as “Camel” and “Camel Toe”.

    Perhaps people *do* judge Puppies by their words…

  256. @george kirby:

    “Exactly right bear. I was watching last year on you tube. You know they put the youtube up pretty quick. But I didn’t see a puppy presence. There is a big difference in commitment between buying a $40 membership and traveling to a convention.” – George Kirby

    *shrug*

    My roommate and I have discussed doing WorldCon this year, which would be the first time back for me since the mid/late 80s. WorldCon Atlanta, I think.

    As I said, I’ve about decided on a voting membership, instead. No offense, but the TruFen and their cliqueish attitudes towards anyone who’s not sympatico with their general worldview is what caused me to drop out of the Con circuit, as I noted. I felt less and less welcome there even back in ’92 or so, and I’m not exactly a con virgin.

    Whether the various Puppydoms decide to hit the business meeting and vote on EPH is up to them. I just made the tactical suggestion.

    ” If there is an author I personally think is not a nice person it is Larry Correia. Well, and his brother in arms Vox Day.” – George Kirby

    Makes me no never mind. I cut my online teeth in alt.dot.rec.flames, and I used to post at the Rott. I’m not exactly “nice people” myself.

    I like Larry just fine, from what I’ve seen of him (and I think you may be being a bit disingenuous on Larry’s Hugo tying into Sad Puppies). I also have no beef with Vox Day.

    From what I’ve seen of him, unlike a lot of “nice people”, I strongly suspect that Vox Day wouldn’t smile to my face and then knife me in the back once I turned around.

    If Beale ever knifed someone, figuratively or otherwise, it’d be to their face while they’re looking at him.

    I kinda like that. I can respect that. “Nice” is fucking overrated.

  257. Julie Frost : Mark, I love how you completely glossed over the fact that if Brad had put Andy Weir on his list, the puppy-kickers would have no-awarded him just as hard as they did everyone else.

    Like they did with “Guardians of the Galaxy”?

    Have you considered that the only way to prove your point is for SPs to actually nominate something really good for the awards, the best sf produced that year, and then dare people to vote against it? Because IF AND WHEN you do that, you’ll see the “No Award” votes fracture.

    You didn’t do that this year. You lost.

  258. Your apologies are accepted, Mr. Kirby. However, I believe you also owe an apology to several of the leading Sad Puppies, when you characterize their entire effort as a self-serving promotional stunt; and to their readers, whom you mischaracterize as right-wing extremists and ‘gun nuts’. I have firsthand knowledge of their motives and intentions, and can attest that they are not what you claim them to be. (‘Vox Day’, however, is a different story. I have had polite professional dealings with him in a small way, and know no ill of him in that regard; but in respect to ‘Rabid Puppies’ I find him odious, self-serving, and treacherous to his erstwhile allies. This, too, is a distinction that the Puppy-Kicker narrative fails to understand.)

  259. I will agree, George, that you’re correct: there is a big difference in commitment between buying a $40 membership and traveling to a convention.

    For me, it’s not just the expense of a WorldCon membership, there’s also a long drive from southern Oklahoma, kenneling cost for the young dog, food and expenses for several days, the hassle of making sure that either the Con hotel is dog friendly or that we have a dog friendly hotel nearby for my traveling companion (75 pounds of elder Aussie), hotel room rent, and a long drive back.

    It is not a trivial investment for me to go to someplace where my kind of WrongFen aren’t welcome and where I probably won’t have a very good time.

    I go to Cons to enjoy myself. The types of Fen who’ve formed the basis of the Anti-Puppydom tend to make it a less than enjoyable experience, and an expensive way to not have fun.

    I kinda doubt that I’m the only one who feels that way.

    I *can* go to DragonCon and have a hell of a good time for my travel and expense.

  260. Sorry – no apology there. I think they are taking advantage of the US Culture war to gin up sales for themselves at the expense of Worldcon Fans. Then you get all this “I will never read John Scalzi, GRRM, TOR” nonsense.

    It’s just an award by committed Fans who joined Worldcon and like to talk about their books and fellowship. That’s all it is.

  261. “It’s just an award by committed Fans who joined Worldcon and like to talk about their books and fellowship. That’s all it is.” – George Kirby

    Riiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhttt.

  262. Ironbear – I wouldn’t go if it were free. Now if it was in my hometown, I might go to a panel discussion but that is true of any convention.

    I did enjoy watching the youtube presentation. I will probably do that again – from the comfort of my home.

  263. “Ironbear – I wouldn’t go if it were free. Now if it was in my hometown, I might go to a panel discussion but that is true of any convention. ” – George Kirby

    *grin* Okay, we do have a common ground then. That was kinda where I was heading with that, only not so bluntly put. 🙂

  264. @George Kirby: I think they are taking advantage of the US Culture war to gin up sales for themselves at the expense of Worldcon Fans. I think they are taking advantage of the US Culture war to gin up sales for themselves at the expense of Worldcon Fans.

    ‘Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or me?’ My eyes, thank you very much. I know you to be wrong about this.

    Then you get all this “I will never read John Scalzi, GRRM, TOR” nonsense.

    Well, I’m a neutral, but both I and my employer have been subjected to vitriolic personal attacks by one side of this brouhaha. I do not see any reason why I should reward that side by giving them my money. I prefer to take my entertainment from people who do not loudly proclaim themselves my enemies. If this seems like nonsense to you, it is probably because you have very little exposure to sense.

  265. Patrick Chester : The usual “you’re outnumbered and doomed! DOOMED I SAY!” gloat.

    Ok, so you’re not outnumbered.

    So why did “NO AWARD” win this year?

  266. @ CPaca – “No Award” won because the Fans didn’t like the ballot the puppies gave them during the nominating process. “No Award” is really a great tool for when Fans don’t think any selection is worthy of the award. It preserves the value of the award.

    At the time, there was a lot of consternation over what would happen. GRRM was saying that memberships were increasing but who where the new members and urged all members to vote. At Larry’s MHI blog people were pretty pumped. I had no idea who these new members were but I did post that whatever the Fans voted should be good enough for everyone. I don’t recall any agreement but I did not get any disagreement either.

    Then came award night. The new fans were not puppies. The freeped ballot was roundly defeated except for Guardians of the Galaxy which had broad market support. Outnumbered? Yep.

    It doesn’t take much in the way of numbers to slate vote a nomination. It takes a lot more to win a final vote. What Worldcon fans did last year was to take a step towards remedying that weakness with a reform to the nomination process. And I must say an ingenious one at that. Now they have to take the second step this year.

    It will be interesting because what the Fans did was pass two reforms. One was a 4/6 solution where each member votes for 4 nominees but the final ballot had 6 positions. And they also passed EPH discussed above. The rules require that the reforms passed last year have to be ratified this year.

    If you read Chaos Horizon’s blog he talks about 100 to 300 puppy votes next time. That’s not a lot in numbers. Chaos Horizon basically just does data crunching.

  267. Gotta agree with Tom there, Kirby. One side of this conflict has been calling fans like me and writers like Brad and Larry and others bigots, neo-Nazis, Nazis, racists, sexists, “White Males” (which is especially hilarious considering the numbers of female Puppies in both varieties of Puppy), and various other uncomplimentary things – with the blessings of Scalzi at least, if possibly not GRRM.

    (Although GRRM took umbrage predominately at the labels Puppies were using, I noticed.)

    Now, why in the world would I want to reward writers like Scalzi with my limited entertainment dollars when I know that he holds me in contempt as a reader and fan?

    (I’m leaving aside my opinion that based upon his hack job on Little Fuzzy, I don’t consider Scalzi a very talented writer and I’ll just leave it at his out-of-book opinions.)

    Why should I reward Black Gate Magazine with clicks from me, when they’ve stated their position on fans and readers like me?

    I vote with my wallet. If I find that I absolutely dislike a writer, artist, or entertainer based on their stated opinions of people like myself, and their stated opinions of my philosophies, I am not going to spend my dollars supporting them.

    Conversely, a writer who writes stories that I like isn’t going to lose money if I find that he or she has similar opinions and likes/dislikes to the ones that I hold.

    Calling me or implying that I’m a bigot or a neo-Nazi just because I happen to favor the same political philosophies or reading/writing philosophies as a group of people who write stuff that I enjoy might get a “Yeah? And… ?” but it *isn’t* gonna endear someone to me.

    I’ll leave “right-wing extremists and ‘gun nuts’” out of it, as I don’t consider those to be insults. I am a gun nut, and by the views of someone on the political left, as a libertarian I’m “right wing”. I’ve been called worse by better.

  268. Because Scalzi writes good stuff and doesn’t call you anything. This is just the US culture war boiling over into SFF. But read what you like. There are more good things to read then time to read them. It’s funny – I never read Scalzi until the pups peeked my interest. Remember that weird TOR boycott? And then Audible ran “Lock In” on sale. It was really good. BTW – Scalzi has bowed out this year.

    Chaos has his first predictions out. In the top five spots, he is predicting two puppy picks. Probably one will be John Wright. Let’s assume he is right. Anyone’s guess on what order Seveneves, Uprooted, and Ancillary Mercy finish in, but we know what likely goes in the 4 position, yes?

    https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/

  269. Scalzi doesn’t call you (us) anything? Really?

    Granted, I have to remember that the in-group side of this doesn’t *hear* anything offensive even when it’s words like “nazi” or “racist”. And explaining that your opponents REALLY object to women and minorities no matter what they say they’re objecting to isn’t “calling anyone anything”…

    Because the in-group has brains. Or something.

  270. Tell me when Scalzi publicly calls out his side on the hateful rhetoric or condemns, clearly and strongly, that Entertainment Weekly slander. In fact, George, don’t you think you could do a whole lot of good in the world by lecturing your compatriots on not being asses?

  271. “Because Scalzi writes good stuff” – George Kirby

    Meh. Scalzi did a hack job on “re-imagining” a classic H. Beam Piper story that wasn’t improved by the revamp. And he managed to make Pappy Jack Holloway a pussy in the process, and a lawyer, which is worse.

    Based on reading Fuzzy Nation, I had zero interest in trying any of his other output, and that was before I discovered the Sad Puppy thing.

    He’s… a moderately competent writer, I’ll give him that much. He really doesn’t write “good stuff”, he writes marginally readable and workable prose that’s derivative at best. A semi entertaining way to assassinate the clock for a couple of hours if I turn my brain off before cracking the cover, and have low expectations. Professionally done fan fiction – except that I’ve read much better written fan fiction.

    I’ve written much better fan fiction.

    Writers of “good stuff”, in comparison and for example, would be Lois Bujold, P. C. Hogdell, and Seven Brust, all of which write much better than merely workmanlike prose, tell a much better than “semi entertaining” story, have characters that are actually engaging, and none of which is derivative. Scalzi is no Steven Brust.

    I find the hack job on Piper to be unforgivable, whereas now that I no longer read “Whatever”, I could generally give a rats about his political opinions except for when my nose is rubbed into them. But butchering H. Beam Piper is a mortal sin. 🙂

    “and doesn’t call you anything. This is just the US culture war boiling over into SFF. ” – Kirby

    Actually, you’re incorrect. I’ve seen enough Scalzi tweets captured and posted to know that he does call people just like me all sorts of things.

    As far as the US Culture War boiling over, well… I used to mod and admin forums and sites in the graphics community. I’ve seen enough Euros and Brits poke their noses and their two cents into the US Culture wars for both fun and profit since 2000 that I’m afraid I’m really not horribly put out by our culture wars poking themselves into someone else’s fandom.

    Mostly ’cause it’s my/our fandom too. And if that puts someone or anyone’s nose out of joint, well… tough noogies. I’d say that my heart bleeds, but it really doesn’t.

    “But read what you like. There are more good things to read then time to read them.” – Kirby

    Thank you, I will. And I agree: there are tons more things on my “to read” list than I can often find time to read. (In some cases, a lot more than I can afford: thank gods we have an excellent library here where I live.)

    “Remember that weird TOR boycott?” – Kirby

    What’s weird about it? I won’t formally call it a “boycott”, but Tor is on my “vote with my wallet” list – against. I no longer buy books with a Tor or a McMillan imprint.

    I don’t buy from companies that I know support anti-gun politicians and organizations, either, unless I absolutely positively cannot avoid doing so.

    “Anyone’s guess on what order Seveneves, Uprooted, and Ancillary Mercy finish in, but we know what likely goes in the 4 position, yes? ” – Kirby

    I have no clue. Surprise me. I can predict the past with nearly 100% accuracy, and the present with marginally less, but my crystal ball is a bit spotty on the future. And I’ve given up on predicting people.

  272. @julieapascal

    Well, rats. You slipped in ahead of me before I was done typing. Nicely stated, Julie. 🙂

  273. In fact, as someone who’s read and enjoyed Scalzi’s science fiction since Glen Reynold’s promoted Old Man’s War on Instapundit in 2005 and who has been aware of Scalzi’s blog and his various activities and dramas and what-not ever since, and who has even quite often defended him during those many pre-Puppy years when the stupid was directed his direction, I think that I’m far more an In-Group Fan re: Scalzi than someone who just “discovered” him because someone else was complaining about his particular brand of stupid related to Sad Puppies. Don’t you?

  274. Bah… it’s just that “I knew nothing about this or how it happened until this summer but I know who’s at fault and it’s you” that is so freakishly predictable and tiring.

  275. @ Julie said: “I think that I’m far more an In-Group Fan re: Scalzi than someone who just “discovered” him because someone else was complaining about his particular brand of stupid related to Sad Puppies. Don’t you?”

    I don’t know what that means.

  276. Tom wrote:
    Or maybe, you know, just maybe he wasn’t trying to do what your fevered brain imagines he was.

    Now, now. Why should Kirby let little things like reality get in the way of his beliefs?

  277. Chester are you not the one for a reality check? Your slate got no awarded. Fans soundly spanked the pups. Pups are going to get spanked again this year and then… pups will fade in the background.

    And you have a mission with no cause. You want to interfere in Worldcon Fan’s convention because… wingnut leaders fabricate some conspiracy about SJW and cabals? What great SFF conservative work was denied by the cabal?

    It’s just Fans voting on an award. That’s all. Reality check dude.

  278. So you keep saying. Again I ask: Whom are you trying to convince? You aren’t the first one to try the “it’s hopeless” bleat to get people you hate to give up and go away. It seems to irritate you when I point that out so I guess I’ll keep doing it.

    It’s cute that you keep proclaiming following the rules as “interfering” and other nefarious words since the people following the rules hold views you don’t like and therefore deserve to be despised. Oh, the rules need to be changed so the filthy rabble (as opposed to “Fans”) can’t do that again. Reminds me of a Twitter exchange I saw some months ago:

    https://archive.is/JGNp8

    “I agree. No rules were broken. Still cheating.”

    You sound like a kindred spirit.

  279. Michael Rothman

    If your statement means you believe that Leckie writes a book and it then wins awards (or not) on merit, then we are entirely in agreement. If by your use of “leverage” you are implying she engages in something beyond that, then we are not.

  280. >>Julie Frost : Mark, I love how you completely glossed over the fact that if Brad had put Andy Weir on his list, the puppy-kickers would have no-awarded him just as hard as they did everyone else.

    >>Like they did with “Guardians of the Galaxy”?

    If you can’t see the difference between the literary categories, where every single puppy nomineewithout exception–was voted below No Award, and a “dramatic presentation” category in which everyone had already seen the nominees without being “tainted” by who nominated them, then I can’t help you. You are willfully blind. Have fun with that.

    >>Have you considered that the only way to prove your point is for SPs to actually nominate something really good for the awards, the best sf produced that year, and then dare people to vote against it? Because IF AND WHEN you do that, you’ll see the “No Award” votes fracture.

    Except my very favorite book of the year was nominated. And finished below No Award. So. Uh. Maybe I just have bad taste in Number One New York Times Bestsellers.

    >>Because Scalzi writes good stuff.

    I bounced off him pretty hard. He’s not my cup of tea. Funny how taste works, isn’t it. I think Jim Butcher writes good stuff. I think Larry writes good stuff. I think Kary writes good stuff. Scalzi gets a giant “meh” out of me.

    >>There is a big difference in commitment between buying a $40 membership and traveling to a convention.

    Yes. Yes there is. Thank you, Captain Obvious. There is most certainly a vast difference between spending $40, and spending upwards of two grand, which is what my bills have come to for each of the two WorldCons I have attended (Denvention3 and ChiCon7). Which gets into a matter of the “privilege” that people squawk about, and why I can’t for the life of me figure out why those selfsame people aren’t thrilled to death that more people found out that they actually could participate last year. The more the merrier? Huzzah? No? This gatekeeping thing where there are Fans and fans is truly puzzling to me. Get off your lawn?

    >>“No Award” is really a great tool for when Fans don’t think any selection is worthy of the award. It preserves the value of the award.

    Or when they decide to make their displeasure over a bunch of upstarts and “party crashers” “hijacking” their award known via a temper tantrum of vast proportions.

  281. Ironbear, not you!

    Unless you’re posting on Scalzi’s blog explaining about how Larry has never done anything to piss anyone off and then saying you didn’t even know Larry existed before Sad Puppies… and I don’t think you’re doing that. (I say Larry rather than Brad because the equivalence doesn’t work for Brad.)

  282. @George

    You clearly think Larry and Mr. Wright are bad writers. HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING THEY WROTE THIS YEAR? Somewither and Son of the Black Sword are the 2 best novels I’ve read this year. And let’s face it, the ASPs aren’t going to nominate Mr. Sanderson so Tor can actually have an author with a broad fanbase on the ballot. You think the Puppies are insignificant? Why is Castalia House growing? Why did they and not a “major” publisher get There Will Be War?

  283. And I approve in every way of ANYONE who discovers an author they like be it Scalzi or Leckie or Brad or Larry or Jim Butcher or Kary English or whoever it is… because finding stories that are great and authors that appeal is good and important and grows and strengthens the genre. “Everything you like sucks!” makes it smaller, loses fans, loses the next generation to ComicCon and Vampire porn, kills the size of print runs, and on from there.

    It matters that person after person comes forward and says they’d given up reading anything that wasn’t “old”, that they’d been burned too often, and finally someone said try *that* guy, if nothing else you’ll have fun.

  284. I think it’s funny to hear Steve Davidson implying that he’ll stop the “hate the Sad Puppy movement” if the Sad Puppies meet his conditions.

    Just how powerful does he think he is?

    GRRM is much more of a Big Name in Fandom (note the capital F) than Steve Davidson is and I don’t think GRRM could stop the Hatred toward Sad Puppies. [Evil Grin]

  285. “If you can’t see the difference between the literary categories, where every single puppy nominee—without exception–was voted below No Award, and a “dramatic presentation” category in which everyone had already seen the nominees without being “tainted” by who nominated them, then I can’t help you. You are willfully blind. Have fun with that.”

    I see you’re still on this. First of all, it’s one hell of an assumption that all the voters who voted on BDP had seen the candidates prior to the nominations – ie I’d never seen Flash before that frex. Conversely, I’d read Butcher beforehand, so there was no “taint” as you put it. I still didn’t think it was in my top 5 or so of 2015. Secondly this is far more…nuanced 🙂 than your initial claim that all those mean non-Pups voted against the slate “No Matter What”.

    Just think about what you’re saying – that when there was something that was good and well liked, people voted for it, regardless of the slates. This is exactly the point being made.

    Once again, if you want to claim that BDP was somehow quantitatively different, I think some further explanation may be in order. Otherwise it’s still just handwaving away of inconvenient facts because they don’t fit your preferred narrative.

  286. Oh, Drak, you’re just saying that because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND FANDOM.

  287. @Alfred – yes. I read Larry. MHI is ok gun porn. It is nothing exceptional. I have read Vox Day too. He is an idiot. I have Wright – also an idiot. Wordy idiot at that. But if you like them, fine and dandy. They just are never going to be worthy of Hugos.

    But if they were Jesus F. Hemmingway, it would make do difference. Pups shouldn’t try to hijack an award. But they will.

    The leaders have found a great marketing tool and a small number of wingers will follow nose to tail the pack leaders. We will get a list with a wink nod no slate slate.

    We will get one more round of no awards. And then next year the kerfuffles will end.

    But the Larry/Brad/Vox target marketing scam will go on. Oh you guys. Seeze ya later.

  288. Chuckle Chuckle

    Oh, I understand FANDOM better than FANDOM thinks I do.

    But then FANDOM doesn’t understand me or Sad Puppies. [Sad Smile]

  289. “This category is for popular media movie mega blockbuster special effect movies” is clearly not something worth defending with a scorched earth counter attack. This should be obvious to an impartial observer. It proves nothing at all about anything at all that an award category having nothing to do whatsoever with just who feels that they get to dictate taste and value in science fiction literature and in publishing, and who it is doesn’t get to and ought to just go away and die, wasn’t fire bombed along with everything else in order to Save the Integrity of the Hugos as a literary award.

    We all learned the “one of these things is not like the others” game on Sesame Street. It’s not difficult to see the difference here, it’s just inconvenient when person after person after person defends the mass No Awarding as necessary to punish, discourage and defeat the interlopers, burn it down so they can’t have it and all that… and then someone comes here and tries to use that one clearly non-literary exception to prove that all of those claims of righteous anger and noble purpose in rushing in to vote No Award aren’t true?

    I don’t think you’re lying to us, snowcrash. I think you’re lying to yourself if you think that the huge “save the integrity of the Hugos and defeat the racist neo-nazi homophobes” block voting No Awarders each personally read each category with open minds, made their sad decisions, and then shook their heads and said, wow, at least those Puppies know their movies!

    Just as the people who’ve posted blogs about how, well, it’s probably okay not to hound an author who is nominated this time around or destroy them if they jump through a bunch of “I really really hate those racist neo-nazi homophobes so you can vote for me if you want to with a good conscience” hoops, are not intending in any way to fairly and honestly decide if a nominated story is good or not on it’s own merits. Pretending those people do not exist or have no influence is not going to make them go away. Maybe instead of lecturing us, you ought to go clean house.

  290. “But if they were Jesus F. Hemmingway, it would make do (no) difference.”

    Right there, snowcrash. Easy peasy. Go for it.

  291. >> I read Larry. MHI is ok gun porn. It is nothing exceptional.

    Wow. So you read a dude’s first novel, written clear back in 2008, dismissed it as gun porn, and now feel confident in judging every single other book of his by that rubric. I guess, by that criterion, saying Scalzi built his entire career starting with “Android’s Dream” with fart jokes is also fair? But, you know, Scalzi writes that award-worthy stuff.

    I don’t know about any of the other writers here, but I think I can say with a fair amount of confidence that I’ve vastly improved in the last seven years.

  292. @George said: “I have Wright – also an idiot. Wordy idiot at that.”

    I wasn’t impressed by The Parliament of Birds & Beasts either and thought the Hugo-nominated City Beyond Time stories were good, average fun. The wordy writing style, yep, drove me mad.

    I began reading Somewhither with some trepidation, but it’s freaking insane (in a good way). Like C.S. Lewis and H.P. Lovecraft co-rewrote Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons after a drug-addled road trip in Hunter S. Thompson’s hired red Chevy convertible. Oh, and he’s dropped the portentous writing for something more pulpy.

  293. Right there, snowcrash. Easy peasy. Go for it

    I think it’s telling that you think that someone else’s voting metric applies to me, much less some vast and nebulous “save the integrity of the Hugos and defeat the racist neo-nazi homophobes” voting bloc that seems to have taken residence in your mind. Shall we call them StrawFen, and note what a bunch of arseholes they are?

  294. @julieapascal: “Ironbear, not you!”

    Cool. Didn’t think so. Just checking. Just the way that came in right behind my post and was a bit ambiguous as to target made me go, “Huh? Whut?”

    Hey, I’m perfectly capable of thoroughly pissing you off, I’m sure. But if I do, I want make sure I do it on purpose and not by complete accident. 😉

  295. @george kirby:

    ” I read Larry. MHI is ok gun porn.” – kirby

    What Larry writes is barely gun porn, hate to have to tell you. Vin Supremowitz writes *gun porn*. The guys who used to write the old Mack Bolan pastiches after Don Pendelton dropped out write gun porn. The guy who wrote the old “The Survivalist” series writes gun porn.

    What Larry Correia writes is action/adventure with just enough description of the weapons to let you know what the protagonist and adversaries are using, but not so much that it bogs down.

    *Gun porn* is something completely different.

    I mean, I doubt that you really care because “gun porn” is one of those descriptive shibboleths that leftists throw around without actual meaning behind it, like “right wing”, “gun nut”, and “fascist” whenever they want to be cute and dismissive. I doubt that you’d recognize actual gun porn if you tripped over it and it went off and shot you in the dick.

    ” Pups shouldn’t try to hijack an award.” – kirby

    Ummm…. why not?

  296. I’m curious to see how many nominating ballots are submitted this year. Those last 2500+ last minute (figuratively speaking) memberships that felt the need to vote no award last summer in order to save the Hugos better produce some pretty freaking awesome nominations this spring so they don’t have to save the Hugos again.

    I really hope EPH dies. It’s unnecessarily complicated. The current system rewards least hated rather than most liked. For those that don’t want a true first past the post system, I think something like one of the current college football polls would work. Rank your nominees, each rank is awarded a certain amount of points (1 = 10 pts, 2 = 8 pts, 3 = 5 pts, etc), tabulate all the votes and the one with the most points wins. Tie breakers can be determined by who had the most 1st place votes.

  297. “Those last 2500+ last minute (figuratively speaking) memberships that felt the need to vote no award last summer in order to save the Hugos better produce some pretty freaking awesome nominations this spring so they don’t have to save the Hugos again.” – kamas716

    But but but – haven’t you heard?! (00) George Kirby says that there’ll be one more kerfluffle (presumably with acrimony and mass Noah Warding) this year and then EPH will ensure that the Puppies all go away.

    And George Kirby is a Noted Authority, so there! Nyah!

    Which means of course, if true, that after 2017, WorldCon can go back to dying on the vine with its ever dwindling membership until it finally dries up and blows away.

  298. Yeah, gotta agree with the assessment of the “gun porn” comments. I don’t actually believe that Kirby read MHI, given that it’s definitely not gun porn except for that one passage about Abomination. But that was less than a full page.

    Also agree on Somewhither being a departure from what I’ve read of Wright. I actually enjoyed Parliament, but my standard for “wordy and obtuse” is set pretty high.

  299. Yeah, seriously. I mean, I love the three MHI books I managed to track down and read, but I’ve read John Ross’ “Unintended Consequences”.

    If Monster Hunter International is gun porn, then it’s CineMax, and Unintended Consequences is Triple-X from Kink dot com.

  300. The MH series has really only gotten better, especially as Larry expanded the narrative focus to characters who aren’t Pitt. Nemesis is the best of the lot.

  301. Haven’t gotten there yet. Had to go outside of my local library to a nearby (bigger) one to find a copy of Monster Hunter: Alpha. I was amazed that our small town local had MHI and Monster Hunter Vendetta – the Dallas library system didn’t have them back in 2012.

  302. ” Pups shouldn’t try to hijack an award.” – kirby

    Ummm…. why not?

    Because following the rules and trying to get the works you like nominated is only for the True Fans to do. Not the filthy rabble like us. So folks like Kirby screech “hijacking” and swoons.

  303. “Because following the rules and trying to get the works you like nominated is only for the True Fans to do. Not the filthy rabble like us. So folks like Kirby screech “hijacking” and swoons.”

    Ah. Thought that might be it.

    Oddly enough, saying that I “shouldn’t try” to do something is something I often take as a challenge to do that thing. I’m gonna go out on a limb and figure that the Pups take it the same way.

    Meh. Whatever. Kirby is well on his way to joining my list of people like camestrosfelapton and snowcrash whom I just discount their posts as being null content and skip past them to someone with something worth reading to say.

  304. You should check if your library system has a request system. Most have a backlog of books to acquire, and requests can get a book added to the list or pushed up.

  305. *blink* Derp. Yeah, you’re right, and I didn’t even think of that. The derp part comes in because I even knew that – I got the Dallas library to get a few items they didn’t have through the inter-library loan system a couple of times.

    I’ll have to see if ours can do that.

  306. I got an idea, Georgie. Why don’t you go and taunt Beale over at Vox Popoli, rather than sneering futilely from the perceived safety of Brad’s site’s comments section?

    Oh, wait, I forgot. You’d have to have a pair to do that, and apparently yours haven’t dropped yet. Never mind.

  307. Ironbear is right, Mr. Kirby. If you want to insult Theodore Beale (which, for all I know, may be a noble pastime), do it to his face. It’s wildly irrelevant here.

  308. The anti-Puppies always come to Sad Puppy sites to insult Rabid Puppies.

    You know, if someone who didn’t know the context read what I just wrote, they would be completely baffled.

  309. Let’s see.

    “It appears Little Teddy is going to play at Goodreads. That should be fun. Go get em Teddy.” – Kirby

    Huh. Sure looks like one to me.

    ” Was that at taunt? I didn’t realize.” – Kirby

    You’re a disingenuous twat, Kirby, and a liar. You apparently have… issues… with Vox Day, and you also obviously have issues with veracity and believe that all onlookers here are stupid enough to be fooled by your smirking attempt at cute disavowal.

    “I try to avoid websites like Teddy’s for the same reason I try to avoid gas station bathrooms”

    Bullshit.

    You avoid going over to Vox’s site to sneer at him directly from his comment section because you’re the blog comment section equivalent of a forum weasel, only without the forum weasel’s backbone.

    I’ll note that the “VD” that posts here, at MHI, and at the comment section of AccordingtoHoyt on occasion is Vox Day, so you’re not exactly safe from having the Evil and Horrible Vox pop up here and say “Boo!” at you.

    Try not to crap your underoos if he does.

  310. Dear Mr Simon:

    Sure it is relevant here. Rabid pup. Sad pup. It’s all the same author driven marketing scam. Little Teddy is discussing what I said here. He is commenting on this thread and this thread is about puppy futures.

    The ironbear with an iron pair says… “. I see you caught my and George Kirby’s little interaction at Brad’s. Yeah, Kirby’s not only a putz, he’s a dishonest putz.”

    I say it was sufficiently cross polluted (yes, that was intentional use).

  311. The iron bear with the iron pair says: “I’ll note that the “VD” that posts here, at MHI, and at the comment section of AccordingtoHoyt on occasion is Vox Day, so you’re not exactly safe from having the Evil and Horrible Vox pop up here and say “Boo!” at you.”

    You guys really are funny.

    Just so you know, my comment about Little Teddy has to do with his tiny numbers making an impact at Goodreads. I was just laughing at him more than taunting him.

  312. George Kirby until the pups peeked my interest.

    *sigh* – “piqued”. Irritates the hell out of me when I see that mistake in student essays.

    At a tangent, I’ll note that JCW’s “reliability” with the facts has been clearly demonstrated with his latest screed, which starts off with “This is a quote from a Mr. Steve Davidson of Amazing Stories. If you have not heard his name before, neither have I.“.

    Here’s a link to a post of his from April in which he criticizes Davidson by name http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/04/more-libel/ .

    John Wright is a demonstrated liar, and it’s not even difficult to prove that.

    I hope that adds a bit of perspective on why ordinary fans seem to be a bit sceptical about Puppy complaints.

  313. @George Kirby: Rabid pup. Sad pup. It’s all the same author driven marketing scam.

    Lie: Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies are not affiliated. They are separate groups working for diametrically opposed purposes. The goal of Sad Puppies is to bring new blood into the Hugo voting process so that the award actually represents the taste of science fiction fans, instead of merely pretending to do so. The goal of Rabid Puppies is to burn the Hugos to the ground. Of course, you are incapable of perceiving the difference between these things, because you are rendered suffocatingly stupid by the habitual practice of Kulturbolschewismus.

    Lie: Neither SP nor RP is a ‘marketing scam’. This idea is entirely your own invention.

    The facts of the matter are readily available, as the principals and supporters of each group have repeatedly stated what their motives are and what goals they hope to achieve. You can have enlightenment for the price of a Google search, but you prefer ignorance.

  314. Errgh. That was aimed at Kirby, CPaca, not you, even though you popped into the crossfire.

  315. @George Kirby, addendum: The ironbear with an iron pair says… “. I see you caught my and George Kirby’s little interaction at Brad’s. Yeah, Kirby’s not only a putz, he’s a dishonest putz.”

    OK, go there and yap about it. If you want to discuss the comments at Vox Populi, the Vox Populi comment box would be a logical place to do it. Or your own blog. Here, you just look like you want to complain to third parties because you haven’t the cojones to address the person being complained of.

  316. It takes a good writer to make somebody as unhuman as Franks a character that you want to follow. [Smile]

    Oh, loved the following.

    Quote

    “An intruder! Seize him!” The demon gave the imperious command, but then it recognized who it was and shrieked in fear. Just about everything from the other side knew his reputation. “Oh shit! It’s Franks! Run!”

    End Quote

    [Very Very Big Evil Grin]

  317. CPaca said: “*sigh* – “piqued”. … John Wright is a demonstrated liar, and it’s not even difficult to prove that.”

    Thanks for the correction. I hate that you wrote that about John though. Now the ironbear will have to go full null – content on poor old JW.

    I read John’s rant. I got to:

    “Here’s what it will take to make peace, at least as far as this Vile, Faceless Minion is concerned … The Dark Lord of the ELoE must be reinstated to full (and fully paid-up) membership in the SFWA, with full apologies from the board. Failing that N. K. Jemison, John Scalzi, and PNH must be immediately expelled from SFWA.”

    Then I burst out laughing. I didn’t finish the rest.

  318. @George Kirby: Then I burst out laughing. I didn’t finish the rest.

    Of course you didn’t. Mr. Wright’s point was that Beale was expelled from SFWA for alleged offences which Jemison, Scalzi, and PNH had also committed; and that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Either none of the four deserved to be expelled, or all of them did.

    However, since Kulturbolschewismus makes you incapable of seeing any wrongdoing committed by your side, or anything but wrongdoing in the actions of the side opposed, you react to this with total incomprehension. You then fall back on the response of the born fool: ‘Duh, I don’t understand this, so it must be dumb.’

  319. @George Kirby: Yeah Tom – go back and read again. You missed something.

    I’m not responsible for what your fevered imagination thinks I may have missed. I read what’s written and form my opinion of the writer accordingly. I am frequently criticized for this; people think it is somehow my fault that I respond to what they wrote instead of what they meant but didn’t say. Unlike you, I know I’m not a mind-reader.

  320. Tom Simon,

    You wish to say that SP and RP are separate. You are commenting on a SP blog and defending the leader of RP. Do you wonder why people see connections between the two?

    (To head off unnecessary exchanges, I don’t think SP and RP are identical, but they clearly have supporters in common, and their leadership is connected to some extent. That they have areas of divergence doesn’t preclude them having significant commonalities)

  321. The goal of Sad Puppies is to bring new blood into the Hugo voting process so that the award actually represents the taste of science fiction fans, instead of merely pretending to do so.

    I thought it was to get Larry Correia a Hugo to which he believed he was entitled. Others – notably the Hugo voters – disagreed about that entitlement.

    But well done, you did indeed bring new blood into the Hugo voting, and it did indeed reflect the taste of sf fans. Which is why you lost.

    Mr. Wright’s point was that Beale was expelled from SFWA for alleged offences which Jemison, Scalzi, and PNH had also committed; and that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    Pardon me, but I believe you mean “offences which he, John Wright, alleged Jemison, Scalzi and PNH had already committed”. As far as I know, neither Jemison, Scalzi, or PNH had hijacked the SFWA Twitter feed to post racist comments about another author.

    The problem with relying on allegations from John Wright is that John Wright is a demonstrated liar.

  322. They Live On The Same Planet! It’s a conspiracy!!!! [Very Big Evil Grin]

  323. @CPaca If the goal of the Sad Puppies was to get Larry a Hugo, then why did he refuse his nomination last year and announce that he would refuse all future nominations?

  324. CPaca, I went back and read about the whole Beale thing at Making Light but who really cares. It is ancient history. Almost nobody is going to listen to or read Beale’s stuff.

    Really good stuff is going to rise to the top and often get awarded (although Tom thinks it is a leftist plot). And a lot of authors are going to be awarded by sales. And then there are going to be some that drum up business by rabble rousing. That’s what you see here. “But but but Scalzi and Jemison….”. What a yawn, yes?

    But it’s fine. You know, let them sell and let the pups read. The only sticking point was they tried to destroy an award ceremony over it (Tom says it wasn’t him). That is fixed with EPH. So now I ask you… after this year are you going to care what pups (and Tom) think about Beale and his expulsion from SFWA?

    We can talk about it this year because EPH isn’t in place. But next year… I won’t be here.

  325. @David he refused it because it was a futile cause. Larry will never win a Hugo. And Larry shouldn’t win a Hugo. It doesn’t matter how many blogs Larry writes comparing himself to Stephen King and saying he should get one.

  326. George Kirby: Yeah Tom — nobody cares. But let them push their holy war. Gotta sale books somehow, yes?

    In other words, you don’t care, and you are merely going to repeat your proven lies.

    Mark: You wish to say that SP and RP are separate. You are commenting on a SP blog and defending the leader of RP. Do you wonder why people see connections between the two?

    SP and RP are separate. I am not defending the leader of RP; I have no particular time for him. The only thing I have said is that if Mr. Kirby wants to attack the leader of RP, this is not a good place to do it. How precisely does that constitute defending anybody?

    CPaca: I thought it was to get Larry Correia a Hugo to which he believed he was entitled.

    Yes, because you believed the lies spread by his avowed enemies, instead of listening to what Mr. Correia himself has been saying with absolute consistency for the past three years. As mentioned several times above, he has actually refused to be placed on the SP list for nomination. By what twisted effort of logic do you get from ‘refuses even to be nominated for a Hugo‘ to ‘does everything in order to win a Hugo’?

    Pardon me, but I believe you mean “offences which he, John Wright, alleged Jemison, Scalzi and PNH had already committed”. As far as I know, neither Jemison, Scalzi, or PNH had hijacked the SFWA Twitter feed to post racist comments about another author.

    If Scalzi or PNH use the official SFWA Twitter for purposes of defamation, that is not considered ‘hijacking’. But let anybody say post a tweet from the opposed point of view, and clearly that is a crime worthy of expulsion. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

    The problem with relying on allegations from John Wright is that John Wright is a demonstrated liar.

    John Wright has demonstrated that he does not agree with the SFWA/WSFS pravda. Based on firsthand knowledge (and on having read the actual remarks made by Mr. Beale and the others) I can say that Mr. Wright’s version of events accords much more closely with the facts than yours. It is you, not he, who is the liar here.

  327. @George Kirby:@David he refused it because it was a futile cause. Larry will never win a Hugo. ]

    Do you even read what you write? You are steadfastly maintaining these two things:

    1. SP exists solely in order to get Larry Correia a Hugo Award.
    2. Larry Correia knows that it is impossible for him ever to win a Hugo Award.

    You can’t have it both ways. Which one of these claims are you prepared to give up, in order to salvage the other one?

  328. Tom – I am tempted to instruct you to go back and read again. Larry started the SP movement to get him a Hugo. He blogged about it and compared himself to Stephen King at one point. All that crap is there on MHI. He then at some point took himself out of contention but it doesn’t mean anything because he is never going to win a Hugo. So him giving something up means absolutely nothing – it wasn’t his to give up.

  329. SP 1 and 2 were run by Larry and he placed himself at the top of the list each time. He handed SP3 over to Brad and then recused himself after the nomination stage.

    He ran two campaigns specifically aimed at getting himself a Hugo. Giving up on that aim later doesn’t change how and why he started it.

  330. @Mark: I was referring to your defence of VDs well-deserved expulsion from SFWA.

    I am inclined to agree with Mr. Wright. Scalzi, PNH, and Jemisin did not commit the exact offences Beale did, but they used SFWA channels with equal impropriety. If Beale deserves expulsion, so do they. But they will never be expelled, because they are part of the right claque.

    The rules of SFWA are not there to be obeyed; they are merely there to give an excuse for punishing people whom the leaders wish to make an example of. It’s an old, old story, and has played itself out thousands of times in petty social clubs all over the world.

  331. He ran two campaigns specifically aimed at getting himself a Hugo. Giving up on that aim later doesn’t change how and why he started it.

    He ran two campaigns specifically aimed at getting a wider variety of people involved in the Hugo voting. That his own works were nominated does not logically entail the conclusion that the sole purpose of the campaigns was to get those nominations.

  332. @George Kirby:

    From the link you cited, here is Larry Correia’s actual pitch:

    Okay, so you’re not going to be in Texas this year, but how about this? For $60 you can buy a supporting membership (and later on you can upgrade it to a full membership if you actually want to attend). This allows you to nominate whoever you want for the various Hugo awards. You tell them what you think the best books of the year were, the best TV shows, movies, even book review sites.

    (Boldface added.)

    Note, please, the emoticon in the title of the post. The title was what we in the real world call a Joke. This concept is evidently unfamiliar to you in whatever world you inhabit. In any case, the text makes it clear that Mr. Correia was exhorting people to nominate whoever they wanted, and trying to publicize the fact that you can participate in the Hugo process without spending thousands of dollars and a week of your time to actually attend Worldcon.

    What, did you think we were so gullible that we would take your word for what Mr. Correia said? Pish.

  333. Tom Simon,
    >>”That his own works were nominated does not logically entail the conclusion that the sole purpose of the campaigns was to get those nominations.”

    No, but that’s not the only piece of information supporting that conclusion. The first campaign was explicitly to get a Hugo for him, and him alone. SP2 had several items on the slate beyond Larry, but marshalling allies and leveraging other authors fans doesn’t change that his core motivation continued from SP1. That the campaign has broadened and gained various extra motivations and justifications from new participants such as Brad, MGC, and VD doesn’t mask how and why it started.

  334. @Tom. I find it interesting George missed this little quote as well:
    If you want to poke the establishment in the eye, you will need to buy your supporting membership (and don’t forget you’ll get a big packet of free eBooks and stories so it is actually a decent deal) you’ll need to do it before the end of the month.

    Oh wait, that kind of threatens the Narrative, plus it’s disrespectful to George’s Lords and Masters: The True Fans.

    Tom wrote:
    What, did you think we were so gullible that we would take your word for what Mr. Correia said? Pish.

    Nooooo…. you were supposed to just read the title and surrender! Not actually see what Correia wrote and make judgements based on that! 😉

    Ah well, back to Belsavis.

  335. @mark, even if what you say is true about SP1 and SP2 (which I don’t agree)

    what difference does that make about SP4 after he has announced that he refuses all future nominations and directs his heirs to do so as well? (or SP3 after he refused the nomination)

    Even if it started off as a personal campaign, he would hardly be the first to campaign for the hugo, Even GRRM has stated that hugo campaigns have been around for decades. He may be the first to do so publicly rather than behind the scenes, but hardly the first to campaign.

    but it really is a moot point when looking at the SP3 and SP4.

  336. @Tom said: “In other words, you don’t care, and you are merely going to repeat your proven lies.”

    So the topic was the expulsion of Little Teddy from SFWA and your equivalence argument about Scalzi. So nobody cares about that. That’s really a bad term. Almost nobody cares about that. Sure puppies care about that. And they care about collectivist and leftist and affirmative action in awards and TOR rigging the Hugos and Scalzi having a non gendered novel and all that other stuff the pups chat about. But in general… almost nobody cares about that stuff. The pups were not even on my radar until SPIII. When I chatted about SFF with my reading groups, we were not talking about pups. We were just talking about the books. For the most part, we will still just talking about the books.

    If pups had not hijacked the nomination ballet we still wouldn’t be talking about pups. Only pups would be talking about pups. That’s how it will be in future years.

  337. I have read the whole article. The calls to vote for Larry are clear and explicit and repeated. Use of a smiley does not negate everything he wrote.

  338. Tom Simon : SP and RP are separate.

    http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/02/sad-puppies-3-the-slatening/

    Brad Torgersen is this year’s banner carrier in our ongoing war against Puppy Related Sadness. Now that the registrations for memberships to nominate for the Hugo are closed, here is what the Evil League of Evil authors came up with in discussion.

    https://naomikritzer.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/vox-days-involvement-in-the-sad-puppies-slate/

    [Larry Correia] ran two campaigns specifically aimed at getting a wider variety of people involved in the Hugo voting.

    This would be via the post kicking off Sad Puppies entitled, um, “How to get Correia nominated for a Hugo“?

    http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/08/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo/

    (just imagine with me… Should I vote for the heavy handed message fic about the dangers of fracking and global warming and dying polar bears and robot rape as a bad feminist analogy with a villain who is a thinly veiled Dick Cheney? Or should I vote for the LAS VEGAS EXPLOSION SHOOTING EVERYTHING DRAGON HELICOPTER CHASE ORC SACRIFICING CHICKENS BOOK!?! Grglglgggggsllll………BOOM!)

    And for my Texas readers, if I get nominated, I will go to San Antonio, hang out on the River Walk gorging myself on awesome barbeque and burritos bigger than my head, and I will sign all your books! I’ll sign firearms! I’ll sign firearms accessories! I’ll sign your beautiful Texas women!*

    CPaca: I thought it was to get Larry Correia a Hugo to which he believed he was entitled.

    Yes, because you believed the lies spread by his avowed enemies, instead of listening to what Mr. Correia himself has been saying with absolute consistency for the past three years.

    Once again, the title of his post on the subject – “How to get Correia nominated for a Hugo“.

    Tell us more about this “absolute consistency”, Tom.

  339. @ Mark – Colbert once said reality had a well known liberal bias. For the pup it is an out right lie.

    “I wuz robbed” Larry writes:

    “$60! Sure, Correia, I love sticking it to the man, and having Monster Hunter Legion get nominated for best novel would make literati snob’s heads explode, but I don’t know if exploding English professor’s heads is worth sixty whole dollars! That would buy several pounds of little chocolate doughnuts or half a box of 9mm! …. But wait there’s more!…Basically, you get more money worth of reading material than the cost of your supporting membership, plus exploding literati heads!”

    “I wuz robbed” Larry writes:

    “Give me an excuse to go to Texas! Please. I haven’t been to Texas in three years. Okay, really I will probably be going there on tour this year anyway (thinking of doing a Texas to Florida road trip), but seriously, I love San Antonio.

    So for $60 you can stick it to the man, and the next time one of your coworkers looks over your shoulder to see what you’re reading, and they’re all like “I’m a douchebag that only reads what English professors or Oprah’s book club say is profound. That’s stupid and has guns and is stupid in your stupid face.” And then you can say, “But it got nominated for a Hugo.” And then they will EXPLODE!** ”

    You guys keep wasting your $60.

  340. David Lang

    Larry was the first to harness political and culture war motivations to call on people to vote for reasons other than merit. When the award is for merit, that’s a problem. SP3 inherited Larry’s tactics. It remains to be seen how SP4 will operate, but the principals have taken the political motivation factor to heart.

  341. @George Kirby: Sure puppies care about that. And they care about collectivist and leftist and affirmative action in awards and TOR rigging the Hugos and Scalzi having a non gendered novel and all that other stuff the pups chat about. But in general… almost nobody cares about that stuff.

    The Trufans obviously care about all these things, because they vote Hugos to the people who do them, and screech and throw feces if anybody tries to interfere.

    You’re right: In general, almost nobody cares about that stuff. So, for instance, the fact that Ancillary Justice plays silly-buggers with personal pronouns does not make it either a good or an interesting book; and most of the people who read SFF are not interested in it. It was an interesting idea fifty years ago, and The Left Hand of Darkness was an interesting book. But why give someone an award for pretending that it’s a new idea now?

    Ah, but the capital-F Fans of capital-F Fandom, who conceive that they are the only real SFF readers on Earth, do care about ‘collectivist and leftist and affirmative action in awards’, etc., etc. They care so much that they are the ones who actually spend time perpetrating these things. All the Puppies did was dare to propose an alternative. There’s nothing wrong with that, either ethically, or by the specific rules of WSFS. But the capital-F Fans are so outraged that they will burn their own award to the ground before they let outsiders have a voice in the process. And they will do everything in their power to attack and alienate neutral parties. I wasn’t interested in Puppydom until people started calling me and my coworkers neo-Nazis.

    My position in all this can be admirably put in the words of Treebeard:

    ‘I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side.… And there are some things, of course, whose side I am altogether not on; I am against them altogether: these – burárum – these Orcs, and their masters.’

    Call me and mine your enemies, and you will make us so. Attack us with malicious lies, and we will look for lies and malice in all your attacks on other people; and so I have found them.

  342. Tom Simon : Note, please, the emoticon in the title of the post. The title was what we in the real world call a Joke.

    Regarding SP1 – http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/21/quick-reminder-sad-puppies-2-only-available-until-the-end-of-the-month/

    Some people rejoice in sad puppies. They say that having one tiny group of fans always vote for their favorites is “tradition”. They call popular author’s attempts to stir up their non-WorldCon attending fanbase to vote in their little popularity contest as “vulgar”. By being vulgar and super non-traditional Larry Correia’s Sad Puppies 1 campaign only missed the Best Novel cutoff by a few votes, and those brave souls who supported him last year can do so again for FREE this year. But he needs more help… Larry Correia fans are far more likely to spend $40 on ammo, or snacks for while they watch the new season of Justified than to join WorldCon, and if they actually attended a WorldCon they would probably be very, very bored.

    http://www.webcitation.org/6aS3s3zLP (Larry Correia, “My Hugo Slate”, March 25 2014, aka Sad Puppies 2)

    Best Novel

    Warbound, the Grimnoir Chronicles – Larry Correia – Baen
    A Few Good Men – Sarah Hoyt – Baen

    http://www.thehugoawards.org/2014/04/2014-hugo-awards-finalists-announced-3/ (“2014 Hugo Awards Finalists Announced”)

    http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2014-hugo-awards/ (2014 Hugo Awards)

    Best Novel (1595 nominating ballots)

    Ancillary Justice, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
    Neptune’s Brood, Charles Stross (Ace / Orbit UK)
    Parasite, Mira Grant (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
    The Wheel of Time, Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson (Tor Books / Orbit UK)
    Warbound, Book III of the Grimnoir Chronicles, Larry Correia (Baen Books)

  343. @Mark: Larry was the first to harness political and culture war motivations to call on people to vote for reasons other than merit.

    Bull. Mr. Correia’s entire point was that the awards were already being given for political and culture-war motivations by the Left, and to works that had little or no merit. You, of course, will disagree with this; quite possibly you believe that only Leftist works are capable of having merit – I have seen this claim made often enough by persons on your side. When he explicitly asks people to ‘nominate whoever you want’ – his verbatim words – he is asking for voting on merit. When he asks for votes for himself, he does it in a deliberately clownish way, which only a humourless dolt could possibly take as earnest:

    ‘And for my Texas readers, if I get nominated, I will go to San Antonio, hang out on the River Walk gorging myself on awesome barbeque and burritos bigger than my head, and I will sign all your books! I’ll sign firearms! I’ll sign firearms accessories! I’ll sign your beautiful Texas women!’

    The clownishness disappeared once SP became a going concern, but the invitation to the general SFF-reading public to get involved in the nominations and voting remained the same, because that was the part that was in earnest. And it bitterly offends your side that anyone should dare to do that. You want Fandom (capital F, never forget the capital F) to remain a closed club, from which you have the power to exclude undesirables such as Mr. Correia, or for that matter, myself. (I have been on the receiving end of Fannish snubs in my time. I know the drill.) But at the same time, you want to pretend that your little closed club represents the whole of SFF readership, and is solely entitled to pronounce on which are the best and most deserving books, stories, films, etc., etc., of each year. It stinks to high heaven, and I am very glad that someone is challenging your nonsense.

  344. Tom : You’re right: In general, almost nobody cares about that stuff. So, for instance, the fact that Ancillary Justice plays silly-buggers with personal pronouns does not make it either a good or an interesting book;

    No, the fact that “Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand” by Delany back in 1984 played silly buggers with personal pronouns did not make it a good book. A complex and difficult one, but not easily grasped.

    What makes Ancillary Justice a good book is that it is a space opera with treachery, revenge, hidden wars, starships, evil empires, and some pretty extreme character development in the leading person. If anything, it was too much a throwback to the heyday of space opera thrillers.

    It’s as if you never read it, instead reading people whining about one secondary aspect of the lead character’s circumstance, her difficulty in dealing with gender in language and socially. Due to, you know, being a sole surviving fragment of a hive mind.

    But, hey, that’s just my opinion. And those of the Hugo voters for 2014.

  345. @Tom – If the pups don’t game the nominations and give the Fans a stupid ballot, then nobody cares. I remember being in my SFF group when the ballot came out and I think the initial post was “I saw the Hugo Award ballet and threw up in my mouth”.

    After next year pup leaders can carp all day about leftist and elitist. The pup followers can join and vote however they like. They can slate or not slate. Almost nobody is going to pay attention because their in no real cause and the numbers are tiny.

    Capital F Fans will continue to be Capital F fans. They will have their discussions and debates and conventions and issue their awards. Good for them. I watched it last time and it looks like everyone will be having a good time.

    I will be going to a different convention. Don’t ask – you wouldn’t appreciate that one either.

  346. @CPaca: It’s as if you never read it, instead reading people whining about one secondary aspect of the lead character’s circumstance, her difficulty in dealing with gender in language and socially. Due to, you know, being a sole surviving fragment of a hive mind.

    No, I was reading the people who were praising it and explaining why it deserved a Hugo. It was all about the pronouns. Apparently that made it groundbreaking and daring and Speaking-Truth-To-Power, Right On, Sistah!

    Pardon me while I yawn. The Sixties are so vieux jeu.

  347. @CPaca said: “What makes Ancillary Justice a good book is that it is a space opera with treachery, revenge, hidden wars, starships, evil empires, and some pretty extreme character development in the leading person. If anything, it was too much a throwback to the heyday of space opera thrillers….But, hey, that’s just my opinion. And those of the Hugo voters for 2014.”

    But see CPaca, that’s the problems for pups and particularly Brad. You guys are Wrong Fans reading Wrong books and having Wrong fun. You are supposed to like what they like – you know – lovely spaceships and all that. That’s why they have to game the system. That and God told to.

  348. The clownishness disappeared once SP became a going concern, but the invitation to the general SFF-reading public to get involved in the nominations and voting remained the same, because that was the part that was in earnest. And it bitterly offends your side that anyone should dare to do that.

    Um, nope.

    After all, more people voted in 2015 than ever before – and the Puppies were roundly spanked.

    http://tftmm.com/politics-hugos-and-what-the-numbers-say

    It’s pretty clear from the voting what actually happened. There was no organized political movement for the Puppies to fight. Rather, there was an unorganized faction of like-minded people who liked the same kind of stuff and kept voting for it. Because they were a sizeable majority, the works that the puppy minority favored didn’t go very far very often.

    But here’s the thing. I’m not convinced that the majority faction gives a damn about social justice. To be sure, there’s at least a sizeable minority of the majority that cares, and they’re the most vocal members of the faction, but there are a ton of voters who neither know nor care about any of this stuff.

    I don’t know that I’ve read any of the Puppy-sponsored works, but I have read about it, and I’ve read a lot of the other stuff. I think we have a difference of opinion as to what kind of story is better. The Puppies seem to favor plot based stories with a lot of action and the bulk of the rest of the WorldCon fandom seems to prefer stories that delve into characters and what it means to be a person. They don’t have some antipathy towards the folks on the Puppy slates, they’re just voting for stuff they liked.

    At least, they were until this year, when the Puppies went from a largely ineffectual sidelight to a force that threatened the nature of the awards. And what does a relatively docile majority do when a small minority threatens something they care about?

    They squash the minority like a bug. That’s what happened last night at the Hugo Awards.

    I think it’s great if more people get involved in nominating and voting for the Hugos. I just object to those of them doing so as a slate to prop up the egos of a few screaming fools.

    Why did “Guardians of the Galaxy” win a Hugo despite being on the Puppy slate? Because it was a great film with heart, and enough people thought so to overcome their antipathy to slate votes. Why didn’t any of the other Puppy nominations win? Because they were mediocre at best, and not worth a Hugo.

  349. Why didn’t any of the other Puppy nominations win? Because they were mediocre at best, and not worth a Hugo.

    Bull again. Mediocre books lose at the Hugos every year. Nobody feels the need to organize a bloc of 2,500 votes to insult them by putting them behind ‘No Award’. That was the real slate.

  350. @Tom said: “Bull. Mr. Correia’s entire point was that the awards were already being given for political and culture-war motivations by the Left, and to works that had little or no merit. You, of course, will disagree with this; quite possibly you believe that only Leftist works are capable of having merit – I have seen this claim made often enough by persons on your side. When he explicitly asks people to ‘nominate whoever you want’ ”

    See. Just what I said. Wrong Fans with Wrong Votes for Wrong Books and Wrong Fun. As for Larry – he was asking for his fans to get him nominated for a Hugo. You and the pups are such elitist.

  351. Tom Said: “Bull again. Mediocre books lose at the Hugos every year. Nobody feels the need to organize a bloc of 2,500 votes to insult them by putting them behind ‘No Award’. That was the real slate.”

    That was the judgement of the Fans. Again. They were Wrong Fans having Wrong Fun and Wrong Votes. Tsk Tsk. Tom I think you could help the pups. They could start their own award and you could be the one to decide who gets it.

  352. Tom Simon: No, I was reading the people who were praising it and explaining why it deserved a Hugo. It was all about the pronouns.

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/20/science-fiction-round-up-reviews

    Ann Leckie’s hugely ambitious first novel, Ancillary Justice (Orbit, £7.99), tackles gender identity, imperialism, war crimes and more, and succeeds brilliantly in telling a fast-paced, moving and intellectually satisfying story of love and vengeance. Breq is a hive-mind AI running a starship who finds herself downloaded into the reanimated corpse of a soldier, with only partial knowledge of how she ended up there. What follows is the meticulous piecing together of subsequent events and Breq’s quest to kill the Lord of the Radch Empire, a near-immortal in control of multiple bodies. It’s by turns thrilling, moving and awe-inspiring.

    http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2014/04/ancillary_justi.shtml

    Ancillary Justice is an astoundingly assured and graceful debut novel, wedding a complicated structure to three-dimensional characters and multiple interesting SFnal ideas. There’s been a lot of award buzz surrounding it, all of which is entirely deserved. The novel’s core questions, such as the meaning of personhood in a world containing artificial intelligences and the meaning of individual identity in a world containing multi-bodied minds, are not new to speculative fiction, but they are combined in ways which shed new light on them, and Leckie never allows anything to resolve into a simple answer. […] Another is that, despite the sheer amount of content packed into it and the conceptual complexity of most of that content, the book remains not only readable, but clear. It is not confusing even during the most complex of the factional interplays, and Leckie takes full advantage of the many-bodied nature of her narrator to make sure the Justice of Toren thread delivers information in a truly comprehensive fashion. The prose is precise and not overwrought, the invented terms are not clunky, and the emotional impact is subtle and powerful. Let’s hope we see a great deal more of Leckie in the future, and let’s hope it’s all of this impressive quality.

    Of the twelve paragraphs in the last review, only two deal with the pronouns, one with their effect on the story, and two with what that illustrates about Leckie’s universe (that it is a cultural quirk arising from a hive-mind dystopia).

    But in your world, I guess two out of twelve is “all about” a subject.

  353. Tom Simon

    If the “clownish” tone removes the plain meaning of his words for you then I am unlikely to persuade you.

    On Ancillary, I wonder if you can quote contemporaneous reviews of it which praise the pronoun choice above its many other merits. (The usual answer to this question is a Tor.com essay published six months later than the Tor.com review which praised it for many reasons. Perhaps you will bring forward something new though)

  354. Wow, George. Competency in trolling. This will actually take some effort to deal with.

    So, let me break it down: You and yours (because you were, I will bet, one of the “No Award” voters) blocked a whole bunch of books not because of any lack of actual artistic merit. No, you blocked them because of their politics.
    Your attempt at co-opting the language would be hilarious if it was not in the service of a band of petty tyrants with delusions of grandeur.

  355. Tom Simon :

    CPaca: I thought it was to get Larry Correia a Hugo to which he believed he was entitled.

    Yes, because you believed the lies spread by his avowed enemies, instead of listening to what Mr. Correia himself has been saying with absolute consistency for the past three years.

    Tom Simon :

    When he explicitly asks people to ‘nominate whoever you want’ – his verbatim words – he is asking for voting on merit. When he asks for votes for himself, he does it in a deliberately clownish way, which only a humourless dolt could possibly take as earnest:

    Tom, could you enlighten us as to

    – how we are listening to “lies spread by his avowed enemies” when we quote the title of his actual posts?

    – how he is speaking with “absolute consistency” in not asking for votes for himself when you yourself admit he DOES ask for votes for himself, but excuse this with it being “deliberately clownish”?

    – and how “only a humourless dolt could possibly take [it] as earnest” when he actually DOES ginny up a block vote that nearly got him nominated and 2013 and DID get him nominated in 2014?

  356. @60guilders said: “This will actually take some effort to deal with… So, let me break it down”

    Well that’s not a very good job of breaking it down. Let me see if I can help “Break it Down”:

    So. The Fans can vote “No Award” when they have a stupid ballet. That was the judgment of the Fans. If you manage to get John Wright 6 nominations and knock Andy Weir off the ballot again, you will likely to see the same Fan judgment. And applause. To break it down – gaming the nomination just isn’t enough.

  357. 60guilders: So, let me break it down: You and yours (because you were, I will bet, one of the “No Award” voters) blocked a whole bunch of books not because of any lack of actual artistic merit. No, you blocked them because of their politics.

    Pardon me, but they were not blocked because of THEIR politics. They were blocked because:

    – of the political aspect of mass slate voting at the nomination phase to stack the deck AND

    – because they weren’t good enough to overcome antipathy to this political tactic BY THOSE SLATING. Unlike “Guardians of the Galaxy”.

    To take just one example, “Skin Game” by Jim Butcher didn’t win. And Butcher remained studiously silent over the Puppy kerfuffle. But “Skin Game” was not his best, and was judged not worthwhile ON ITS OWN MERITS to be worth a Hugo. In an ordinary year, it simply wouldn’t have made the nominations.

    If 2015 hadn’t been slated, we probably would have been arguing about best novel between:

    Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie
    The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison
    The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin
    Lock In by John Scalzi
    City of Stairs by Robert Jackson Bennet

    Myself, I would have gone for “Goblin Emperor”. Which would you have picked?

  358. 60guilders : Your attempt at co-opting the language would be hilarious if it was not in the service of a band of petty tyrants with delusions of grandeur.

    Just to clarify, this “band of petty tyrants with delusions of grandeur” would be, say, the 3495 Hugo voters who went with “No Award” for the first pass of “Best Novella”, rather than the four authors who have self-described as “the Evil League of Evil” and who chose the Sad Puppy slate?

  359. “Which would you have picked?”

    I wouldn’t have voted. I’ve never heard of City of Stairs, Leckie’s a mediocre writer, so is Scalzi, The Three Body Problem isn’t my cup of tea, and neither is the Goblin Emperor.

    “To take just one example, “Skin Game” by Jim Butcher didn’t win. And Butcher remained studiously silent over the Puppy kerfuffle. But “Skin Game” was not his best, and was judged not worthwhile ON ITS OWN MERITS to be worth a Hugo. In an ordinary year, it simply wouldn’t have made the nominations.”

    Forgive me, I misspoke. The “No Awarding” was done based on the politics of the nominators. And there’s no way that “Skin Game” is a worse book than “Ancillary Sword.” And don’t try to pretend that there wasn’t a very large faction on your end that believed Butcher’s silence to be a betrayal.

    Let’s get to the real nub of this problem: WorldCon is an organization whose definition of “True Fan” is that you pay oodles of money to come and hang out with them for a few days. There’s nothing *wrong* with that, and if that was all it claimed to be this whole mess never would have happened. But its claim to speak for fandom as a whole (and the fact that they managed to get a social justice mob together does not mean they speak for fandom) is risible. If that particular pretension had been dropped, this mess never would have happened.

    And as a side note, comparing Larry Correia to Steven King is an insult.

    To Correia.

  360. “Just to clarify, this “band of petty tyrants with delusions of grandeur” would be, say, the 3495 Hugo voters who went with “No Award” for the first pass of “Best Novella”, rather than the four authors who have self-described as “the Evil League of Evil” and who chose the Sad Puppy slate?”

    No, that would be David Gerrold, et al. I regard those voters the same way you regard the Sad Puppy voters. Nice try.

  361. Every contemporaneous discussion of Butcher I saw concluded that he probably wasn’t particularly aware of the kerfluffle. There were a couple of ambiguous tweets from him, but apart from that he was silent.
    I’m not now convinced that this conclusion was correct, but that’s now, but then.
    I won’t go back over why I didn’t rate Butcher’s novel above the others last year – scroll up if you want – but suffice to say that tastes differ and it is entirely possible to conclude that the Butcher was perfectly decent but not award-worthy.

  362. @60guilders said: “I wouldn’t have voted. I’ve never heard of City of Stairs, Leckie’s a mediocre writer, so is Scalzi, The Three Body Problem isn’t my cup of tea, and neither is the Goblin Emperor.”

    Correct. So the Fans are just Wrong Fans reading Wrong Books by Wrong Authors and having Wrong Fun. So you should game the nomination process.

    @60guiders said:

    “And there’s no way that “Skin Game” is a worse book than “Ancillary Sword.” And don’t try to pretend that there wasn’t a very large faction on your end that believed Butcher’s silence to be a betrayal.”

    So the opinions of the Fans were Wrong Opinions while you have the Right Opinion. Are we starting to see a pattern here?

    60guilders said:

    “Let’s get to the real nub of this problem: WorldCon is an organization whose definition of “True Fan” is that you pay oodles of money to come and hang out with them for a few days. There’s nothing *wrong* with that, and if that was all it claimed to be this whole mess never would have happened. But its claim to speak for fandom as a whole…”

    No it doesn’t. Some Fans believe that. Some fans believe that. But that isn’t an official claim. But if it were… what difference would it make?

    60guilders said: “And as a side note, comparing Larry Correia to Steven King is an insult….To Correia.”

    Yep – definitely a pattern here.

  363. The contention was that the nominations process was being gamed already. It’s called countering. We’re very sorry that we had the temerity to organize ourselves.

    As to the rest, apparently you don’t understand the difference between “Voting No Award” and “Not voting at all.” This, however, is pretty standard stuff in Internet debates, so I don’t hold that against you.

  364. 60guilder: But its claim to speak for fandom as a whole (and the fact that they managed to get a social justice mob together does not mean they speak for fandom) is risible.

    Could you cite the Hugos claiming to speak for fandom as a whole, please?

    No, that would be David Gerrold, et al.

    Could you show evidence of David Gerrold et al organizing a No Award slate, please?

    The contention was that the nominations process was being gamed already. It’s called countering. We’re very sorry that we had the temerity to organize ourselves.

    And you got smacked down, hard, by a much larger group of fans for doing so, without the need for organization or slating. And we’re not sorry at all.

  365. Hey Kirby, Mark and CPaca:
    Isn’t it time for Camestrosfelapton to spell you guys while you rub ointment on whichever fingers you use to type the letters EPH and TRUFEN with? At least he mixed in a few happy words between the five minute hates. You guys are really starting to repeat yourselves. Look I think we all get it. You don’t like Larry and you don’t like guns. And we’re all dooomed as soon as the “hole is plugged.” Fine. But do you have to bore us to death with your endless repetition. Is File 770 so uninteresting that you can’t go haunt them for a while? Or go over to Vox’s place? They’ll give you all the arguing you could ask for.
    Happy New Year

  366. Well, Wash, you don’t understand. The have to repeat it over and over and over… until people (including we horrible fiends who either are with SP or worse, not hating SP enough) love Big Brot-er, believe it too.

    It’s an old, old pressure tactic.

  367. >> “And as a side note, comparing Larry Correia to Steven King is an insult….To Correia.”

    Seriously. I stopped reading King clear back in the 80s when I noticed that he’s extremely lazy when it comes to his villains. Christians are bad! Full stop! Nuances? What are those?

    Blech.

  368. “Could you show evidence of David Gerrold et al organizing a No Award slate, please?”

    Oh please. Everyone with a functioning brain knows Gerrold was very, very, enthused about how the awards went down, and was involved with all the nonsense back of the asterisks. If he didn’t organize it, he cheerlead for it.
    And the fact that you missed all the calls for “No Award” is an indication of willful blindness.

    “And you got smacked down, hard, by a much larger group of fans for doing so, without the need for organization or slating. And we’re not sorry at all.”

    Neither am I. And your first sentence is a lie bigger than any John C. Wright has ever been accused of telling.

  369. Oh please. Everyone with a functioning brain knows Gerrold was very, very, enthused about how the awards went down, and was involved with all the nonsense back of the asterisks. If he didn’t organize it, he cheerlead for it.

    I’m sorry, but this isn’t evidence for David Gerrold et al organizing a No Award slate – for one thing, the asterisks were awarded AFTER the voting.

    If you have such evidence, can you provide it please?

    David Gerrold may not have organized it, but someone did: http://noaward.com/

    Which reads:

    We’re not going to tell anyone not to vote for the above. We know that our intention is to vote for none of them.

    .

    You may not be clear on the concept of vote slating.

  370. Guardians of the Galaxy should not have been on the Sad Puppies 3 list. SP3 was about the disconnect between SF/F fandom at large and the somewhat inbred sub-culture of WorldCon—“worldcondom”, if you will—which still purports to speak for “Fandom”. It was about works & editors worthy of recognition but which & whom worldcondom would normally overlook, whether for reasons of politics or snobbishness.

    This disconnect does not exist in the “Dramatic Presentation” categories. The same sort of pretentious drivel exists in the visual media as written SF/F suffers from, of course. But the creators and aficionados of such drivel have their own inbred cultures to incubate in, and there is not much overlap with worldcondom, let alone fandom at large.

    Andy Weir could have been a plausible “Sad Puppies” candidate for the Campbell: in The Martian he wrote the sort of SF story which the Sad Puppies had complained worldcondom tends to overlook in its awards. I can’t say for sure what would have happened had he been on the SP3 list. But for this thought experiment Guardians is a poor comparison.

  371. As I said upthread, at some length, there were certainly people declaring they would vote NA on principle, but there were also plenty of people advocating voting on merit, and the two approaches ended up being functionally almost identical. It didn’t require organising, there was no one “running” NA. It was an existing, well-known, previously-used option in the rules.

  372. @Julie Frost said: “Seriously. I stopped reading King clear back in the 80s when I noticed that he’s extremely lazy when it comes to his villains. Christians are bad! Full stop! Nuances? What are those? ”

    So you and the WorldCon Fans agree on something. “11-22-63” received no consideration – except from the market. But unlike “I wuz robbed Larry”, I don’t think King really cares. Mini-series anyone?

    That’s the thing. You don’t like King but the market makes its own judgment. King doesn’t care because he doesn’t have to care. Correia/Paulk/Torgensen/VD et al do care because stirring the shit is how they sell books. And its how they make you feel important so you buy their books. The Vox Day/ Larry Correia Sad and Rabid Puppy production is an author driven movement for target marketing purposes.

    Ever wonder why your movement is so ill defined and shifts with the wind? It’s because at its core it is just an emotional appeal to hate those guys with all the reasons fabricated after the fact. Is that insulting to puppy followers – yep. Reality is harsh sometimes.

  373. I’m amazed at the assumption that JCW is lying, instead of mistaken or forgetful. It seems there is no benefit of the doubt for people on our side.

  374. Chupik, it may very well be bad memory. People have horrible memories. They just think they have good ones. It’s just that “your side” has no credibility. That’s the problem with the benefit of the doubt. The default assumption is that …
    1. Puppies always lie.
    2. Puppies always project
    3. Puppies always double down

    You have heard that before, yes?

  375. >> And its how they make you feel important so you buy their books.

    Uh, no. I buy Larry’s and Brad’s books because Larry and Brad are friends of mine, in actual meatspace. Larry, in case you missed it, book-bombed my first novel and sent it sailing to #26 in the most competitive category on Amazon. Because, you know, he wants to keep the wimmenfolk out of genre fiction.

    I read them because I enjoy them.

  376. Well, at least you’ve varied your trolling schtick a bit. Your old routine was getting tedious.

  377. George, that particular mantra is ridiculous when aimed at “SJWs”, so I can’t think any better of it when aimed at puppies.

  378. >>Sure you enjoy them. They make you feel important. Part of a movement. Part of the tribe. The collective.

    I enjoy them because they are fun reads right up my alley. As in, they hit my sweet spots (werewolf fiction, superhero fiction, alternate history, alien invasion, positive portrayal of religious people) right in the sweet spots. Why wouldn’t I enjoy them?

    Don’t impute motives to me, George. You only look like an ass when you do so.

  379. Christopher M. Chupik on January 2, 2016 at 7:53 pm said regarding ZENU, er George:

    Well, at least you’ve varied your trolling schtick a bit. Your old routine was getting tedious.

    Childish mimickry is really an improvement?

  380. Don’t impute motives to me, George. You only look like an ass when you do so.

    He’s a prog, he’ll tell you what you really believe and hope no one notices it’s from his own imagination.

  381. CPaca: Given the behavior of you and yours, your credibility is below even the Straw!Puppies–somewhere between “Brad Torgersen is a racist who married a black woman as part of some nefarious scheme” and “Sad Puppies hates women” (Note: paraphrase of general argumentative thrust) y’all kind of lost it.
    I won’t say that if you proclaimed that the sun rose in the east, I would wake up before dawn with a compass, but…

  382. 60guilders : CPaca: Given the behavior of you and yours, your credibility is below even the Straw!Puppies

    Uh-huh.

    Still waiting on you citing the Hugos claiming to speak for fandom as a whole. Still waiting for you to show evidence of David Gerrold et al organizing a No Award slate.

  383. Now Julie – don’t impute motives? You mean like when you were imputing motive to Fans for the “No Award” votes necessitated by the mediocre selections puppies put on the ballet. Wasn’t that you …

    “It’s not difficult to see the difference here, it’s just inconvenient when person after person after person defends the mass No Awarding as necessary to punish, discourage and defeat the interlopers, burn it down so they can’t have it and all that… and then someone comes here and tries to use that one clearly non-literary exception to prove that all of those claims of righteous anger and noble purpose in rushing in to vote No Award aren’t true?”

    So that was the motives Julie? What you can impute motive and others should not?

    Listen. I am not being critical. Everybody belongs to something and you guys want to join the Trinity of Vox,Larry and Brad who am I to care? It’s great marketing. They can preach the scriptures about SJW’s and Chorfs and burning down the Hugos; and you guys can hosanna till the cows come home. If you don’t put out slates and try to crash someone else’s party no one will care. But if you do – they will.

    Here’s the good news. Next year EPH is in effect. You can even slate. It isn’t going to matter and people are not going to care.

    By the way and off the immediate topic when you say” then someone comes here and tries to use that one clearly non-literary exception [Gaurdians of the Galaxy] to prove that all of those claims of righteous anger and noble purpose in rushing in to vote No Award aren’t true…”. It sort of does prove that it isn’t true.

  384. Hey @hobanwashburne ,

    Happy new year to you too. To answer your question yep I think we about flailed the skin off this horse’s carcass. It will be interesting to see how the SP IV slate works out. Maybe GRRM is right and there won’t be a slate. But I am a lot older than GRRM and somehow… I see fireworks in the future. One more time.

  385. CPaca: Did you somehow miss all the demands for No Award and Gerrold’s happiness at the Hugos? I mean, that’s…impressive.

    As to the Hugos claiming to speak for fandom, that was provided all over the place during the awards controversy, as people vigorously proclaimed that the WorldCon demographic was the “True” fandom, and the SPs were interlopers.
    As has been done in this thread. Multiple times.
    By you, personally.

  386. Hey, George, it’s super cute when you mix up your Julies like that. Makes you look like an even more condescending ass than you already do. *golf clap*

  387. It’s interesting how easy it is for certain individuals to make arguments in the parallel universe where nothing has happened before year zero, which began yesterday.

  388. Also, I love being told I’m an “interloper” when I’ve been reading SFF since 1976, which I daresay is probably longer than some of these people have even been alive.

    And, I mean, if I wanted to “belong,” wouldn’t I throw my hat in with the Cool Kids instead of the Puppies? Since I don’t actually enjoy being persecuted and called a racist homophobic misogynist? I’d like to win a Hugo as much as the next guy, and it seems to me I’m far more likely to actually accomplish that by sucking up to Scalzi than Larry, you know?

  389. Are we still having to re-argue the idea that the only thing “no award” means is that something wasn’t to your taste? Those of you claiming that as some sort of understood standard are making yourselves into jokes. That’s an absurd standard that is never followed. If, in former years, the general habit was to vote “no award” on, say, all of the fantasy because you don’t care too much for fantasy, or “no award” any time a person read something that was solid but it didn’t ring their bell, we’d have years of significant “no award” numbers. People seem to, generally, simply not vote for what they don’t particularly like, which is a far different thing than voting “no award”. Because that’s what decent human beings do when they don’t care for something and can’t support something that other people like, they just don’t vote for it.

    Particularly considering that the foot soldiers will show up here and repeatedly explain that the no awarding was justified in response to the method of nomination.

    And then a different foot soldier will argue that no, the no awards were on merit and everything sucked really really badly, so badly that the world would END if Skin Game got a Hugo it is such unreadable drek. Really, and the several professional and accomplished editors nominated suck SO BAD that the world would end if they got a Hugo.

    And then (which hasn’t happened this round) some new and earnest voter will show up and explain that, no, she really did read it all and she voted “no award” for anything that she didn’t find utterly fascinating and brilliant, because isn’t that what she was supposed to do?

    No… that isn’t what you are *supposed* to do. “No award” has always been the nuclear option reserved for when there was no honest way to conclude that it wasn’t your *taste* in question or you just didn’t happen to like the entries that other people liked. Puppies will concede many categories where perhaps people might have *honestly* voted below no award, even if it’s “iffy” it’s still possible, but there are several categories where that pathetic excuse is unsupportable. Just grow up, be adults, and admit the fact of the Hissy Fit Block Voting for Justice and leave it be.

    After all, one of your fellow foot soldiers WILL show up on schedule and explain to us all yet again how important it was to send a message over the “slate”. They’re doing it in this comment section. Sometimes it’s the same individual insisting on both at once.

  390. It’s interesting how easy it is for certain individuals to make arguments in the parallel universe where nothing has happened before year zero, which began yesterday.

    IKR. It’s just so unusual to see some people behave as if SP3 happened without any relation to SP1 and SP2, and that SP4 exists independent of all of it’s predecessors.

    I guess some people just have really short attention spans.

  391. Well, I think I’m down with the freakshow comments from the dishonest APs (I’m looking at you Kirby, Mark and Cpaca). Y’all have a good time arguing about how you’ve got a bigger dick than LC or VD on the wall of someone else. Intentionally conflating SP and RP, willfully ignoring statements, and flat out lying only makes it obvious you have no actual interest in what’s going on. You just want to pick a fight. You have no credibility here and can be ignored.

  392. @julieapascal

    The world is not binary. It doesn’t divide into “Awesome” and “Crap”. Speaking for myself, there were things I thought were fantastic (Mixon’s report on RequiresHate). Things that I liked, but were not my top reads for the year (Skin Games). Things that I had no idea how to assess (Editor categories). Things that were absolute dreck (Wisdom from My Internet). I treated these differently, as per whatever I was feeling at the moment as I kept updating my ballot.

    And that’s just me. Others will have, and did have different metrics. It’s entirely up to you to keep these StrawFen in your mind, and note what arseholes they all are. But I’m sure you’ll understand if I note that my experiences contradict it.

    No… that isn’t what you are *supposed* to do.

    ….and you’ll forgive me if I vote the way I want to, and not what you (or Davidson, or Sandifer, or Correia) think I should.

  393. snowcrash… read what I wrote and you’ll find an explicit statement that most Puppies will concede that some people might honestly have felt some categories deserved no award and that I more or less described what you seem to have done as reasonable. But the fact that you personally had a clue does not negate what others did and are proud of doing. Nor does it make any sort of sense whatsoever to try to argue that because YOU were not a dick, that dicks didn’t carry the day. They are not “straw-fen” simply because they don’t represent YOUR behavior. They are real people who are rather open about and proud of what they did. Wow, they sure showed us! Pretending that these are imaginary boogie men in my head suggests that you didn’t even read this comment thread. In fact, Deidre Moen Whatserface (whatever, I could google it but don’t feel like bothering) posted an explicit list with instructions to vote no-award. She also listed as “not a Puppy nominee but problematic” (quote best to my recollection) the Mixon essay you felt was excellent. Because those people exist, snowcrash. And Mixon did get a bunch of “no awards” and they were almost certainly not Puppy related but due to the helpful warning from Moen that Mixon is most probably a racist and she thought they ought to know.

    This isn’t a made up world and a made up problem. I’m glad you’re a nice person with standards and frankly, a whole lot of “you” have far more in common with a whole lot of “us” than most would admit or realize, particularly when… and hey, this isn’t a “straw” fantasy that I made up in my own head either… when people get their “facts” from Entertainment Weekly or Tor employees.

  394. The Puppy-free ballot is here (http://deirdre.net/the-puppy-free-hugo-award-voters-guide/ ). Deirdre suggests people vote Puppy-free or not (with their conscience, I assume) and then criticises Laura Mixon for campaigning for a Hugo with “emotional blackmail language”.

    There is evidence that new voters (me included) were prejudiced into liberal use of No Award. The Day the World Turned Upside Down was beaten on first pass by No Award (1732 votes -vs- 1700), and only beat No Award after the fourth pass (http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf). The plot was ‘boy goes on quest to rescue girl’ which isn’t exactly ground-breaking from a progressive POV. The story itself was mediocre. I suspect voters who hadn’t looked at the Puppy slates assumed it was a Puppy pick.

  395. 60guilders: CPaca: Did you somehow miss all the demands for No Award and Gerrold’s happiness at the Hugos? I mean, that’s…impressive.

    I was happy when the Falcon-9 rocket took off and landed vertically. This does not, however, mean that I run SpaceX or even work for them.

    Still waiting for you to show evidence of David Gerrold et al organizing a No Award slate.

    As to the Hugos claiming to speak for fandom, that was provided all over the place during the awards controversy, as people vigorously proclaimed that the WorldCon demographic was the “True” fandom, and the SPs were interlopers.

    Please cite someone in a position to speak for the Hugos saying they represent all of fandom.

    As has been done in this thread. Multiple times. By you, personally.

    To the best of my knowledge, I have never stated that I helped run or organize the Hugo Awards.

    Still waiting on you citing the Hugos claiming to speak for fandom as a whole.

  396. Julieapascal : In fact, Deidre Moen Whatserface (whatever, I could google it but don’t feel like bothering) posted an explicit list with instructions to vote no-award.

    That would be this – http://deirdre.net/the-puppy-free-hugo-award-voters-guide/ – where Moon writes:

    Follow, or don’t, your choice. If you are voting the strict ix-nay uppy-pay slate, here’s the options in each category:

    So you’re stating that a post that says “Do this or don’t do this as you want, but if you want to do it, here’s what to do” is ACTUALLY saying “Do this”. Which is like saying that a teacher who tells high school students to have sex or not have sex as you want, but if you do, here’s how to have safe sex is ACTUALLY pressuring the students into having sex.

    I can’t imagine why people might have come to regard Puppy commentary as less than reliable, can you?

    P.S. You’ll notice that Moon left “Guardians of the Galaxy” off her Puppy-Free Hugo Award Voter’s Guide, as she should. And yet it won despite this. Possibly because it was good enough to win, despite being slated.

  397. @George Kirby

    You are not doing “your side” any favors with your comments. You consistently drag the level of the discussion down, down, down to the most banal level possible. You twist and misrepresent because you aren’t really interested in finding the truth or resolving the conflict. You get off on the thrill of telling other people that their opinions don’t matter, that they don’t matter. With every ill-conceived notion that you vomit into the comment thread, you display your dishonesty for all to see.

    For example, you say that Correia “compared himself to Stephen King”. Actually, you’ve repeated this particular piece of fiction multiple times. You make it sound like he’s literally telling us why he’s a better writer than King. For context, here is the original:

    http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/30/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-4-ten-ways-im-different-than-stephen-king-and-thus-deserve-a-hugo-nomination/

    Jesus H. Christ, get a damned clue. It was humor. You either need to improve your reading comprehension or you need to stop lying. I never joined SP, but have watched from the sidelines all year while Brad and Larry were unfairly maligned, and every stupid lie that you gleefully spout pushes me closer to buying that membership.

  398. cpaca –

    Diedre Whatserface says, in her comments:

    “In my case, I personally feel that slates voted edit: nominated en masse should not be awarded Hugos. Many people, including John Scalzi feel differently. Also note: if this were a progressive slate consisting of a lot of my friends (not all of whom are progressive), I’d still feel the same way.

    I actually will at least try to read all the nominees I have access to, though I won’t pay for any of the puppy choices. I have actually been intending to read The Dresden Files (I loved the TV series), but I haven’t gotten around to it. The distinction is that this year, I’m going to read the puppy slate nominees after voting closes.”

    Specifically, read the first sentence,” In my case, I personally feel that slates voted edit: nominated en masse should not be awarded Hugos.” and the last sentence. “I”m going to read the puppy slate nominees AFTER voting closes.”

    No, not EXPLICIT instructions. Of course, Brad never issued EXPLICIT instructions, but if we go by the, “nod and wink” bullshit standard that the File 770 denizens use for him, then Diedre Whatserface is equally guilty of “nod and wink” instigation. And she specifically, clearly states that she’s going to read the ‘puppy slate nominees’ AFTER VOTING CLOSES. For English speakers, that means that she will vote WITHOUT READING THE MATERIAL.

    I can’t imagine why people have come to regard your commentary as less than reliable, can you?

  399. And there were the people who promised that they would read every work, at least until they couldn’t stand it any more. And then said that in many cases they wouldn’t get past the title page.

  400. F Harper –

    You’re exactly right about George Kirby. He is not at all interested in having a discussion, finding out what other people are thinking, or coming to any kind of understanding. He’s here specifically to mock, twist and belittle and he repeats himself like a broken record (does that date me? yes…) The best part of the whole thing? Earlier in the thread, he kept trying to bring the Goodreads Choice Awards into the discussion:

    “My challenge to you/Vox/Correia/Paulk is have your fans freep the Goodread Choice Awards. ”

    Wasn’t that smart (and what exactly is ‘freep’?)? Vox took a look at Goodreads, realized the CHORF/SJW reviewers there are doing the same dishonest ‘downvote the book because you don’t like the author’s politics’ they tried at Amazon, and has unleashed the Dread Ilk. George even gets a mention on Vox’s website – the same one he’s too cowardly to post at. I’m sure all of the CHORFs and SJWs who are about to have their reviews reported will be grateful to George. I certainly am.

  401. @julieapascal

    snowcrash… read what I wrote and you’ll find an explicit statement that most Puppies will concede that some people might honestly have felt some categories deserved no award…

    Oh but I did read that. I also read the bit where you called it a “pathetic excuse” and where you said that for several categories it was an unsupportable reason. Perhaps you forgot you wrote that, and perhaps you’d like to let us know what categories were so full of shining exemplars that they would have universally been loved by diverse people? Because all my life I have run across people who dislike something I love, from Star Wars to LotR, but it doesn’t really send me into a huff (well….not for long. Well, not always? 🙂 )

    In fact, Deidre Moen Whatserface (whatever, I could google it but don’t feel like bothering) posted an explicit list with instructions to vote no-award.

    Deirdre Saoirse Moen. Happy to help. And I’d like to see the explicit instruction please. Oh, and regarding her finding the Mixon report problematic – please give me some time to deal with the shock that a different person has a different view of something I liked.

    @vivienneraper

    There is evidence that new voters (me included) were prejudiced into liberal use of No Award…. The story itself was mediocre. I suspect voters who hadn’t looked at the Puppy slates assumed it was a Puppy pick.

    Please, do let us know about this evidence. I would be greatly disappointed if they were just posts noting the existence of NA, or that the author was going to use NA in whatever circumstance they saw fit. Because this was my second ever Hugo, and I really can’t find someone prejudicing me – there were certainly advocates, but there were advocates of everything in that period, and I’d like to see who you consider to be such an influence upon the field that they would be able to prejudice those poor new voters in such a manner.

    Also, I do find it amusing that you consider mediocrity to be a significant marker of the Puppy picks.

  402. (Slight tangent, Moen v Mixon was part of the fallout from the Requires Hate stuff, not Hugo related.)

  403. Alex,

    “Freep” is a pejorative — I suspect it originated on DemocraticUnderground.com — used to describe knee-jerk ballot-stuffing (of on-line polls and other “Tell us what you think?” articles) by the denizens of FreeRepublic.com, which is DemocraticUnderground.com’s alter-ego. The irony being, that DU members frequently issue calls for their own people to DU an on-line poll to such an overwhelming extent, that freeping is beaten to the punch, or nullified.

    If Kirby thinks Sad Puppies was the SF/F equivalent of freeping, then the 2,500 CHORF block was the equivalent of DUing.

  404. @snowcrash wrote: “Please, do let us know about this evidence. I would be greatly disappointed if they were just posts noting the existence of NA, or that the author was going to use NA in whatever circumstance they saw fit.”

    No. The evidence was the statistics that you ellipsed out. 2015 Hugo-winning novelette The Day the World Turned Upside Down was beaten on first pass by No Award (1732 votes -vs- 1700). It remained neck-and-neck with No Award until the the Puppy entries were eliminated when it won by 50 votes (http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf).

    In contrast, in 2014, there were only 92 votes for No Award on first pass (http://www.loncon3.org/hugos/2014%20Hugo%20awards%20full%20details.pdf). These disappeared after Vox Day’s story was eliminated.

    I suggested an interpretation for these data. Would you like to suggest an alternative interpretation for how a multiple award-winning Dutch author narrowly escaped No Award?

  405. Vivienne, are you suggesting that the allegedly well-organised NA bloc, despite having precise lists provided by the cabal’s ringleaders, all messed up their ballot on the same category? 1732 wrong mouse clicks? 1732 misreadings?

  406. Mark,

    Where did I make the argument that there was a cabal of NA bloc votes? You’ll find I never did. In fact, if you read my original contribution, further up the thread, Brad T. gave me a well-deserved dressing down for being an asshat to, erm… everyone :#/

    @s1al TDTWTUD was added to the ballot in April 2015 (https://www.facebook.com/lightspeedmagazine/posts/10155480805655613) so I assumed it was the most-nominated non-Puppy entry and was read by voters at the same time as everything else. What am I missing?

  407. Vivienne, correct, you are merely suggesting that some unspecified mechanism “prejudiced” voters to no award.
    I’m sure you had some non-conspiratorial mechanism in mind, so perhaps you would like to expand on it.
    That said, I’m still bemused as to how these voters could have been “prejudiced” without being informed in some way about the situation, and the information on the ins and outs of the ballot were widely reported. I’m intrigued to hear what mechanism allows these voters to be prejudiced yet uninformed.

  408. Pingback: Amazing Steve Doesn’t Get It | The Arts Mechanical

  409. @vivienneraper

    No. The evidence was the statistics that you ellipsed out.

    If so, you’re confusing cause with effect. To illustrate:

    – You say that there is evidence people were prejudiced into the liberal use of No Award.
    – You’re asked for evidence of prejudicial influence.
    – You say that the evidence is the liberal use of No Award.

    It’s at best circular reasoning.

    Also, couple of things to note as an aside:

    1. Is whatever point you think you’re making from the 2015 Best Novelette category consistent with the results in other categories in 2015? I ask as I’m not entirely sure what you’re reaching for with those numbers – that No Award was more prevalent in 2015? I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.
    2. In 2014, No Award didn’t disappear after Vox Day was eliminated – it was No Award that was eliminated on the first pass.

  410. Administrative note: I’m probably gonna cap this comments thread at (or around) 500 replies, and we’re almost there, so get your final words in, folks. You Pravda 770 people can, of course, run back to Glyer’s blog, and continue agreeing amongst yourselves that you were always correct about everything — all along — and that Sad Puppies were and always will be wrong. About everything. In every way. Forever.

  411. It’s circular reasoning because it’s speculation. I’d have to poll a bunch of people who voted No Award to ask them why.

    I’m reaching for the idea that The Day the World Turned Upside Down is similar – in style and feel – to much of the work that was nominated in 2014. It’s not right-wing military SF, for example. Yet it barely beat No Award. I think, in another year, it’d have clearly beat No Award. I think people doubted the nomination process (because of the Puppies) and treated all nominated work with suspicion.

    Thus, instead of thinking “Well, I don’t like it… But it’s a finalist so other people liked it. Maybe I’m not getting the appeal. Hmmmm, last pick”, Worldcon voters thought “Oh my God, I don’t like it. Must be a Puppy nom, got onto the slate by political block voting. I bet it’s written by one of the Puppies’ friends, no one read it before nominating and it’s crap. NA.”

    I can’t comment on the other categories as they’re more complex. I think The Day the World Turned Upside Down struggled to get above NA because it wasn’t very good. I read more critical reviews of this novelette (for being a stereotypical ‘boy rescues girl’ story, etc.) than glowing ones.

  412. Just wanted to say… As this was a hostile thread. Thanks to SP3 for creating the media coverage that made me interested in the Hugos. Thanks also for introducing me to Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files by nominating Skin Game. I’ve met some cool people online, read some fun books I wouldn’t otherwise have done, and it’s been very interesting so far 🙂

    I guess I’m one of your success stories!

  413. Brad said:
    “Administrative note: I’m probably gonna cap this comments thread at (or around) 500 replies, and we’re almost there, so get your final words in, folks.”

    Bless you sir. It will be a mercy killing. I only donated four or five messages on this one but I’m sure that reading this thread has knocked two years off my life and 20 points from my IQ. Now I know why Vox Day exists. He’s the direct reaction to this phenomenon. He’s weaponized the antidote to this kind of communication. Unfortunately for the happy go lucky types llike myself it’s too much like work. So I’ll sum up the 500 messages by saying Nah na, Nah na, Nah Nah. I know you are but what am I? And “But she started it!” And based on the results of this discussion, for Hugos 2016, flame on!

  414. Sad Puppies has served to showcase how a bizarre cult whose credos were built out of thin air decades ago by a handful of mentally ill lesbians using fake academic semantics and rhetoric has mainstreamed its hate speech into the public arena by using Jim Crow and women’s suffrage as a Trojan Horse to push its twin Holy Grails of curing the fake “gender binary” of heterosexuality and reducing the obnoxious footprint of “privileged” and “entitled” white males wherever they are found.

    President Obama acting as a convert to the idea of “rape culture” by repeating false rape stats and the Dept. of Education acting on those false stats to run a Title IX extortion scheme of kangaroo court star chambers targeting male students in higher education and noted ’70s lesbian radical/Rutgers’ Gender Studies head Charlotte Bunch running off to China with Hillary Clinton to push U.N. “gender” initiatives shows the results of a dedication to a con game now 50 years in the making.

    The “intersectional” arm of this cult has also been running extortion schemes at higher education through Black Lives Matters. The clue there is BLM manifestos invariably include the “marginalized.” In Third Wave-speak that means anyone who’s not a straight white male. Don’t be surprised Laura Mixon ended her Hugo acceptance speech with “Black lives matter,” symbolizing how the SFF community of useful idiots allowed itself to be relentlessly manipulated, cowed and shamed by Requires Hate, a person without a name whose sole credentials were being Asian and a lesbian. “Identity politics” doesn’t come more “identity” than that. “Hands up, don’t shoot” is as much a fantasy that never happened as are Mixon’s SF novels. Though Mixon claims to oppose RH, she in fact literally defines RH’s race and sexuality as a superior moral ethos the lens of “intersectionality” demands, as does RH herself. “He/She/Ze/Zir that is last shall be first,” or in the words of the daffy black lesbian activist Audre Lorde former SFWA president John Scalzi linked us to so we could “bone up” on “intersectionality,” the opposite of the “white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, Christian and financially secure.”

    There’s your victimology and oppression Olympics. Why are we surprised these people never fail to list their mental illnesses, other disabilities and pronouns up front? It’s like the old navy waving ship-to-ship semaphore flags. The Hugo-nominated Foz Meadows’ author profile at Angry Robot Books begins “… is a genderqueer,” though she is a married woman with a child. One can’t help but look at that and feel these are often false flags; Saladin Ahmed and Tobias Buckell constantly have to remind us of their “PoC” status because they look white. Buckell and Ahmed (who is half Irish) seek to “de-white” themselves to make themselves more presentable to their cult. Ask yourself who actually advertises oppressions if they really do live in a homophobic white supremacy. Seems to me it’s so they can then claim people want to drag them behind pick-up trucks – as did Kameron Hurley – and get rewards points.

    The truth is these are now the real “privileges,” as a look at Twitter’s new “harassment” policy protecting those with “protected status” will tell you. Guess who’s not “protected”? Well, it’s the straight white males disqualified by what morons like T. Nielsen Hayden call “a misplaced sense of wounded entitlement” though that is cheap psychology she made up out of her head without a fact to back it up. You see that same word – “entitlement” – constantly thrown about in “rape culture” theory. What she really means is due process and equal protection, which have now become my hurt fee-fees. When people defame me as the member of an entire sex and ethnic group, I am not reacting out of “entitlement” but to the rhetoric of a hate group. Remember “Scalzi’s Squirrel Theory”: Throw rocks at squirrels, squirrels get angry, angry squirrels confirmed. Squirrels don’t get angry out of a sense of entitlement but because of having rocks thrown at them, in Scalzi’s case his daffy theory of white male privilege being as “obvious” as “gravity.” Who does Nielsen Hayden think is going to push back against that: black lesbians? Was GLAAD and the ADL created by heterosexuals and Catholics? Are GLAAD and the ADL entitled angry squirrels?

    This cult has relentlessly targeted venues originally aimed at young people with complaints about a new Dr. Who being white or even male, and Game of Thrones being “too white” and “geared towards white patriarchy.” Video games need less “toxic masculinity.” Comics need more gays and non-whites, more Muslims and fewer genocidal Christians, and Thor is now symbolically transgender. Star Wars has been infected with personal appeals from SF authors to include more gays and the now most awards-honored SF novel in history was promoted into the stratosphere because it addressed the secret pronoun cure to heterosexuality originally found in foundational texts in the ’60s by goofy radical lesbians like Monique Wittg. It’s a clever con game: oppose Third Wave Feminism and you oppose “diversity” and are a racist, sexist, homophobe TWFs knew were there all along anyway; thus the need for “diversity.” It’s a circular self-sealing argument.

    Curing heterosexuality and reducing the footprint of the morally inferior and actively hostile straight white male is called “diversity,” yet another innocent word twisted into an Orwellian black hole of logic to disguise this racial/sexual culling of the herd. When you have SFF author Mary R. Kowal declaring no white men won a Nebula at an awards show where the emcee is a Wisconnite lesbian dressed as a man, the goal and effects of that culling become self-evident, as does Kowal’s role symbolizing the SFF community acting as a pack of useful idiots for an ideology of supremacist mentally ill sociopaths even while those idiots bleat they are anti-supremacists. Sunil Patel made a similar announcement on Twitter after the awards. By an amazing coincidence he refuses to review white men at that Hugo-honored Third Wave feminist segregationist shitrag Lightspeed.

    “Ordering a happy meal and the cashier asked ‘for a boy or a girl?’ And then I explained how damaging it is to enforce the gender binary.”

    You can’t get more ditzy than that. That’s a quote from Roxanne Gay, a pompous black lesbian feminist who appeared on stage with Anita Sarkeesian when Sarkeesian claimed “we don’t want equality within these oppressive systems” and defined that as the “oppression of patriarchy.” You’ll notice Sarkeesian didn’t say anything like that on the Steven Colbert Show and there’s a reason for that.

    The unintended effects of proto-gender feminist Simone de Beauvoir’s foundational text The Second Sex have been as influential on present day core SF as has the foundational text of Frankenstein. That tells you all you need to know about what a creepy cult core fandom has become.

  415. Cap it Bud. It has all been said. The most telling saying was the stupid ballot produced by Puppy freeping and the Fans voting accordingly. Good luck to VD and company in freeping the Goodreads Choice Awards. That is going to be a hoot. At least his minions won’t have to fork over money. And congrats to the Fans for step 1 of EPH. This should be the last year for paying attention to the puppy nonsense. – Although the target marketing will continue with leftest, Marxist, Pravda people, secularist, anti-christian and all the other elements needed to stir the culture warriors. Ciao.

  416. (Brad: Your blog, your rules. I for one won’t cry foul on you closing a thread that had pretty much run its course.)

    I suppose what I would like to emphasise is that the defining problem of all the points I’ve discussed with people here stems from the idea that you are opposing a organised, cohesive “side” with various political defining features. I acknowledge that in the past, “puppies” have been portrayed as being more cohesive than they actually are – I see you as a continuum, albeit one that necessarily has greater crossovers, collaborations, and silent acquiescences than you are prepared to own to – but the only feature that describes everyone on the “other side” is that they don’t like what you did. The cohesive, organised, conspiratorial opposition that you portray yourselves as struggling against is a phantasm summoned to provide retroactive justification for forming a “side” yourselves.
    People who cared about the Hugos – including many who had been appreciative without ever getting directly involved before – saw what was happening, and reacted. They certainly discussed what they might do, but no-one controlled or summoned then, and they didn’t all choose the same course of action. That all their chosen courses led to approximately the same result is not proof of them being a “side”, it’s a judgement on the works you promoted and the tactics you chose to promote them with.
    Finally, I do not wish to exclude anyone from the Hugos, or from any community of people who like the same genre as me. I want an award that represents the collective opinions of those who vote for it, and where no single segment of voters gain greater representation than another. Stop seeing your opposition as a “side” capable of being generalised and dismissed en-masse, see them as people and realise why they objected to what you did and the way you went about it.

  417. @vivienneraper
    we don’t need to organize polls about the NA voters, a lot of them have been busily posting (blogs, twitter, etc) to proudly tell us that they were voting against anything th puppies liked, and proudly doing so without sullying themselves by reading it first.

    There have been a handful who have claimed they read it all and it was all junk, but not many.

    As for all those people who say that they didn’t feel qualified to evaluate the Best Editor category, why did you then vote that it would be better that nobody win the award than to allow those who are familiar with the work to have their votes counted? Toni is well know and received FAR more votes than the number of ‘puppy’ votes. But this wasn’t enough to beat the overwhelming ‘no award anything the puppies liked’ block vote.

    As for why the Dramatic Presnentation votes didn’t have the same anti-puppy block? I think that GRRM made a good point when he pointed out that the billions spend in those industries meant that nobody related to them would care about the puppies, or the hugos for that matter.

  418. Brad – thanks for the explanation of freeping. So Georgie is condemning freeping, but celebrating DUing by the CHORFs. And encouraging the Proper Fans to burn it all down again next year with No Awards if SP4 should be so bold as to make a list of recommendations available. And he challenges the Dread Ilk to go to Goodreads! I think he’s really an undercover agitator for Vox. His actions speak louder than his often childish words.

    CPaca – you asked for proof that someone on the CHORF side gave explicit instructions to vote No Award. I showed you that in Dierdre Whoosit’s column. You got nothing? Yes. You got nothing.

    Georgie – it will be good to hear the last of your childish ranting. (The train is fine, by the way.) Please don’t fret about the minions forking over money to vote in Goodreads or the Hugos – it wasn’t the Puppies who were buying bulk business memberships or offering scholarships. That would be your racist, sexist, scared of life Holy Fandom who needs help. Only they can’t be Fans because if they can’t afford the $40, they can’t go to conventions, can they? But that would question your narrative. Truth and logic must never enter your headspace.

    Mark – you say that you see the Puppies as a “continuum, albeit one that necessarily has greater crossovers, collaborations, and silent acquiescences than you are prepared to own”. You deny that the CHORFs are organized at all, except that they “didn’t like what you did”. You say, “… That all their chosen courses led to approximately the same result is not proof of them being a “side”, and yet you refuse to accord the same reasoning to the Sad Puppies votes in the Hugos. Sad Puppies did not intend to have a slate – but the CHORFS have been banging that drum as an excuse for their hateful behavior and actual venom at the Hugos. Please go to File 770, David Gerrold’s blog and Making Light, for a start. Actually read what James May writes, and follow the links. If you don’t see clear evidence of racial and sexual bias (‘Don’t read white male authors for a year’ is clear, to me.), if you don’t see scorn, vilification and hate at Gerrold’s, or the Haydens’…. if you can’t see the vicious glee in the crowd as the wooden asterisks were handed out… well, the Hugos are dying as a marker of the best in SFF. Vox and the Ilk will help the CHORFs kill it, especially with the able help of useful idiots like George.

    Brad, thanks for the blog. Wherever you are, stay safe.

  419. “(Slight tangent, Moen v Mixon was part of the fallout from the Requires Hate stuff, not Hugo related.)”

    Thank you, Mark. Moen vs. Mixon, snowcrash should note, had nothing to do with quality but had to do with ideology and politics. It was in no way Puppy related but it WAS absolutely another example of NA Voting for the Cause. Requires Hate is a racist, problematic, etc. This isn’t “Oh, I didn’t really care for that,” it was “Here is an evil person, you might want to take that into account when you vote.” This “hint hint, nudge nudge” garnered a much smaller NA punitive vote than the unambiguous Puppy List, but it DID express itself in the Hugos.

    Pretend this isn’t the atmosphere and environment that is tolerated in science fiction fandom… Requires Hate thrived and was encouraged, even by Mixon, until the wrong people became the targets and the wrong people were abused and hurt. This is a very much approved toxic methodology in fandom. It’s important to make sure everyone knows how much you agree with the cause. And then someone has to be there to decide if any random author Did It Right and who better to have that moral authority than… whatever the heck combination of grievance categories Requires Hate was?

    It was excessively brave of Mixon to go against that. It was a personal risk to her to go against that. And I believe she absolutely deserved her Hugo.

  420. Pingback: Random Shots for Sunday, 27 December 2015 | Extropy and Sedition

  421. From the File 770 comments yesterday:

    “Dexfarkin on January 2, 2016 at 7:59 pm said:

    (snip discussion of Dune and Scott Lynch)

    I’ve talked to a couple of book store owners in Toronto and someone is sending out Jim Hines roundup of the SP/RP affair. As a result, they are stopping making orders for Correia, Wright, Torgersen, Williamson and others of the worst broadcasters who have supported homophobic statements. I would assume the originator is part of Toronto’s gay community (which was oddly intertwined for years when Baka Books and the GLAAD bookstore were next door). It’s only the independents that I’ve heard so far, but if it hits Book City or Indigo, that could be a big repercussion.”

    You know, we’re the ones being accused of trying to shut out opposing voices, but it’s the forces of “tolerance” who are pulling crap like this.

  422. You know, we’re the ones being accused of trying to shut out opposing voices, but it’s the forces of “tolerance” who are pulling crap like this.

    1. How’s that Tor boycott going?
    2. That’s terrible. I believe that people are free to say what they want, and suffer or enjoy the consequence. I also believe that that, if true, is a ridiculous over-reach.

    @julieapascal – As I said earlier, please give me some time to deal with the shock that a different person has a different view of something I liked. People vote how they want, and based on whatever metric they want. I know people who NA the Best Graphic Story award sight-unseen year-after-year because they believe it should not be a Hugo category. Similarly for BDP and Best Editors.

    Do I agree with them? No.
    Do I think that they are Wrongfans enjoying their Badthink? Please.

    People have different standards. People will disagree, and defend their disagreement. But don’t expect a claim that they were wrong (or evil, or part of some vast yet nebulous conspiracy) to exercise their personal preference will go unchallenged.

  423. One big difference: we’re not trying to prevent people who want to buy TOR books from doing so.

  424. @snowcrash, one big difference between this and the Tor boycot is the Tor boycott is based on what people actually said, while the campaign against Correia, Wright, Torgersen, Williamson, etc is based on what people say they think, with contradictory information available.

    you know, the homophobic, male chauvinist, KKK wannabes, who were advocating for Sarah Hoyt’s book (a female, non-white, immigrant who’s book had a gay protagonist)

    On the Tor side of things, the statements are very clear, documented, and the only question is if Tom’s statement call for peace is a sufficient counter to make you believe that these statements aren’t the policy of Tor.

    I think we’ll find out this year. If the usual names from Tor are just as outspoken on the Anti-Puppy side as they were this year, then while the official Tor Management position may be reasonable, the attitudes adn actions of a large portion of the Tor senior Staff indicate that anyone holding anything other than strong anti-puppy views is not wanted, either as an author, or as a customer.

    I considered joining the boycott, but while my bookshelves have a high percentage of Tor books on them, looking at their new releases found very little I was interested in. I’ve purchased two Tor books since things blew up, both for series I was already reading (one of which I purchased used). This is compared to the 60+ books I’ve purchased from other sources during that time.

  425. Keep in mind, not all Sad Puppies are participating in the boycott. I’m not. But even if I were, and I owned a bookstore, I’d STILL stock their books.

  426. @davidelang

    If that’s your standard, keep in mind that Hines post is called “Puppies in their own words”, and consists of direct quotes by pups of various dispositions.

    @Chupik

    Note that people can still buy this stuff wherever else, as it’s entirely up to the store to decide what they stock. Regardless, still terrible, still excessive IMO.

  427. @snowcrash, I don’t know the post you are talking about. But if it shows Larry or Brad being racist or homophobic, I would seriously want to look at the context of the quotes, with the expectation that they are being taken out of context.

    Also remember, anyone can post something somewhere and claim that they are a sad pup, So that is also something I would consider. I’ll admit up front that there are people who post to the comments sections in various places who say nasty things. That doesn’t mean that the owner of the blog they are posting to agrees with them.

  428. Attacking me and Larry makes a strange kind of sense, because we’re LDS, and as you know, Bob, all LDS are raging Homerphobes! Or is it raging homophones? I can never remember what we’re all supposed to be. But whatever it is, it’s intolerant, and we all know how cultural marxists respond to intolerance. But attacking Mike Williamson? Mad Mike? That would be like attacking Colonel Sanders because somebody heard from this guy, who heard from some other guy, who read it on the internet, that Colonel Sanders hates fried chicken.

    Sometimes, these cultural marxists can’t just settle for going to Full Derp Factor. They have to aim for a slingshot around the sun, putting them into Time Derp; because that nuclear gay baby whale for Jesus (in the cargo hold) has to tell the giant space dildo in orbit to go f**k somebody else’s planet. For a change.

    But wait, where was I? Oh yeah, cultural marxists commanding Canadian bookstores to dump the Sad Puppies. I am pretty sure someone like Larry Correia can make more money in one day from an American independent bookstore — like Uncle Hugo’s, who will never dump Larry, ever — than Larry would have made in ten years of sales through the one or two Canadian independents who are foolish enough to let cultural marxists make their buying lists for them.

    Me? I earned out in just nine months, and got a fantastic royalty check for the holidays.

    If this is how the cultural marxists destroy my career, somebody needs to tell them to DERP HARDER, dammit.

    Cap’n, mah career canna take any more ‘o this! Aye! They be too many zeroes on mah checks from Baen!

  429. Brad, the only person in this entire thread to bring up your religion, let alone attack you for it, has been you. Is your desire for retroactive justification so high that you’re reduced to volunteering for insults before they’re made?

  430. I’ve got a closing thought. vivienneraper is right on target that fans have been primed to make liberal use of No Award.

    I no-awarded novelette and short story because the work didn’t say “Hugo Winner,” dramatic presentations because I dislike formulaic blockbusters and shows, and fan-cast and -artist because one is silly and the other obsolete.

    I had to catch myself before doing the same in other categories. In the end I left related work, graphic story, and the other editor, zine and artist categories blank, because I had mixed feelings or didn’t feel qualified to judge.

    But if you cast a ballot with the intent of placing something (Vox Day or whatever) below No Award, you don’t have that option. You have to decide: does Heuvelt’s mediocre story (or a Baen editor, or Mike Resnick) go above the line in the sand or under it? Perhaps most at least looked at Heuvelt’s novelette first, since it was right there, but others surely just ticked the box, or even mistook it for a puppy pick. And clearly they didn’t all go out of their way to read a bunch of recent Baen novels or what have you.

    So that’s the choice. If folks decide to no-award punitively, everybody loses. You know, personally speaking, I wouldn’t mind that much if No Award wins for a couple years, until stuff that hardly anyone can deny is exemplary gets nominated. Maybe we’d all raise our game.

  431. @mark, the “they’re MORMANS” card was not raised in this comment thread, but it was raised quite a bit over the last year, including by whatever ‘mysterious’ method all the national press were given pretty close to the identical story to run.

  432. It’s totes cool to bag on LDS, in this field. Can’t bag on Muslims, that’s Islamophobia. But bagging on Mormons is perfectly acceptable. Why, just the other day I saw a screenshot of someone latching onto a Scalzi Twitter thing, calling for Mormons to be classified officially as a hate group. Someone wake me when the cultural marxists get their story straight, about Mormons and Muslims.

  433. @David Lang

    Nothing mysterious. Correia admitted to as much in his RFI post back in February.

    Why do I think that if asked, you’ll either don’t have any of this alleged “Mormon prejudice” articles or (more likely) you’ll claim that they were so prevalent that anyone can find them. Also, I’ll be severely disappointed if your allegations rest on people describing Brad and Larry as Mormons, because there’s a hell of a difference between being descriptive and being prejudicial.

    @Brad – good lords! Someone made a stupid and bigoted comment on Twitter! And it was a Scalzi Twitter thing too? The scoundrel! BtW, I’m glad that there have never been tweets like that targeted towards Muslims, as (as you say) that would have been unacceptable.

    This has been a rancorous enough kerfuffle, without your (or similarly, John Wright’s) claims of religious oppression. Let’s nip this victim mentality in the bud shall we? It’s undignified, and as Mark notes, is a sad attempt to justify some poorly thought out actions.

  434. I love Hines. He can see group defamation everywhere but where it is. His cult celebrates stories about vengeful dinosaurs that are no different in principle than avenging one’s self on black men. Their Selkie story is no different than a straight man escaping lesbian parents who are immoral as an entire group. Leckie’s Ancillary Justice is no different in principle than promoting an SF novel which holds the key to cure homosexuality. Vylar Kaftan’s story about noble PoC may as well have been an alt-history where Jim Crow never ended and Chicago is a peaceful city. Shweta Narayan’s story in We See a Different Frontier may as well have been a Jewish woman avenging herself on an Arab trader in Spain 100 years before Islam existed and invaded Spain, because Arab immorality is a default stretching itself in time before an actual event and ideology like Islam. Sabrina Vourvoulias’ story in Long Hidden is no different than giving Indians Gatling guns at the Little Big Horn because no cowardly Indian could beat a white man without an advantage. Alyssa Wong’s story is no different than a Muslim writing a story about a Jewish woman who murders her entire family and converts to Islam after learning Jews use the West Bank like Soylent Green… after raping them, of course.

    There is no opposite number to this Third Wave sub-genre of racial/sexual revenge fantasies of group defamation and never has been, though SFF’s crusaders cry this is exactly the case. SFF’s Third Wave dingle-dongles don’t see a different frontier, they see one which never existed.

    Lightspeed may as well review-censor Latinos and publish their segregated anthologies with names like “Whites Take Back SFF,” “Heterosexuals Take Back Fantasy,” “Men Take Back Horror.” TorCom may as well have a columnist who names their column from a quote from The Turner Diaries and have posts which are manifestos calling for an end to homosexual SFF, because reasons.

    Notice how intersectional twits always have “reasons” for their group defamation, discrimination and segregation. Well, so does the KKK.

  435. @snowcrash US publishing is mostly controlled by a Anglophone cosmopolitan elite (not in a perjorative sense) and we do tend to be secular to aggressively atheist. We tend to be suspicious of people who believe in their religion unless they’re also in a designated identity group.

    @Brian Z. I also had the No Award hammer out in force. I was pretty democratic in its application – Puppy and non-Puppy entries got the boot. Having read finalists from 2014 and the ‘short-fiction Hugo ballot that would have been’, I’d have No Awarded a load of stuff there too. I’m a VERY demanding reader of my own work, as well as other people’s, which is why I don’t finish much fiction 😉

    @David Lang. I read the comments and blogposts that raised No Award as an option. It’s impossible to gauge the impact of them because, of course, we don’t know who read them. Several people on File770 have now said they voted without reading the slate-nominated entries but, again, they’re not representative of everyone who voted. All that said, Puppygate was discussed at two writing groups I belong here in the UK. Also at a special panel at Eastercon (http://jamesworrad.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/sad-puppies-panel-eastercon-2015.html). It’s hard not to imagine this discussion affecting how UK voters approached the nominated work.

    @Brad I haven’t seen any proof of the Canada bookshop thing yet (e.g. A photo of a leaflet or an email). If more than gossip, it is evidence of the censorious asshattery of some activists on the identitarian left. The Hines post is, I think, this one (http://www.jimchines.com/2015/06/puppies-in-their-own-words/).

  436. Our social justice crusaders create hideously distorted versions of the types of old school morality tales that were common with writers like Ray Bradbury and Rod Serling. In the case of that generation, they would write stories that emphasized our commonality as humans and human frailties shown as a shared failing, not locked up in a race or sex. The end of each Outer Limits episode had a voice over reminding us of our shared weakness or strengths as a world of humans. SF was well-positioned to address such things by shifting identities so a woman might fall in love with a hideous mutant over her fiancee she increasingly came to “see” as lacking in compassion in The Outer Limits “The Man Who Was Never Born.” Rod Serling didn’t demonize the Japanese but rather wrote teleplays which stressed the Japanese at Hiroshima were no different from ourselves. Serling had good reason to do the opposite, having served in the Pacific War and experienced wounds and trauma for which there were no “safe-spaces” and the effects of which he would suffer from the rest of his life. His wife became used to the sound of Serling tumbling down their stairs when his knee gave out. Serling didn’t come to hate the Japanese, he came to hate war.

    Today’s social justice do-gooders – powered by the sick supremacist ideology of Third Wave Feminist dogma – write parables that teach the opposite lessons. They systematically de-emphasize our commonalities and stress our differences based on nothing more than skin and sex. From its very beginnings a half century ago, radical feminism has engaged in demonization theories of straight white males that are little more than analogies to blood libels, and today you see SFF stories that are what one might expect from the Nazi Party’s propaganda ministry, not the pens of Bradbury or Serling. Kai Ashante Wilson recently started a subsequently award-nominated story at the disgrace called TorCom titlled “The Devil in America” with the words “1955 Emmett Till.” But this is not the principled portrayal of human failure Rod Serling showed in his 1956 (subsequently censored into unrecognizability) teleplay about the murder of Emmett Till. Wilson’s story works in precisely the opposite direction and forever freezes immorality into one skin and out the other.

    In so-called “social justice” SFF, they are writing the equivalent of “Hiroshima Was Great… Let’s Do It Again.” In an analogy, social justice crusaders haven’t come to hate war, but the Japanese. Why is it a surprise their literature does the equivalent of slapping Japanese and German tourists in 2015. Everyone associated with this body of revenge literature being nominated for awards is a disgrace to themselves, their families, and the human race. Next time some fool announces no white men won an award, play the SFWA’s new theme song; “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” from Cabaret. WW II never ended for our new Third Wave Feminist-inspired SFF literature, and it never will; and they are on the wrong side.

  437. A long-time fan recently reminded me that fandom has (more or less) been at odds with itself for the better part of 80 years. Always, he said, it’s a question of FIAWOL versus FIJAGDH. The sercons versus the Insurgents. The ever-refined gradation of fannishness, beginning with mundanity (at the normal end) and ending with trufandom (at the obsessive end.)

    That the old fan-on-fan struggle has been ampliified by the broader 21st-century culture war — with cultural marxists seeking to redefine our language and institutions — merely demonstrates my point that fandom isn’t something people do secretly in their garages anymore. Fandom is everywhere. It’s big business. Everyone is a fan. And when everyone is a fan, a body like Worldcon seems quaintly obsolete.

    The Hugos may or may not regain relevance in the marketplace. If the cultural marxists have their way, then SF/F — the literary enterprise — will fade into the academic woodwork, while SF/F media continues to stampede across the larger societal stage.

    In many ways, I think trufandom (and the sercons, and the CHORFs) would love this: a complete detaching of SF/F literature from the “mundane” sphere of movies, television, and games. So that SF/F literature can continue speaking to its own navel, at length; properly kept and shaped by both taste-makers, and activists.

    If that happens, then Sad Puppies will be regarded as a last-ditch attempt to rescue the SF/F literary enterprise from itself. Quixotic.

    Of course, self-publishing may simply override all. Crush the gatekeepers, activists, and taste-makers beneath the rumbling hooves of indie authors, all writing SF/F without giving a damn about traditions, expectations, fannish history, political squabbling, or the incessant pining of SF-lit poseurs; for acceptance into the community of “real literature” which has had a love/hate affair with SF/F for many decades.

    Me? I am solidly FIJAGDH, and make no apologies for it. I love my books and stories. I love my movies. I love my games. I love writing books and stories. But I also like to laugh at myself, and laugh at the absurdity of Nerds Who Take It All Too Seriously — NWTIATS.

    And that’s where I tend to part ways with the sercon crowd, of which Steve Davidson would seem to be an exemplar.

  438. There were a fair number of Hugo voters who found that there was a group or groups (many were unclear on the kinds of Puppies) who saw that a group had organized to nominate works, and said, “WTF, we’ve been through this before with the Scientology thing”, and they decided to No Award the whole pile. It doesn’t help that quite a few Puppy bloggers talked about how they had no interest in attending WorldCons or the local cons where WorldCon attendees come from.

    I nominated some Puppy works, and happily voted for several, because I hadn’t been terribly impressed with the Hugo nominees lately, but I still have a fair amount of sympathy for those folks. I suspect quite a few New York Libertarians were pretty pissed when Howard Stern turned up to use his following to get the nomination for the governor’s race in 1994, which I think is a lot like how the whole Puppy thing felt to them.

    George Kriby writes:

    This year, I think fans will be more vigilant during the nomination process which means less opportunity for pups to hike their leg over the punch bowl.

    If that means that an author with 50 followers on Facebook can’t get a nomination for any random thing he happens to type, in the less popular categories, then I’d say the Puppies will have improved the Hugos even if they don’t get on the ballot.

  439. Re: Pups in their own words. James frequently posts huge quantities of hateful posts from those on the other side speaking “in their own words”. Even as I am sympathetic and my personal confirmation bias would lead me to believe these quotes represent the people quoted, I’m aware that everyone has crabby days and take that into account. And no offense to James (I certainly couldn’t stomach paying that close attention to all that crap) but he’s rather focused and utterly committed… and I just gotta wonder if Jim Hines likes being the Kicker’s James May. And I gotta wonder, if those who believe that Hines’s quotes are important and prove something have the same standards as they’d approach James’s lists of quotes, or if they have… selective… standards. (I lie… I don’t really wonder about that.)

  440. One could easily write an entire book about how hate speech has been recently mainstreamed into the public arena via SFF awards venues. That would include how old school SFF authors provided lessons to do the exact opposite via titles like “If This Goes On –” and 1984.

    Lesbian feminist and self-proclaimed “intersectionalist” Sunny Moraine’s latest short story (recommended by a commenter at 770) “At Whatever Are Their Moons” at the Third Wave Feminist Strange Horizons has passages like “Cora’s dark skin, the dark sky, the dark brown of the wood beneath her, the darker flat of the ground below. All dark, all everywhere, and all lovely.”

    Seth Dickensen’s fantasy novel Traitor Baru Cormorant has a description like “skin the color of good earth.” The entire novel freezes morality or lack of it in gay vs. straight, men vs. women, and PoC vs. whites. In other words modern social justice SFF reads like a reversed out Nazi literature. Contrary to the Golden Age of SF, modern SFF provides lessons on how to mainstream hate speech, not warnings and tools on how to avoid it.

    It’s pretty evident the intellectual sophistication and awareness of the average author being nominated for Hugos and Nebulas is far below that of their forerunners and morally trends in the exact opposite direction. We no longer write short stories like “The Marching Morons,” we are the marching morons. To help get there you have to put a streamlined shape and mess with the speedometer to overcome Moraine’s awful self-conscious arty prose and make it seem faster than it actually is. I expect Dickensen’s novel to be nominated come awards time and I wouldn’t be surprised if Moraine shows up. That’s how the new Ministry of Propaganda works. To say this is the most extraordinary era in the history of SFF fandom is an understatement. The torque from Serling, Bradbury, Heinlein, Brackett and Orwell spinning in their graves threatens to throw the Earth out of its orbit.

  441. @julieapascal

    I have to say I’m rather amused that you praise James May’s ability to find “hateful posts” and he promptly lands a comment in which he condemns fictional prose descriptions as hate speech.

  442. It’s creepy race literature, Mark, because there is no doubt those descriptions were done with a purpose and not merely descriptive. It reminds me of a poster of noble Nazis standing in a noble field of grain holding the noble hands of their noble white children while their noble white teeth flash in the noble white sun.

    It’s “diversity” literature, Mark. It’s meant to undo the “white male colonial gaze,” a quote which unsurprisingly comes from a Tiptree Award-winner. In doing research (a thing foreign to you given your inane comments) I’ve seen these people have these exact conversations about such “positive” skin descriptions time and again. I’m not surprised you approve. Tomorrow belongs to you.

  443. Strange Horizons was founded by a third wave “feminist” and SFWA member named Mary Ann Mohanraj. In 2009, in a remarkable two part guest-post at Scalzi’s website which references “Racefail” and “discussing race and privilege,” she describes herself as “I was a founding board member of the Carl Brandon Society, which works to support minorities in the field through various awards and other initiatives. … [I] teach fiction writing and literature (mostly post-colonial) at the University of Illinois. Also, I was born in Sri Lanka, and have brown skin. So now you know where I’m coming from.”

    Yes we do, Mary. “If you’re white, you have white privilege,” writes Mary in that post. Mohanraj also writes “The lack of writers of color, and of white writers writing characters of color, leads to a lack of literature featuring such characters — which leads to fans of color deciding that SF/F isn’t meant for them, because there’s no one in the stories who looks like them. Or if there is, they’re always the villain, or the emasculated sidekick, or the whore.”

    “If you’re writing a white character, and there’s no good reason for them to be white, change their ethnicity,” writes Mohanraj.

    I recommend everyone read these posts to understand how people like Mohanraj and Scalzi have ruined our hobby in the remarkable space of only 6 years after 100 years of art for art’s sake and genre for the sake of genre which these morons interpret as “whiteness” and “privilege.” The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    There is little doubt the Puppies were born after 4 years of “When will white people…” and “Dear white people…” and “white tears” and “white fragility” and “white saviors.” Throw in the stupid pronouns and you have a racially/sexually self-absorbed narcissistic neo-Nazi literature. Puppies is Scalzi’s Squirrel Theory in action. Homophobic, privileged, racist, women-haters: CONFIRMED. LOL

    I have another solution: stop throwing rocks at squirrels. You’ll be amazed at how quiet things become.

  444. James, neither of the quotes you provided contained any moral judgements linked to skin colour. I see what you’re going to try and do with the words “good” and “lovely”, but as I’ve read the fuller passages surrounding each I have the advantage of the full context.

    For those playing along at home, the Sunny Morraine quote is part of a description of the desert night as “lovely” from a character traveling alone into the deep desert on an airship; while the quote from Traitor is one of several descriptions of skin, which include fallow earth, loam, milky, cream, copper, weathered oak, warm brown, pale, very dark, oat, black. “Good earth” is simply a variation on “fallow earth” and “loam”, and is applied to a member of the empire that is mainly portrayed as bad. I challenge anyone to identify the moral judgement in that prose. (Or in the book for that matter, in which every single character is morally ambiguous at best.)
    Those who, like Julie, appear to take James bag o’ quotes as incisively researched and reliable should note that I exposed his game of quoting out of context with the very first one I looked at. By contrast, James is batting zero for showing that anything anyone has said in this thread is wrong.

  445. You’re a liar, Mark. I haven’t stripped away context but dragged in lots of it. It’s you who doesn’t understand what and who Strange Horizons and Moraine are, nor the agendas they’ve repeated over and over again. Anyone who’s read the first two chapters of Dickensen’s book AND the thousands of social justice Tweets and blogs in SFF knows Dickensen is a keen observer of these issues and has peppered his novel with Third Wave memes. The idea there is moral ambiguity in the homophobic, racist, colonialist stereotype Dickensen has created where global slavery, imperialism and colonialism was always white “cishet” is laughable. Dickensen’s moral ethos is quite clear: white people are bad, PoC good; “cishet” bad, gays good; men bad, women good. If Dickensen wanted to address true ambiguity he might want to take a look at the Taj Mahal and Alhambra and ask if they grew out of the ground or are invisible.

    And right on cue Glyer links to a post by a Third Wave Feminist and self-declared “genderqueer” who recently claimed heterosexuality was “invented” named Laurie Penny.

    Penny’s post is sheer propaganda and the proverbial “tissue of lies.” Women like her want to be in the stories but not the action that powers the stories. The truth is there wasn’t a thing in the world stopping Englishwomen from going on strike in 1943 and insisting on being put on near suicidal four-engine bombers in electrically heated suits and oxygen masks in unpressurized planes at 35,000 feet and 40 below zero temps. No… that was just fine to leave to “the boys.” Amazing how these feminists don’t want diversity there.

    The other lie she sells is acting as if Chinese and Arabs don’t place themselves at the center of their own mythological tales, but that if European culture does we’re racial supremacists. Then, when we object to Penny’s false portrayals, she just as falsely writes we’re angry we’re “not the hero anymore,” just as Liz Bourke at TorCom once falsely claimed white epic fantasy writers over decades tacitly colluded to maintain their own racial centrality, and T. Nielsen Hayden writes white men are angry they’ve lost their entitlements.

    It’s the same con game over and over again. We’re supposed to believe the E. Hamilton, Brackett, Bradbury and Serling who wrote anti-colonialist and anti-Jim Crow stories were actually an SFF genre of racial-sexual narcissists. Then these Third Wave pickles come in and use that lie as an excuse to power a very real racial-sexually obsessed literature set in opposition to one which never existed. Penny is not seeing the “rage” of “white men” but the rage of people who see equal protection kicked into a rubbish heap by people who are transparently liars.

    Penny writes “what we haven’t been allowed to see is our experience reflected…” “Allowed”? Who stopped you from getting on those bombers, Penny? And what “experience”? Who stopped you from marching on Tenochtitlan in 1520 or exploring the South Pole in 1912? Where do you think The Illiad came from? Get out there and create your own myths and then write about them.

    By the way, Mark, what’s your opinion of the connection between Ancillary Justice and the post-structuralist metaphor and double entendre of “before the law”? Start Googling there, buddy. LOL

  446. Dearie me James. Your own example of a black person being portrayed as “good” was a portrayal of a black person as a member of a conquering empire who invades and subjugates the island-nation the protagonist comes from. I’m guessing you didn’t make it past the first two chapters you mention (the amazon sample, by any chance?), and are therefore unable to make any sort of judgement on the book’s contents past that.

    Anyway, you dedicate one paragraph to trying to bluff past your own dishonest quoting, and then type up 6 paragraphs of avoiding-my-accusation. I’ll say it again: your facts about The Traitor are simply incorrect, and your quote from Morraine is deliberately cut up to make it seem as if “lovely” has a different subject than the one in the actual text. I’m two for two on “James May’s quotes are not reliable” and you’re batting zero in the credibility stakes.

    Anyone wishing to depend on James May as a source of information in the future needs to be aware that unless you’ve done your own due diligence any argument you make is erected on unsafe foundations.

  447. “If your writing is full of white men, it’s shitty writing.” “Well-educated white dudes with a lot of opinions and just enough smarts to think they have it all figured out make me so goddamn tired.” – Sunny Moraine

    There’s your racist supremacist lesbian with no dog in the hunt but Donna (Cyborg) Haraway featured on her blog, not that I’d expect you to know what that means, and no; it’s not mixed martial arts.

    I have for a fact only read the first two chapters of Baru and it told me plenty, and it’s the usual BS about straight white males and noble PoC lesbians with 3 parents and an evil white empire of meritocracy. Brrrrr!

    And what powers that BS? God forbid Golden Age straight white males would write about themselves in a genre of boy’s adventure fiction in a country 90% white and 97% heterosexual. How in the world did that bizarre anomaly occur? Conspiracy! Supremacy! But let’s just never mention The Arabian Nights, Bollywood or Wuxia, or Ottomans, Abassids or Mughals for that matter. It’s just my imagination goofs like Dickensen can’t see any colonialism but European. Somehow none of that is ever “shitty writing.”

    By the way, set your research skills to work. Can you tell me when heterosexuality was invented? Inquiring minds want to know. Pwah-ha-ha. What bunch of weird cultists you are.

    You’re batting .000, Mark, and you’re a bald-faced serial liar who thinks Google and Wiki make for debate.

    I’ll give you a hint about that post-structuralist thing: last night someone on Twitter mentioned “Derrida in drag.” Get to work, before the law waits for no binary. LOL.

    I can end this feud right now, Mark. Use the concept of equal protection to define group defamation and this ends now. The rest will take care of itself, just as Rod Serling hoped in his Nov. 11, 1966 speech at UCLA. Moraine’s no Serling; she’s an anti-Serling, and so are you, Glyer and your whole crew at Pier 770 fighting imaginary cishet gender pirates who hijacked lesbianism sometime between the Garden of Eden and the rise of great urban centers. What was that date again…? Mark?

  448. Hey, Mark. What would you do if you were a dinosaur? Would you use a vacuum cleaner to suck up all the fun and cishets in the world or just scavenge dead carcasses in a tropical pre-binary swamp?

  449. Oh dear James, now you’re actually letting down everyone who’s apparently depended on you be a reliable source of information. They can all see that when called on misquoting and misrepresentation you throw everything at the keyboard except for any defence or explanation relating to the matter at hand. Why aren’t your replies addressing the matter of the actual quotes you (mis)used?

    >>“You’re batting .000, Mark, and you’re a bald-faced serial liar who thinks Google and Wiki make for debate.”

    Not one use of google or wiki in my replies James, and everyone reading this can see that. I’m going straight to the primary sources of what you quoted, and demonstrating that you fabricated the evidence you used in your post by chopping up one quote and misrepresenting the character in the other. Both sources are available on the internet for anyone to see.

    All, I really hope that James May hasn’t been the sole source for your quotes of outrage, because he’s embarrassing you right now.

Comments are closed.