An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy

A few days ago the finalists for the Hugo were announced. The Hugos are the big prestigious award for science fiction and fantasy. One of my books was a finalist for best novel. A bunch of other works that I recommended showed up in other categories. Because I’m an outspoken right winger, hilarity ensued.

Many of you have never heard of me before, but the internet was quick to explain to you what a horrible person I am. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts. The character assassination has started as well, and my detractors posted and tweeted and told anyone who would listen about how I was a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a rape apologist, an angry white man, a religious fanatic, and how I wanted to drag homosexuals to death behind my pickup truck.

The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn’t talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety.

I wish I was exaggerating. Don’t take my word for it. My readers have been collecting a lot of them in the comments of the previous Hugo post and on my Facebook page. Plug my name into Google for the last few days. Make sure to read the comments to the various articles too. They’re fantastic.

Of course, none of this stuff is true, but it was expected. I knew if I succeeded I would be attacked. To the perpetually outraged the truth doesn’t matter, just feelings and narrative. I’d actually like to thank all of those people making stuff up about me because they are proving the point I was trying to make to begin with.

Allow me to explain why the presence of my slate on the Hugo nominations is so controversial. This is complicated and your time is valuable, so short explanation first, longer explanation if you care after.

Short Version:

  1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
  2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
  3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
  4. Point made.

I’ve said for a long time that the awards are biased against authors because of their personal beliefs. Authors can either cheer lead for left wing causes, or they can keep their mouth shut. Open disagreement is not tolerated and will result in being sabotaged and slandered. Message or identity politics has become far more important than entertainment or quality. I was attacked for saying this. I knew that when an admitted right winger got in they would be maligned and politicked against, not for the quality of their art but rather for their unacceptable beliefs.

If one of us outspoken types got nominated, the inevitable backlash, outrage, and plans for their sabotage would be very visible. So I decided to prove this bias and launched a campaign I called Sad Puppies (because boring message fiction is the leading cause of Puppy Related Sadness).

The Hugos are supposed to be about honoring the best works, and many of the voters still take this responsibility very seriously. I thank them for this. But basically the Hugos are a popularity contest decided by the attendees of WorldCon. I am a popular writer, however my fans aren’t typical WorldCon attendees. Anyone who pays to purchase a WorldCon membership is allowed to vote. Other writers, bloggers, and even publishing houses have encouraged their fans to get involved in the nomination process before. I simply did the same thing. This controversy arises only because my fans are the wrong kind of fans.

For the people saying that I bought votes, or made up fake people, or bought memberships for a couple hundred imaginary relatives, nope. For those saying I committed fraud, put up or shut up. That would be extremely easy to prove if it were the case. I’ve been up front and public the whole time. Sadly, the thing which has so damaged your calm consisted of a few blog posts and I drew a cartoon. And I’m a terrible artist: http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/14/sad-puppies-2-the-illustrated-edition/

Eventually one of my friends colored the cartoon in PhotoShop and one of my fans thought it was funny and made a video. Sorry, outrage crowd. No big evil conspiracy. An evil right winger is treading in your sacred halls because of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzGKlOkQsxY

I mean, seriously, my spokesman was a manatee. No. I’m not making that up. So Sad Puppies 2: Rainbow Puppy Lighthouse The Huggening got my fans involved. Really, that was what we called it. Because writing is such a serious business.

Even last year’s winner, John Scalzi, has said that I did nothing different than what he and other authors have done before. And Scalzi and I seldom agree on anything. Tor.com wrote a scathing bit condemning my actions (and implied what a horrid writer I am). Of course, the very same website did the exact same thing explaining to Wheel of Time fans how the rules allowed them to nominate all 14 books as a single work and encouraged them to get involved. And a cursory Google search by my fans found dozens of other places where authors, reviewers, and bloggers had pushed their favorite works and tried to get fans involved.

We always hear about how fandom is supposed to be inclusive… Only apparently my fans are the wrong kind of fans. They don’t care about the liberal cause of the day. They don’t care about Social Justice. They like their books entertaining rather than preachy. They probably vote incorrectly. That sort of thing.

The last few days have been kind of awesome. I said that for the Hugo’s the writer’s politics were more important than the quality of their work. I was called a liar. Yet, within a couple of hours of the announcement there were multiple posts from the other side where groups of SJWs were strategizing how to make sure No Award beat me, and how to punish every other artist I recommended as well. Others were complaining that the rules needed to be changed to keep the undesirables out. All of this was while they proudly bragged how they had not read me, nor ever would… because tolerance. Hell if I know.

For those who have heard that I’m a terrible, undeserving writer whose mere presence is a mockery of their sacred system, but haven’t read any of my books, I’m actually pretty decent. Feel free to judge for yourself. For the record, my novel that is nominated, Warbound, is the final book in a trilogy that has sold extremely well, been translated into a bunch of other languages where it has also done well, gotten tons of positive reviews (out of the thousands of reviews for this series from across all the various different places I’m still at 4 ½ stars) won and been nominated for other awards, is one of the bestselling and most praised audiobook series there is, has won two Audies, is currently nominated for a third, and been a finalist for best novel in other countries where I don’t speak the language and can’t campaign, so there is that…

But everybody knows bad people can’t create art, says the side that keeps showering Roman Polanski with awards.

In closing, I would really like everybody who is a voting member of WorldCon to actually read the works in each category and vote based upon which ones they think are best. I fully expect Wheel of Time to win my category of best novel. It is a fourteen book epic written by two authors over twenty six years. Duh.

Personally, my goal has been reached. I got the thought police to show the world their pretty pink panties. :)

##

Long Version:

Now here are the behind the scenes details for whoever wants the whole story.

Bias and Motivation: In this business, most writers who are conservative, republican, libertarian, or devoutly religious have needed to keep their head down so as to not rock the boat and damage their careers. This damage comes from two directions, the publishing industry which is based in Manhattan and which is uniformly left wing, which will hurt careers out of spite, and also from the small, but extremely vocal left wing fans who swoop in to crush all dissent. I like to call them the Social Justice Warriors.

If right wing authors share their opinions, they will be openly chastised and attacked by very vocal, very angry people. Any deviation from the approved narrative is met with scorn, mockery, character assassination, and because the author doesn’t want to damage his career, he will usually fall back into line and shut his mouth. Basically if you step out, they form an angry mob and attack you until you roll over and apologize for something that shouldn’t be apologized for. Once you’re apologizing for your principles, they own you. They really don’t know what to do about people like me.

This squashing worked for them for years, which helped establish this vision that genre fic, much like Hollywood and the rest of media, was monolithically left. In reality people like me sell a ton of books. SJWs became a powerful voting block for the Hugo’s and pushed their favorite topic of the day as the best works. Many regular readers became turned off or annoyed. Genre fiction fans are as diverse as the rest of the country. As time has gone on, more and more of us creators have gotten pissed off and started being open about our beliefs. I sold machineguns and did gun rights lobbying before I got my first book published, so being in the closet about my politics was never an option for me.

My first realization about how messed up this system was dates back to when I was first starting out. One of the smaller voting blocks at WorldCon is made up of Baen fans. They got me a nomination for the Campbell award for best new author. I was brand new, hardly anybody except for them had heard of me. No problem… Except then people looked to see who these new guys were, and they discovered that I was a Mormon, who owned a gun store, and who’d done gun rights lobbying for the Republican party, and had been running a gun nut political blog for years… Whoops. The SJWs had a complete come apart and began warning each other what a terrible, awful, horrible, bad person I was. (most of them were downright gleeful to proclaim they would never read any books from someone so despicable). A reviewer declared that Larry Correia winning the Campbell would “end literature forever”. They hadn’t read my book. The funny thing is that I was actually much more polite to my detractors on the internet back then. Within 24 hours of the announcement I knew that I would be dead last. People who believed this stuff physically avoided me at WorldCon because they’d been told how I was unsafe.

But there is no bias.

After that I got back to the business of writing books. I’ve published ten more since then. I probably would have been content to ignore awards and just keep on cashing my royalty checks, but the SJWs had to just keep on annoying me, by mocking and insulting me and my friends. A writer can only be told they’re not a *real* writer (because of their badthink) so many times before we say screw it and hoist the black flag. If you’re curious how come my fans ponied up perfectly good money to get involved, it is because they’ve been watching this transpire in the comments here, on my FB page, and on Twitter for several years. They felt invested.

This SJW angry mob inquisition has been a gradual and relatively recent development in our culture, mostly as a result of the anonymous and instant internet. It isn’t just for writers, but the demand for a rigid conformity which is expected from the entire entertainment industry. There are many on the left who cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints or philosophies, so when they arise, they must be stomped down. Any deviation from conformity is met with immediate outrage. They have been doing it to people on my side for so long that it is simply expected by us. We are used to it.

However, it comes as a shock to reasonable people on the left when so emboldened the SJWs begin to do the same thing to people on their own side. Stephen Colbert says something they don’t like. Outrage. Patton Oswalt simply agrees with someone on my side. Outrage. Jonathan Ross might say something in the future. Outrage. Patrick Rothfuss says maybe fandom shouldn’t be so quick to outrage. Outrage. Wil Wheaton simply retweets Rothfuss. Outrage. So on and so forth. It doesn’t even matter that all of these people are staunch allies of the outrage crowd, the mob has been programmed to attack, so they do.

Responding to the insults: I wasn’t joking about Google searching my name and reading the comments. Holy moly, it really is enlightening what we’re dealing with here.

First off, I know it doesn’t matter what I say here, because we’ve already seen hundreds of time that they’ll ignore my actual words and just make up new ones for me.

The thing is everybody who knows me knows that I’m actually a nice guy and all that stuff is a bunch of crap. Yes, I am extremely rude to people who attack me on the internet. It saves us all time that way. Six years of this has worn away my thin veneer of civility. Don’t show up, call me a racist teabagger, and then expect reasoned discourse. We all know where we are going to end up eventually, so why not skip all that passive aggressive foreplay and get down to where we’re going to end up anyway, with you making up stuff, and me kicking your ass.

Many of my writer friends who’ve had the option of keeping their heads down and their beliefs secret think that I’m crazy to be so public. I have a response ready for them, I usually pick out whatever topic it is that I know they personally feel very strongly about, but which goes against the accepted group think of the Social Justice Warriors and ask them to go write a blog post sharing their honest beliefs, and then see what happens. Of course, none of them ever take me up on it, because they know that the caring and tolerant crowd would immediately and blindly lash out.

The funny thing about the misogyny, racism, and homophobic allegations, is that I was a self-defense instructor for the better part of a decade and certified literally thousands of people to carry concealed firearms. I taught women, minorities, homosexuals, didn’t matter, often on my own dime, all because I think people who would try to drag anyone to death behind a pickup truck will have a difficult time doing so after they have a pair of hollow points placed into their chest cavity at high speed. Unlike the SJWs, I don’t just pay lip service to empowerment.

Since I’m a prolific political blogger, with thousands of posts to pick through, you’d think these people would have some actual example of where I’d been racist, homophobic, or misogynist, but they don’t. Go figure. In reality, all of us right wingers simply know that the outrage crowd attacking us is so boringly predictable that we have a checklist ready to go for them: http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/09/20/the-internet-arguing-checklist/

Politically, I’m more of a libertarian than anything. Of all the things I’ve been called over the last few days, the most hurtful thing said was that I was a NeoCon who believed in big government welfare (that’s a bit more offensive than the woman who insinuated I’m a wife beater). If they’re looking for homophobia on my blog, they’re always sad when they discover that I’m not against gay marriage, mostly because I’m far more frightened of the overreaching federal government telling people what to do than I am of gay cooties. The angry privileged white man bit is kind of funny since legally I’m not white and I grew up in a poor immigrant community. But facts should never get in the way of a good narrative.

It is kind of sad that some republicans getting nominated is far more controversial than actual communists and socialists winning. Last time I looked those particular philosophies had killed over a hundred million people over the last hundred years, but there’s absolutely no bias in the awards…
Allegations of fraud: I also had another goal, which I never shared publically during my campaigning. I had heard many allegations of fraud in the nomination process from other authors. Tossed votes, far lower than expected counts, that sort of thing. I am a full time author now, but I am a retired auditor. I love looking for fraud. I do spreadsheets and statistical analysis for fun. So I wanted to see if votes were being tossed. When Sad Puppies 1 launched I kept track of who said they were voting, kept a tally, and then kept their emails so if necessary I could ask for their registration receipts. My suggested slate in other categories would help provide check figures in the smaller categories. (But for the record, everything I suggested was something that I read, enjoyed, and thought was of superior quality and deserving of an award).

The final numbers for last year were within the expected deviation. No red flags. LonCon has struck me as perfectly honest in my dealings with them. So I’m happy to say that I see no evidence of dishonesty in the nominating process. That is excellent.

So me being accused of making up fake voters is kind of funny since you can go through my blog and Facebook comments and see all the real live genre fiction fans I’ve been collecting.

Applying a little critical thinking to this (something Social Justice Warriors struggle with) I’m a popular author. I have more daily blog readers than the total attendance of WorldCon. And not only that, my fans aren’t casual, they are hardcore. I just did a Kickstarter and sold over a hundred thousand dollars worth of merchandise related to one of my book series. (still waiting on those last 70 coins, dang it, stupid broken molds!). That’s not a typo, over $100,000 of merchandise on one project in a month… My last Kickstarter before that did $85,000. So what’s more likely, my fans are hard core and have enough disposal income to drop $40 to make a point to an annoying group of people who despises my fans, or that I spent thousands of dollars of my own money to make up imaginary relatives?

Please, keep in mind, my fan base is the same group that routinely is able to sway the entire ranking system of the biggest online book retailer in the world. Once a month, I pick a book, Book Bomb it, and my fans move it onto the Amazon bestseller lists. I’d say that the evidence suggests that A. I’ve got fans. B. They like books. C. Many of them have money.

I find it fascinating that many people on the left end of the spectrum actually believe that their beliefs are the norm among genre fiction readers. They’ve created an echo chamber to validate each other. They’ve taken over SFWA and dominate the conversation there. They’re right and good and any who disagree are evil and bad. They formed a powerful voting block in the most prestigious awards and once a year they could reinforce just how brilliant and important they are by nominating their friends to the various categories. In the last Sad Puppies post’s comments my fans collected a whole bunch of the SJW’s tweets demonstrating this mindset, where conservatives are these anti-science flyover country barbarians who are dying off… Yet, they’re totally oblivious to the fact that guys like me sell a lot of books because there is a big market out there who is tired of being preached at about the SJW cause of the day, and just wants to enjoy their fiction again. They can’t wrap their brains around the fact that people like me are more popular than they are out in the world.

Storytellers win where it counts, BOOK SALES. The SJW contingent wins awards. If the barbarians start taking awards from them they’ll have nothing left.

No wonder they are so angry.

EDIT:  I must add the best new bit of character assassination… Larry Correia’s Sad Puppies was where he threatened to kill puppies if his fans didn’t vote. :D

 

The Controversial Slate: For the record, I’m only the second most hated man who got a nomination. The most despised is Vox Day by far, however, I’m the one who suggested him to my fans who were participating in Sad Puppies 2. So if he’s their devil, I’m the antichrist.

Let’s back up. The reason Vox is so hated is that he is the only person ever kicked out of SFWA. He makes me look cuddly and diplomatic. He was expelled from SFWA because the powers that be decided he was a racist, in fact, it was so obvious that he was racist that it only took a thirty page thesis explaining how stuff he said was actually racist, including the leadership of SFWA searching through the vile cesspool that is Stormfront until they found some nazi skin head who used similar words, and then holding him accountable for things that posters said in his blog comments (us right wing bloggers don’t believe in censorship so we don’t “manage” or “massage” our comments like they do) then they kicked him out for misusing their Twitter account.

Basically, he called Nora Jesmin an “ignorant half-savage” and that pissed everybody off. See, Nora, is a beloved libprog activist and Social Justice Warrior, and all the reports of her victimization at the hands of the villainous Vox usually leave out the parts where she’d been hurling personal insults at him for years. Myself? I thought that comment might be a bit over the line, but then again, Google search my name and see what the SJW’s have been calling me for the last few days. It is way worse that ignorant or savage, and I think I’m darker skinned than K. Tempest Bradford. I’ve yet to see any SJWs condemning those comments about me. Tolerance is a one way street with them.

I didn’t really know the guy that well before he started pissing so many people off, but having been character assassinated myself, I’ve learned never to take the internet’s word about somebody’s character. Having actually talked with, and then gotten into long arguments and debates with Vox, he is a contrarian, can be a jerk is extremely opinionated, but I honestly don’t think he’s a racist (He’s also not a white guy, but most of the people attacking him don’t know that). We’ve had some long, heated debates on different subjects now, but since I’m not a panty twisted liberal, I can handle differing beliefs.

We disagree about a lot. I disagree with him on some fundamental philosophy. His “rabid hateful” views on homosexuality match about a third of America, most staunch Catholics, and he’s far more moderate on the issue than any devout Muslim or average European villager. So I disagree with him, but he’s not the out there whackadoo his detractors make him out to be, but then again, these same people say I want to drag gays to death behind my truck, so take the hate with a grain of salt. He thinks I’m nuts on several topics, but the dude is smart, and he can write. As for the people saying he “bought” the awards… Holy moly, you’ve got no idea what his day job is. If the man wanted to simply buy votes, he’d be up for everything from Best Novel to Motor Trend Car of the Year.

So when I was putting together my slate and looking for ideas, I remembered his novelette that I read earlier that year. I was surprised by how good it was. I found it to be a really good story (it is actually about love and friendship, with a moral philosophy based on Thomas Aquinas, so not really what you’d expect from such a supposed hatemonger of hatey-hate). I plugged it to my fans earlier this year, which meant that a lot of them had read it as well. To be fair, it was only my second favorite work I read of that size this year, but that’s a tough one because I believe that Brad Torgersen is the best new sci-fi writer around. So I threw them both on the slate.

Yes, I will totally admit that I knew this would spur additional outrage. And oh, how I was proven right. His existence offends them. They aren’t going to read his work. They’re proud to admit it. In the spirit of the awards, a certain Tor editor—who has no problem marching with communists—is pushing for everyone to automatically vote No Award over Vox. Stay classy, noble Social Justice Warrior, but once again, there’s no bias.

The thing is, even if what these people say about Vox is true,(and I personally think it is as grossly exaggerated as anything else these people decide to attack) what they’re declaring is that assholes can’t make good art… Well, the entire history of art would like to disagree with you. Truly brilliant works of art have been created by people who are bat shit crazy. So now that it is nominated, how about you goose stepping morons try reading books instead of burning them?

The SJW contingent isn’t just outraged that these vile hatemongers are on there, but since I’m popular and I riled up a whole bunch of normally uninvolved fans, most of the stuff I suggested also wound up on there too. My other nomination for best novel was for Sarah Hoyt’s (a Latino immigrant woman) story with a gay male as its main PoV character and hero… It checks all their boxes! Oh, but wait… Sarah’s a libertarian and I only nominated A Few Good Men because it was a really good book and not for social justice. Only not as many of my fans had read that one yet, so it didn’t make the list. So much for that monolithic group think thing we’re supposed to have going on over here.

Normally, media tie in fiction, as in books relating to games, movies, etc. is considered contemptible by the WorldCon voters. Tie in writers are looked down on and sneered at by the literati. You’ve got writers who’ve written hundreds of books, like Anderson, Stackpole, or Zahn, with some of them being brilliant, but it would be a cold day in hell before some media tie in fiction got any respect at WorldCon. In any normal year a work of tie in fiction getting a nomination would be extremely controversial. This year it doesn’t even make a blip on the radar.

Peter David writes Star Trek novels, comic books, and other things. I saw a post from him lamenting how sad it was that a racist got on the ballot but tie in fiction can’t… Little did he realize that my slate pushed the excellent Butcher of Khardov by Dan Wells, which is Warmachine tie in fiction, and got it a nomination for Best Novella. As far as I’m aware, in the history of the Hugos this has never happened before… So you’re welcome, Peter. My “wrong kind of fans” broke new ground for you on the very same slate.

It has made me sad to see Dan Wells getting caught up in their hate. Dan is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met, and he’s a political moderate. I nominated Butcher because it is excellent. It is a story about a homicidal maniac that made me tear up at the end. And now the same people who despise me without having ever read my fiction are conspiring against this brilliant, creative, artist simply for the crime of being recommended by a bad person like me.

But there’s no bias…

I thought it was interesting that the Fanzine category, which is normally dominated by the same handful of groups year after year, taking turns giving each other the Hugo, is actually totally shaken up this year with new nominees… Because last year I demonstrated what happened when a creator simply asked their fans to get involved, so people did. And those little categories can be swayed by a couple dozen votes. Of course, those old Fanzines with their closets full of Hugos simply love me now. :)

Toni Weisskopf is one of the most successful and prolific editors in publishing. She’s edited some of the most successful authors in genre fiction, discovered tons of new talent, and runs one of the biggest sci-fi publishing houses in the country… Everybody in the industry knows Toni. The woman is brilliant. Yet did you know that she’d never gotten a Hugo nomination until I launched Sad Puppies? Back during Sad Puppies, some Fanzine (that had like 30 Hugo nominations) was offended by the uncouth barbarity of me asking my people (the wrong kind of fans) to get involved, but even they had to admit that Toni Weisskopf deserved a Hugo.

Meanwhile, the Tor editor who is cool with his followers organizing to vote No Award against the barbaric interlopers? Ten nominations. But there is absolutely no bias in the awards.

I actually got Marko Kloos nominated for the Campbell as well, but it turned out he had his first pro sale in 2011 so he was ineligible. I nominated him because Terms of Enlistment was a really good debut novel. So of my slate, I only missed a single category.

And as they scream and rail against me, this is what my fans accomplished while mildly amused and a little annoyed. Keep attacking us with crazy accusations and maybe I’ll do this again next year, only with more manatees.

 

Actually reading the books. Crazy idea, I know. The people warning others not to read the nominated works because of badthink. Good. They’re simply demonstrating that they are the small minded, bigoted, control freak, censorship loving, statists I accused them of being.

Now for everybody else who isn’t a jerk, I would encourage you to read the works for yourself and rank them accordingly.

Brandon Sanderson posted about this. Most of the WorldCon voters really want the Hugo to be about quality and art more than politics, and they take their voting very seriously. I agree with him. His fans are being attacked in some quarters as well because they are outsiders. I thought his response to this was very well reasoned. Brandon is a class act. I look forward to his inevitable mud stomping of me and the other competitors.

I actually had a Stross novel on my nightstand to be read when the announcements were made. I’ve read Mira Grant and think she’s a solid writer. I’d encourage anybody who signed up because of Sad Puppies to read and vote based upon the quality of the work.

Tor owes me. Now, in any normal year, the entire fourteen book series of the Wheel of Time, written over 26 years, by two different authors being nominated as “best novel” would be by far the most controversial thing about the Hugos. Instead most of the outragers are spending their energy praying Vox gets cancer.

You are welcome, Tor. Now please go down to Tor.com and tell some of your idiot bloggers to at least try and get their facts straight before they make shit up about me. And to that one junior editor who supposedly could only make it through the first 20 pages of Hard Magic, part of being an editor is finding sellable talent, and I’ve sold the hell out of this series in multiple countries now, so you must really suck at your job.

The rules allow WoT to be considered a novel, so it is there. I’d ask readers to judge the works accordingly. If you love the WoT, vote for it. But please, actually read some of it and don’t vote for it simply because Rand was awesome when you were in middle school. It is bad enough to be outnumbered 27 pages to one, but none of us can compete with 12 year old you’s nostalgia.

That said, my money is on Brandon. :)

The Actual Awards. To the morons who keep talking about how they wouldn’t “feel safe” if I attended WorldCon, you may untwist your panties. I’m not going. That’s the same weekend as GenCon, which is actually fun (and has an excellent writing track by the way). If I’m going to go all the way to England, it is going to be to play tourist around a beautiful country, not sit around being lectured on the dangers of cismale gendernormative fascism and neocolonial patriarchy.

And seriously, when you “feel unsafe” in real life you usually end up calling somebody like my average fan to come save you, so quit the drama queen act. It is annoying as hell.

I don’t expect to win anything, and don’t really care. I got my trophy as soon as the Social Justice Warrior contingent demonstrated to the world that they’re a bunch of hypocritical little fascists.

931 Responses

  1. bravo. well said

  2. ” To the morons who keep talking about how they wouldn’t “feel safe” if I attended WorldCon, you may untwist your panties. I’m not going. ”

    OK, but do go next year and invite the true hardcore MHI fans to the shindig. We will dress up like we were going to a Monster Hunter convention in Vegas.

    • I would absolutely be down for that. Perhaps we should do something visibly hateful, like wear T-Shirts that were sold where most of the proceeds went to the wounded warrior project or something similar.

      You know, just another pebble for their shoes.

      • I want to see T-shirts with “International Minion of Hate” on the front and a cartoon of a cowering snowflake about to be destroyed by a huge dude (or a – ahem – buoyant woman) with a massive flame-thrower.

      • How about “International Minions of Hate” over the picture of a cute puppy with “saving the world from puppy related sadness since 2013″

      • Wounded Warrior charity is a scam. 60% goes to administrative costs, a lot goes to running adds, and the money left over for charity s donated to other charities which then take their administrative and advertising cuts.

      • According to the Better Business Bureau, Wounded Warrior Project financial information for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011:

        Uses of Funds as a % of Total Expenses

        Programs: 83% Fund Raising: 13% Administrative: 4%

        Total income $123,869,345

        Program expenses $89,466,336
        Fund raising expenses 13,883,984
        Administrative expenses 4,727,106
        Total expenses $108,077,426

        Income in Excess of Expenses 15,791,919
        Beginning net assets 14,565,525
        Ending net assets 30,357,444
        Total liabilities 6,035,145
        Total assets $36,392,589

        Programs:

        Alumni association 19,367,642
        Soldier ride 14,707,505
        Combat stress recovery 13,770,349
        Family support services 8,676,894
        Physical health and rehabilitation 6,743,782
        Benefits service 6,016,023
        TRACK 4,447,842
        Warriors to work 4,180,581
        WWP packs 2,871,334
        International support 2,761,447
        Warriors speak 1,853,265
        Transition training academy 1,780,277
        Peer mentoring 1,233,197
        Campus services 1,056,198
        Total Program Expenses: $89,466,336

        For everyone’s future reference, the BBB charity ratings are extremely useful in discovering what is an ethical charity and what’s a scam. WWP ranks pretty high.

        (Hope the spacing holds up after I post.)

      • I use Charity Navigator for that. They have the ’12 fiscal year report up for the Wounded Warrior Project.

        Program Expenses – 57.9%
        Administrative Expenses 5.6%
        Fundraising Expenses 36.3%
        Fundraising Efficiency $0.23
        Primary Revenue Growth 78.6%
        Program Expenses Growth 62.9%
        Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.93

    • OMG that would be AWESOME. I’m totally dressing up like a “sexy” internet troll. :D

      • >sexy internet troll
        So, something like Oderus Urungus, but with less codpiece and more exposure?

      • “Sexy internet troll.” I’m now having visions of Melvin the Troll from MHI wearing lingerie. Eek. I did not need that.

        *shudders*

      • I would just like to say, that MHI is now to blame for far to many ‘Internet Troll’ appearances in my Shadowrun games. Damn you!
        :)

        I’m fairly sure ‘Internet Troll webcam’ will break every players head.

        muwahaha.

  3. Well since Worldcon is in Spokane next year there’s no excuse for missing it!!

    • Oh yeah? *starts planning the road trip*

    • Really? I served my mission up there. Not sure this is a good time for me to go back, though.

      On another note, Larry should let it be known that he’s attending the next one. It would probably keep some of the SJW crowd from attending (given how the guy is a ticking time bomb and all *cough* ), which would further depress the votes for their “message before enjoyment” tomes.
      :P

      • They’ve be forced to drive their mobility scooters into the SAFE AREA whenever I came around.

      • Washington is a fairly “free” state when it comes to firearms.

        I’d imagine a large influx of Monster Hunter types would have enough hardware to suppress any problems that would arise.

        Safest WorldCon *EVER*.

      • Think of it: Hundreds of MHN members, wandering the Worldcon. Each their very own walking “trigger warning”.

        I see SJWs vaporlocking left and right.. . .

    • Hmmm…I have relatives in Spokane – one of which was an Olympic track & field coach and “got” to meet Putin at the Moscow Olympics when Vlad was a young KGB agent.

    • Hour and a half from my house, might have to be the first con I ever attend. :)

  4. I know you’ve given up on the idea of winning. But wouldn’t it be amazinng if you did?

    Honestly, every author who gets any amount of success usually earns himself a few jealous enemies. Anyone nominated for any prestigious award has people who resent him. But you have gotten the brunt of something bigger than that. For some reason, it’s as though a law was passed exempting you from legal protections against slander and hate.

    I’ve got to say I’m seeing real proof of liberal bias in the publishing community, and I wish more people would speak up about it.

    • There’s a point in that. If you’re feeling really vindictive, Larry, you might want to talk to a lawyer–some of the stuff directed at you might rise to the level of being actionable.

  5. Keep twisting panties, Larry. You seem to be ticking off all the reight people.

    • “You seem to be ticking off all the reight people.”

      I think you meant to type “reich” people. (snicker)

  6. I was reading through this blog post http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015838.html
    (where many are planning how they will respond to both the sad puppy slate and the Wheel of Time nomination)
    and saw this interesting rule brought up

    * That voting behavior may result in a situation where a number of the down-ballot races fall afoul of Section 3.11.2 of the WSFS Constitution, which says that no award will be given in a particular category if the total number of valid ballots cast in that category is less than 25% of the total number of final award ballots received.

    It would be comical if a lot of new voters just voted for the sad puppy slate and not for any other works, thus relegating ALL nominees in the down ballot categories to loser status. The fear they were expressing was regarding the new, first-time Wheel of Time voters. If the sad puppy brigade joined that contingent, it might spell disaster for this years ballot.
    The only downside is that rabbit tears become less valuable because there will be a huge surplus this year.

    • Leatherwing, implying that the Puppy Brigade voters should try to sabotage voting so that “the down-ballot categories” all get No Award would leave you guilty of the same sort of voting on politics rather than on the quality of the works which Mr. Correia attributes to the “SJW crowd”.

      As a bookseller who’s been a fan since before “Star Wars”, and attending WorldCons off and on since 1980, I believe Mr. Correia overestimates the power and desire of liberal fans to blacklist conservative writers. For every vehemently-outspoken “liberal” fan, there’s a conservative/libertarian fan blogging against “P.C. censorship”. David Weber and John Ringo aren’t being kept off the shelves by the supposedly monolithically-liberal New York publishing industry (much of which is owned by decidedly ANTI-liberal corporations like Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp). I’m based in a fairly liberal part of the Pacific Northwest, and my customers are just as likely to buy those authors’ books (and Mr. Correia’s “Monster Hunters”) as N.K. Jemisin’s latest.

      Of the commentary I’ve read so far on this issue, just about all seems to agree that, whatever we feel about an author’s politics, voting for or against personalities rather than works would be wrong. I look forward to getting my Hugo packet, and seeing for myself whether I agree with any of the “Sad Puppy” choices; since I’m not able to go to London, I’ll probably have a lot more time to finish reading the nominees this year.

  7. People have said Stephen King and J.K. Rowling aren’t real writers as well. I’ve seen many times over the years where they slam King on how horrible of a writer he is.

    Book critic Harold Bloom said that Stephen King was “an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.” He went on to say about J.K. Rowling “that [her] prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers….How to read Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone? Why, very quickly, to begin with, perhaps also to make an end. Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do. Is there any redeeming education use to Rowling?….Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? Yes, they have been, and will continue to be for as long as they persevere with Potter.”

    People read fiction to be entertained. Readers vote with their wallets. I’d say that Mr. Bloom is an idiot. Tell them all to go STFU, keep writing entertaining stuff we (the readers) like and cash your checks. Would you rather have an award or a fat bank account? I know which I’d prefer. Numbers talk. Bullshit walks.

    Keep doing your thing, Larry. We got your back.

    • While I agree with your basic point, I find your examples unfortunate. I suspect Bloom is right (for once) about Rowlings.

      • Kent (The Bold), I’m going to disagree. I’ve read the books, they’re light reading, no huge surprises, and not written as adult books. She’s not going to unseat Shakespeare, by any means. But she’s hardly worthy of such condemnation and contempt as Bloom trots out. I’ve had occasion to read much, much worse. (I’ve been in more than one spot where reading material was thin on the ground, it’s why I’ve read the Potter series.)

        But, more importantly, she tempted so many kids into reading, new readers who have gone on to read more, bigger and better. Many kids who were unlikely to ruffle a page without dire threat, otherwise. For that alone she deserves some recognition.

    • I’ve written about the disdain the “literati” types have for popular fiction and how very misplaced it is. To be popular, writing must touch something in the heart of a wide swath of people. One might dismiss that “something” as a cheap thrill, but it is there and it is real.

      I may not like Stephen King’s books (I managed to get through one. One.) but there’s no denying that he can write stuff that grabs a lot of people. And it’s not just fadish “flash in the pan” stuff, but things that keep selling, year after year.

      In Star Trek IV, there’s a line that was played for laughs, where Kirk mentions “the literature of the period” and names “The Novels of Harold Robbings, the collected works of Jacqueline Suzanne” to which Spock replies “The giants.”

      It was played for laughs but there’s could be a lot of truth in it.

      http://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2013/11/popular-fiction-ii.html

  8. I voted for you for two reasons:

    1) Warbound was awesome and I’ve reread it twice (and listened to it once) since it came out. It deserves recognition. And an HBO miniseries.

    2) I knew if you got nominated there would be dozens of popcorn worthy fiskings, Twitter fights, and awesome blog posts. And I already bought an economy pack of popcorn.

    So, I guess that means I’m one of your hateful hatey hate minions.

  9. Anyone know where the next World Con is being held?

  10. Mr Correia, no matter what I think of your politics or the way you express them, I love your books with a passion and believe you deserve a genuine chance at a Hugo. I wish you luck.

  11. All that being said, and utterly fascinating and all, I hope you’ll keep writing so I can keep reading. I’m not a “fan” or part of “fandom” but I do like to read your work. Thanks for getting it out of your head and onto paper where I can more easily get to it… :)

  12. Seen on Twitter: “For guy who calls himself libertarian he has a remarkably fascist ego.” Also, someone is under the impression his fans call themselves Sad Puppies. Comprehension fail reading basic?

    • SJW isn’t about fact. It’s all about feeling and correct thinking. If for any reason you deviate from the CURRENT WISDOM, you are a heretic and must be torched. Many current and former SJW’ers are finding that out now if they even consider to question the CURRENT WISDOM.

      Remember: None Are So Blind As Those Who Refuse To See.

    • WTF is a “fascist ego”? I’m betting he/she/it simply wanted to use the word fascist so they could be one of the cool kids.

      • It does seem that those most like to use the word “fascist” are those least able to correctly define it.

      • “Fascist ego”: Failure to submerge one’s will to that of the Collective. Like John Adams, Reverend Wilberforce, Fredrick Douglass (bonus points for escaping from Democrats!), and that guy in Tiananmen Square.

      • @Lemming:
        Those most likely to use the word “fascist” are those most likely to exemplify it.

      • First you turn your ego and your brothers’ egos into a bunch of sticks. Then your dad ties them together. Then you all jump up and down on them and try to break them, and fail, because of materials engineering.

        And then some jerk from Italy comes and steals your dad’s perfectly good object lesson about sticking together with your bratty brothers, and names his thug political party after it — because stealing is what leftists and socialists do.

      • I know what a fascist asshole is, but a fascist ego is a new one to me.

      • An ego that likes knee high leather boots, marching, and holding one hand outstretched just a little too much?

    • Inigo Montoya would be most cross if he had to read Twitter.

      “You keep using so MANY words that do NOT mean what you think they mean! Sheesh!”

  13. Wait you say the W.o.T. has finally been completed?! Wow I gave up on it around book five IIRC.
    I buy books I like to read, I’ve never made it through War and Peace a work that is called great literature, because it was boring.
    It is always interesting how those who claim to be the most inclusive are the ones who are the first to attack those who don’t believe the way they do!

    • You know why Robert Jordan died, don’t you? It was because God decided that, one way or another, WoT was finally going to be finished.

      /duck

    • I think I read to about book five, too. I stopped reading, not because they weren’t fun anymore, but because I could “see” how various threads ought to be coming together, but they were continuing to go apart and I knew it wasn’t ever going to be done. (Now that it is, I may read it again, if I ever have a month of free time.)

      WoT is why I haven’t read more than the first Game of Thrones book… I made a vow not to read incomplete series after WoT, and I didn’t realize until after I’d read GoT that there were more than three… or I wouldn’t have even read the one.

      • I think somebody ought to do a cartoon of all the WoT fans dead in the desert of Book 5. Because it seems like that’s where we all gave up.

      • It’s a shame if anyone stopped at book 5, because the scene at the end of book 6 was almost awesome enough in its day to justify the dragging parts of the earlier books. Nowadays, though, if you want a good fantasy action scene just read a Grimnoir book.

  14. Larry, I have never read any of your books. But now I have to! Keep up the good work!

  15. I taught women, minorities, homosexuals, didn’t matter, often on my own dime, all because I think people who would try to drag anyone to death behind a pickup truck will have a difficult time doing so after they have a pair of hollow points placed into their chest cavity at high speed.

    Clap Clap Clap.

    • Yup, what a fucking hero. He couldn’t possibly be a racist, this is proof. Again treating racism like something you have to prove you aren’t infected with. Tell me more about how you don’t beat your wife.

      Oh you forgot to quote the part where he repeated a racial slur then claimed it was all cool because it was in a bigger argument. Here I will fix that for you.

      “Basically, he called Nora Jesmin an “ignorant half-savage” and that pissed everybody off. See, Nora, is a beloved libprog activist and Social Justice Warrior, and all the reports of her victimization at the hands of the villainous Vox usually leave out the parts where she’d been hurling personal insults at him for years. Myself? I thought that comment might be a bit over the line, but then again, Google search my name and see what the SJW’s have been calling me for the last few days.”

      Racism isn’t really racism when people are calling other people names.

  16. The PC have had a sudden spell of incontinence. Although they write tens of thousands of words about hate-speech, racism, sexism, and gender expression phobias, they don’t actually have a neutral definition for those things that might work the same way law does.

    For example, the PC love to mumble on about what Day said about Jemisin. I say “compared to what?” Somehow it escapes them that Jemisin has said far worse things far more often. In referring to all white people somehow being on the same page throughout history, what does it sound like when someone writes “…an ingenious system allowing it to dominate most of the planet. (Diabolical… but ingenious.)”

    What does it sound like when Jemisin writes “Because the ‘fantasy’ most EF (epic fantasy) delivers is of white male power & centrality, as much as dragons. That *is* conservativism, now.”

    What does it sound like when SFWA member, NY Times best-selling author and writer for Marvel Comics Marjorie Liu echoes that tacit racial conspiracy by writing “White male privilege cares ONLY about white male privilege, and there is no goal except maintaining that position of power.”

    What is it when one-time Nebula-nominee Kate Elliott writes “It is understood that the law is for the benefit of white people”

    What is it when Hugo-nominee Aliette de Bodard writes “There is something fundamentally, quintessentially ‘white male’ about most popular fantasies, which isn’t surprising because they’re being written by white men.” 

    How about Hugo nominee Foz Meadows: “…white patriarchy. …man, does it get into everything” and “Old white guys. What are [sic] going to do with them?”

    How about Charles Stross on the Boston bombing before the suspects were ID’d: “my money is on crazy white guys with a political axe to grind: the provisional wing of the Tea Party.”

    Just replace key words in those quotes with “black” or “Jew” and tell me what you see. The fact is I can supply quotes like that in multiples from no less than a dozen of this year’s Hugo nominees on the side of so-called “social justice.” In return, the PC give us Vox Day… again, and again and again. There’s a reason for that: the PC don’t have anything else to give. Certainly nothing that would equal their own torrent of racial, heterophobic and sexist filth.

    Our loving and compassionate social justice warriors don’t have squat when it comes to quotes that could come anywhere near the numbers of individuals from right in the heart of SFF’s institutions I can provide.

    • Wow, Kate Elliott said that? I’m disappointed. From having read a lot of her stuff, I kinda figured she was capable of better reasoning than that.

      I’ve kind of gotten the impression that the SJWs believe White People (especially White Males) are the Adeptes Astartes and White Privilege is the God-Emperor of Mankind. It’s literally undefeatable!!!

      • I’ve got quotes from Elliott you wouldn’t believe. I scarcely believe them myself. Her Twitter feed in the No. 1 source of PC entertainment in SFF; and its daily. You don’t even have to research her feed – just open it up.

      • Undefeatable you say? Pshaw!!!

        All i gotta say is….

        WAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

      • @Fail: Oh no. I don’t think I want to, it’ll ruin my next rereading of the Crossroads trilogy. :(

        @Bubbasrelm: See but they’re good little citizens of the Imperium that way! They may hate THE EMPRAH but they’ve totally bought into the state myth of his divinity! Versus actually not giving a damn, like the Tau or somethin’.

      • I’ll grant you they are good little citizens, but does that make Larry an ork? You know, heavily armed, wandering the universe looking for a good fight?

  17. Hi Larry! I find this a very enlightening controversy, and I dare say that those who criticize you are just bigoted idiots! See? I’m French, I consider myself a moderate left-winger! and, Brandon Sanderson and yourself are the authors I’m an absolute fan of! Whenever one of you publishes something I have to buy the book immediately and dive into it, emerging only when the book is over. The first book I read from you is “hard magic” and I chose it for one reason only: I loved the pitch! And, naturally, I loved the book and then I had to endeavor your other books and I loved them… what I don’t understand about this whole controversy and where I think that SJW’s are idiots is that I don’t see anything political about your books. You just write nice and entertaining stories! I don’t see anything preachy about you, on the contrary. And, that’s all I’m asking of a book: to be entertaining with characters we can identify ourselves with. Besides, if we take this approach further, and if we were to view every fantasy or sci-fi work in a political light,most of them strike me as “conservative”. 90% of heroic fantasy books take place in a monarchy for example, (which, for French people is the ultimate symbol of conservatism as we built our nation on the decapitation of a king of ours). So, does it mean that heroic fantasy should be denied the right to a Hugo? Of course not! but that proves one thing, they don’t judge an author, they judge a person. I don’t care about the setting as, what matters is how entertaining and well-written the book is. These bigots prefer to lynch somebody who does not share their political views rather than read books. In a fair world, voters should judge an author, and not a man they don’t even know…. I don’t know you as man, but I think I know you as an author! And, that is all what matters to me and all what will make me read your future books. the French audience deserves to know you anyway, and I will hope you’ll be translated into French one day (if that’s not already done).

    • Aymeric –

      “the French audience deserves to know you anyway, and I will hope you’ll be translated into French one day (if that’s not already done).”

      Check the blog post prior to this one. It’s the cover art for the French edition of Warbound.

    • [T]he French audience deserves to know you anyway, and I will hope you’ll be translated into French one day (if that’s not already done).

      It has been done: a French translation of Hard Magic is available here. Tell your friends!

    • One thing: in America, “conservative” actually means classic liberal – minimal government, free market, focus on individual freedom. These are America’s traditional values and the Constitution is designed to prevent government tyranny. It has nothing to do with supporting a king – quite the contrary, we’re proud of severing ties with a monarchy.

      What Americans call “liberal” is what the rest of the world calls “socialist,” btw. And socialism, to me, is just another form of feudalism – as shown in “Animal Farm.”

      So one could argue that an American conservative is a European liberal, and an American liberal is a European fascist. :-)

      • As another non-American fan, I second what Laurie says. Liberal in Europe is a right-winger economically, as their aim is to liberalize the economy, which means less government intrusion in and control over it.

  18. This post was everything I hoped for and more. They really don’t realize that you already won.

  19. Halfway through reading this post, I said screw it and decided to turn internet arguing into a game of Bingo.

    When they get desperate, disrupt their arguments by posting “BINGO!” Show the SJWs that you could set a clock to their arguments! And when you’re target of their ire, give them a sporting chance by taking a shot every time you check one off!

    http://tinyurl.com/lxdgzbj

    Sorry for using a tinyurl, but it’s a long, long url. =P

    • Are you trying to kill people through alcohol poisoning?! You evil, hatey hate-minion, you…!

    • Heck…that’s a great idea! Especially when “arguing” with the gun control bigots.

      • You’ll note Markely’s Law in there.

        I originally had “Gun show loophole” and “Ninety percent of gun owners”, but I decided to focus on the Sci-Fi literati instead.

        But, I went ahead and made a gun control version anyway.

        http://tinyurl.com/khz6aed

        While I recommended a drinking game for the last one, I feel only dread at the prospect of drinking to gun control cliches. Such a game would leave no winners, only survivors.

    • Dude!! Those are so far out the ballpark excellent I can’t even stand it!!

    • Sweet.

    • This needs to get printed out and brought to WorldCon. Can you imagine a group of MHI fans yelling BINGO! every few minutes? LOL

      • Do not try that at a WSFS Business Meeting. And that goes for the other end of the political horseshoe as well.

      • Heh. Ok, Kevin, just in case that “LOL” in there wasn’t clear- that was a joke. I highly doubt that any of Larry’s fans would be so rude as to interrupt serious meetings. We might be a silly bunch with a manatee as our mascot, but we’re not THAT socially inept.

        Although that does make me curious- were you saying that the words on the bingo sheet get thrown around so often during one of your WSFS business meetings that you thought it might be a real possibility? That thought IS troubling.

      • I missed the LOL, and frankly, I’m not in a particularly good mood with the amount of bad attitude from both ends of the political horseshoe.

        To be clear, I was addressing _any_ forms of attempting to disrupt the Business Meeting, by anyone or any group, not implying that there were any particular phrases being tossed around.

      • Well, I’m sorry you made that assumption. Maybe you should hang around for a while and get to know us a little better. Once you cool off and have some civil conversations, you might find that we’re not such a bad bunch.

        Welcome to Monster Hunter Nation, Mr. Standlee. :)

  20. Looking back at this craziness, I marvel that it’s been less than a week. In the long term, I fully expect more attacks on Larry. The “retrograde” attitudes of Larry and authors like him will be blamed for the decline in SF/F sales. Cons will have panels about the libertarian-conservative threat to the genre. Bloggers will call for Baen to be marginalized. Mark my words: it will get uglier.

    • It’s already happened.
      Baen is “That one publisher” that works with racist hatemongers. They’ve called upon Toni Weisskopf to denounce Correia and the other people she publishes, or be ostracized.

      As for the panels at conventions, there was this panel with a one-time author who was talking about rules for writing urban fantasy. One of those rules was that readers liked urban fantasy, because characters from rural settings were crass, ignorant… well, you get the idea.

      Mr. Correia would be able to tell you more because he was actually there, and he tore through every one of her rules while selling more books than she did.
      I just wish there was a video of that panel.

      • That was the best panel ever. I went full Conan on that one. Man, I wish somebody would have recorded it. I didn’t say much for the first half, then I lost my shit and went off in the second half. Got a standing ovation from the audience. :)

        Some of my favorite bits from the expert, paraphrased because I was too shocked to take note:
        A long list of “rules of urban fantasy” of which I violated all of them.
        “Urban fantasy is urban because all the magic is in the cities.”
        “People in the country are ignorant and crass.”
        “The country is scary.”
        “Yes, I’ve been to the country. I’ve been to Connecticut.”

        From my borderline table flip response when I finally could no longer believe my ears and went on a giant rant, paraphrased from memory:
        “I violate every single one of your rules, yet I sold more books today than you’ve sold in your life. The country isn’t racist, ignorant, or scary. Connecticut would fit in my back yard. Everything you’ve said is horrible advice, and if any of the aspiring writers here listen to you they’re idiots.”

        Or something like that. :) Then a bunch of you guys stood up and started clapping.

      • Well, Baen works with communist Eric Flint…so I suspect they’d work with anyone who can write a good story. That would probably include a racist hatemonger. :)

      • And Misty Lackey, and Sharon Lee, and Steve Miller, and Stoney Compton, and Ryk Spoor… Yep. Look at those right wingers. (and I know I’m forgetting a bunch of others off the top of my head)

      • Exactly.

        When Eric Flint and Mercedes Lackey are your right wing hate mongers, you’re probably doing leftism wrong.

      • Heck, C J Cherryh and David Gerrold were evil misogynist homophobes because they signed the Truesdale petition.

      • Tom, you know they also killed Snowball… err… Trotsky. The left eats their own with a viciousness that rivals their hatred of common sense government (libertarian-leaning constitutionalism).

      • Larry, you need to start recording your panels for posting here. Medium-quality digital recorders with stereo mikes are pretty cheap these days, but the expression on your co-panelists’ faces when you plunk the palm-sized device down on the table (and they realise they will have to back up their spew)… priceless!

      • The vast majority of panels I’ve been on have been awesome. Most panelists are great. That one was notable only because of how much it sucked. :) The nutjobs who attack me never do it in person. They only “speak truth to power” across the anonymous safety of the internet.

      • Saying “I’ve been to the country. I’ve been to Connecticut” is like saying “I’ve been to other countries, I’ve been to EPCOT”.

      • I would pay real money to see a video of that panel…

        And the Ringo “ambushing the feminist ambushers” panel from Ravencon.

      • SirBrass: True enough.

        It’s hysterical though. You point out how they act just like Lenin and turn on anyone not pure enough for them, and they get all kinds of indignant. The cognitive dissonance with this group is just unreal.

        I can’t believe I actually used to think like that. SMH

      • “I went full Conan on that one.”
        I would purely love to watch someone “go full Agent Franks” on a nasty little panel of libprog troglodytes.Anything to make the mouthpiece on CNN start the 6:00 PM newscast with the words, “Holy Screaming S*it!!!”

        If you come to V-Con next October, you shall never live in want of a cold beer, sir.
        Thank you.

      • Wait Eric Flint is a lefty? Never once got that impression in 1632… cool.

      • *flynt… damn you no edit… damn you.

      • larry – it makes me wish I was there to see that, just like I wished I’d been in a position to see Ringo at that Ravencon he ended up writing an AAR on.

      • @Bubbasrelm:
        Yes, Mr. Flint is a lefty. While reading 1632, you might take notice of the power structure, post ring of fire. Also notice the part that labor unions play in the books.

        It’s fine. Mr. Flint makes it work. And he has a total babe, who is a cheerleader, super feminine, and is a sniper who I seem to recall was called “angel of death” or some such. She frightened hardcore professional soldiers when they realized who she was.

        So he may be communist (not sure) but he’s also very pro 2A. I can live with paying for his books.

      • One notable tell in 1632 is that the rich executive is written as a mean, nasty, cold-hearted individual. In particular was his “stand-in for racism” attitude toward the locals surrounding the displaced town. Then, out of the blue, an excuse for that was generated in the sequel to allow for his rehabilitation. If that hadn’t happened, Flint would have been forced to write him off. Overall, though, Flint’s politics don’t generate enough baggage to become overburdensome to the story. And the excuse does work.

      • I thought Flint was a Trotskyite, not a Communist.

        Don’t really care, even though I believe he’s farther left than I am right (and I think Rush Limbaugh is squishy sometimes and too authoritarian in other spots). Dude can write some STORY — I’ll pay dirty, capitalist money out of my OWN pocket for anything he writes.

      • Geo- Steve Brust described himself as a “Trotskyite”, though I’m not sure If he understands what that means.

      • Well the “orthodox” commies certainly threw out the Trotskyite “heretics” decades ago. Brust is another one whose politics I oppose, whose writing I love (and happily spend Imperialist Running Dog Yankee Capitalist dollars on.)

      • @Expendable Henchman

        I only read the first one, still trying to get enough scratch for the next. it was good enough i want to throw out some money for it.

        @junior

        Totally missed the evil pig dog capitalist. Just thought he was a douche, but i can see your point.

        Overall I can see it was there, but not at the level of message Fic for sure.

        Besides, I’ve even argued in the past that for small groups, i.e. village to small town level, were survival is the overwhelming task at hand, communism can actually work(this was a thought experiment, not an endorsement).

      • This has taken on a life of its own.

    • “The “retrograde” attitudes of Larry and authors like him will be blamed for the decline in SF/F sales.”

      I laid off of SF/F for a long time because if I wanted a political lecture, I could watch MSNBC or any broadcast news show. I’m just now coming back to the genre. I love, Love, LOVE Monster Hunters, just bought the first three books this week and I’m getting almost no sleep because I can’t put it down.

      But yes, it’s going to get uglier. Dissent will not be tolerated until “retrograde” types like Larry are back in charge of the culture, and then dissent will be welcomed again.

      • Some entity named Athena Andreadis has opined that “Heinlein shouldn’t have gotten #HugoAwards THEN”.

        Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein (a *55 year old book*, mind you) has an Amazon sales rank of 2,999.

        The Other Half of the Sky edited by Athena Andreadis has an Amazon sales rank of 208,938.

        Heh.

        I repeat: Heh.

      • As Captain Pike discovered with the Talosians: “Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking will be as quickly rewarded. You will find it an effective combination.”
        Apparently this applies retroactively as well. I assume Pope Formosus can look forward to another cadaver synod as well at the hands of the SJWs.

      • To be fair, she seems to have a PhD in molecular biology from MIT, so her being actually stupid is right out. She also seems as pompous and self righteous as one would expect to flow from that. Her previous book is ranked at about 12 million. I didn’t know there were books ranked that low. We can take some solace in the near certainty that she will never breed.

      • I have to disagree. I went to Amazon and read an excerpt from her book. It took about three sentences to determine that, Ph.D. from MIT notwithstanding, she is actually stupid.

        I DO, however, agree the “We can take some solace in the near certainty that she will never breed.”

        (As an aside, I wouldn’t hire anyone with her disconnect from reality to work in any capacity in any area of science or engineering.)

      • Which book, C; her own on the biology of Star Trek or the one she edited?

      • The anthology she edited. The preview opened into what appeared to be a preface. It was typical hard Left cant.

      • Okay…try this: I could, of course, be wrong but….ever wonder how bright people – I’ll count myself and offer Sarah Hoyt, a libertarian, and Eric Flint, a Trot – can be bright and still not agree on what’s for dinner? It’s that reason and intelligence hardly enters into it. For us, for ALL of us, we operate off emotions, instincts, base values we were born with or took in more or less with mother’s milk and then rationalize from there. Reason hardly matters in human affairs, really. The difference between conservative and the extremes is that conservatives’ emotions, instincts, and base values are more in tune with the world as it is, and the left’s with the world as they’d like it to be. But in neither case does intelligence, per se, seem to me to enter into it.

        On the other hand, this Athena person does strike me as a frightfully arrogant twat.

      • I think where I’d disagree with you is “But in neither case does intelligence, per se, seem to me to enter into it.” In the sense of the score on a standardized I.Q. test, then no, it doesn’t. In fact, given the intricacy and depth of the Leftist shared fantasy world, I’d have to acknowledge that Leftists do display “intelligence.”

        On the other hand, in the sense of intelligence as the ability to absorb knowledge, integrate it into a framework, and apply it to the effective solution of real world problems, they’re all dumb as stumps. Witness the effectiveness of the current administration.

        (BTW, really enjoy your books. Glad you came out with a new one in the Carrera Series. Now, are you and Ringo ever going to tie up all the loose ends in the Legacy series?)

      • But that difference doesn’t seem to me to be a function of intelligence, or reasoning power, but rather whether or not our instincts and emotions are in tune with the world as it is. Now we might say they’re insane, and they might say the same of us (in fact, we’re insane to each other), but intelligence doesn’t really enter into it.

        John told me to hold off on the next Posleen book, which would have concerned the actions of the Legio Equestribus Posleenorum a Sacra Custodia Pontificis, in the war against the Hedrin, until he could do a couple more. I’ve lost my Jones for it, so am unlikely to proceed.

      • “Some entity named Athena Andreadis has opined that “Heinlein shouldn’t have gotten #HugoAwards THEN”.

        How to demonstrate the irrelevancy of your little award in one simple step…

      • I think they’re just totally losing their shit. The argument all along has been that the Evil White Men were holding them back, yadda-yadda-yadda.

        Now we’re in a world where self-published and small press books go head-to-head with the Random Penguins and Holtzbrinck offerings and (in some cases) rake in tons-o-loot, yet people still aren’t buying their works of genius.

        That’s gotta sting.

      • Athena Andreadis’ anti Starship Troopers stance, based on her own words, seems to be largely because of her opposition to the patriarchy of the white anglo-saxon male. She seems not to have noticed that the hero’s name is Juan Rico, and his native language was Tagalog. The fact that his mother was in Argentina when she was killed by alien attack also implies some Hispanic connection in his family. Also in the Starship Troopers universe, ship pilots always seem to be females because, according to Heinlein’s narrative, they were better at it than males, and the main one who features in the novel is called Carmencita Ibañez. Sargeant Jelal’s name is an interesting one too. Its used mostly in Islamic populations from Africa to India. The recruiting officer who signs up Rico had the last name is Ho = Cantonese. A lot of the other characters with apparently Anglo-Saxon last names could just as easily have been African-American, since their race isn’t stated. At least Rico was a male, so she got that part right I guess.

      • You don’t think Athena Andreadis would actually READ something that challenged her preconceptions, do you? After all, that might start her on a path away from the Leftist fantasy world. Horrors!

  21. The funny thing to me about all these people bitching about the “slate voting”, is that while, yes, I signed up and voted in this year’s Hugo nominations at your urging, I didn’t vote your slate. For one thing, I hadn’t read everything you suggested (though I did nominate most of the things that you suggested that I had read) and then in other places, I nominated works that weren’t anywhere to be found in your posts.

    *shrug*

    Goofballs, the lot of them.

    • They don’t seem to realize that getting liberty minded people to all do the same thing is sort of like herding cats.

      • I imagine that Larry Correia fans are remarkably hard to coerce. They’ll take your recommendations but if you tried telling us what to do, I don’t think you’d have very good results.

      • Actually, I beg to differ.

        Herding cats is light years easier.

      • No, I think us Larry Correia fans are remarkably easy to coerce – show us a book with Larry’s name on it and we are immediately coerced to empty our wallets! :)

        Otherwise, efforts to coerce are generally met with the soft metal-on-metal click of a disengaging safety and say something silly like, “You and what army?” or “Do you feel lucky, punk? Well? Do ya?” Or my personal favorite, “No, stupid, you’re holding it wrong. You hold it like this and, this here is the safety, you slip it off like this. Jeez, when was the last time you cleaned this, it’s FILTHY! Now, lay down, cross your ankles, put your hands out to the side, and be quiet while I talk with the nice police dispatcher.”

      • That “herding cats” mentality is also why conservatism hasn’t been able to build up a huge political steamrolling machine. We’re just too darn ornery to cooperate at times, even for our own good. We only manage it in relatively small groups. If only those small groups could just agree to work together at the group level and not fight each other, then we’d stand a much better chance of resisting the rapidly progressing cultural and political insanity that is rapidly falling on us (and has already fallen on government).

      • Mild correction: Like herding cats with thumbs.

      • Like herding cats with thumbs and guns.

        So, so many guns.

      • The secret to herding cats is not driving them from unwanted places, but opening a can of tuna at the goal.

        Works every time.

        People (and cats) respond to incentives. Liberty minded people even more so.

        Won’t work:
        Vox offers a free WorldCon associate membership with every ebook sold. (the lefties would just buy his ebooks and vote against him)

        Works:
        Ask politely if people wouldn’t mind making Happy Jackals cry for $40. Yes, the tears are nectar to me.

      • @ Expendable Henchman:
        I haven’t watched SouthPark in years. WOW! I LOVE IT!

        Maybe Larry should start selling some T-shirts with the MHI logo with some clever mottos underneath, like:
        SJW tears: sweet, sweet nectar
        Ask me about CISmale gendernormative fascism
        Manatees with munitions: when it absolutely, positively reeks of Special Snowflakes and needs to be destroyed overnight!
        The Blow Against Puppy-Related Sadness Has Been Struck

        Also, I’d beg Larry with tears in my eyes to take my filthy capitalist pigdog dollars if I could have a polo shirt with an MHI patch on the left breast, with Wendell in a Sith robe carrying a Manatee Nagant (plasma bayonet optional) silkscreened on the back with the words “Minions of the International Lord of Hate” underneath.

      • @ correia45

        All those liberty-heads must but a bitch to herd. Us non-liberty people well just tell us what to do.

        Every group that isn’t mainstream seems to be arrogant enough to think they are they are so free-thinking and independent. It is fucking hilarious to hear you say the same thing I constantly hear from atheist. We are all just so god damn subversive it is hard to organize us (*cough* none of use give enough of a shit about this issue to really do anything *cough*).

      • As Steyn observed, “intellectual diversity on the left is increasingly indistinguishable from Tupperware night with the Stepford Wives.”

      • Belly laugh of the morning!

  22. Wow…. I think that BBQ smell in the air is coming from some torched lefty ears. Awesome!

  23. I think I’ve read all of your books, love them all. Besides enjoying your writing and being a “gun nut,” I enjoy you saying what you think, instead of toting some BS party line. Thanks for giving your comments. Look forward to meeting you at GenCon.

  24. Hah. I started the Wheel of Time when I was 15. So there.

  25. OK, now I’m pissed. All this talk about hardcore fans and not a single mention of tattoos. What do I have to do? :o)

    Keep up the good work, I’ve still got space on the Larry Correia shelf in the library.

    • I’ve got like 50 fans who’ve tattooed my logo on their BODY… Why is it such a stretch to think that I couldn’t get them to vote in a popularity contest. :)

      • Because….um…racism and stuff!

      • They are still in denial, or they never even bothered to check the Kickstarters. Heck, I would bet a significant part of Rob Wells Indiegogo funding is your fans, although the Instalanche helped. Of course the Instalanche probably wouldn’t have happened if the Professor wasn’t a big fan. Almost 30 percent of the way there after five days.
        I’m still going for the MHI tattoo title, by this time next year I will have three, four if you want to count my dragon…but that’s a stretch.
        Stay frosty.

      • I’d be curious how many of them could do $100k of merchandising in a month… Naw… You guys are just imaginary. :)

      • You mean the logo of your work which I guess for you in synonymous with all your political beliefs aka your reputation.

    • It’s amazing how many of them Just. Can’t. Cope. with the idea that someone might actually have LIKED those stories. Considering the heavy activity in the comments here (even when something like this isn’t going on) and looking at Larry’s Amazon sales rankings across the board, it should be clear that he has a LOT of fans.

      I hadn’t read any of Vox’s fiction before, but grabbed the freebie of the Last Witchking while it was up. Not bad at all (I think he maybe needs to work on openings a little bit, but the bulk of the stories were fine). Certainly not the Mein Kampf-level racial hatefest that the SJW/GHHs would have you to believe. Quite the contrary, in fact (except maybe for the orcs. It’s still okay to hate orcs, right?). I enjoyed it, and will probably read him again after I get to the bottom of that to-be-read stack on my Kindle.

      • On Amazon I’m usually sitting somewhere in the top 100 fantasy authors, but it goes way up when something new comes out. Highest I’ve been on there is #3 overall. In audiobook I do much better. I’ve got way over 20,000 reviews on Audbile and I’m still at over four and a half stars. :)

      • Totally not surprised. You’re one of the few authors whose pacing & style makes reading the book feel like I’m immersed in a *good* action movie.

      • Totally waiting to see MHi on the big screen. Like a good Marvel movie, it would be, only better. . .

  26. Wasn’t Toni up for a Hugo last year?

    • Yep. Because of Sad Puppies 1. That was her first ever nomination.

    • Took a moment this morn to search out more nominees so I could READ their works. Did discover tor is offering everything but the WoT for free.

      http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/04/read-torcoms-original-fiction-hugo-finalists#more

      Mostly I have been just glazing over the hatey hate hate that I am finding from these people. This one did kinda take me back. From
      Abigail Nussbaum who got two noms Fan Writer and SemiProfanzine

      “One can only sigh at Larry Correia’s Warbound, Book III of the Grimnoir Chronicles (serious, sigh) making it onto the best novel ballot, or Toni Weisskopf’s best editor, long form nomination. (As for the Wheel of Time series making it onto the best novel ballot, I’d just like to say to anyone who voted for this: feel ashamed, because you don’t even have the excuse of being a reactionary troll to justify your bad taste.) ”

      http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-2014-hugo-awards-thoughts-on.html

      This is the first time I have seen a attack on Toni from another nomine.

  27. You are horrible, horribly good!

  28. Speaking honestly and plainly, I am not a big fan of Correia’s work. (Well, thats not true, I love his minis.) Not my speed. But, since this kerfuffle, I have made it a point to purchase multiple copies just to stick my thumb in The Right Peoples eyes. To date, all have been shipped to Afghanistan in various care packages, where hopefully they find readers and create more Corriea fans. And, my thumb isn’t sore yet, so I have plenty of stickin’ left.

    • That is fantastic. If all my negative reviews were that awesome I’d be a happy man. Thank you. :)

    • “… stick my thumb in The Left Peoples eyes.”

      FIFY

    • “To date, all have been shipped to Afghanistan in various care packages…”
      This is the best thing in this whole comment section. Good on you, mate.

    • One of Larry’s co-author is an active deployed military personnel in Afghanistan. His novels have been big hits with our service member world wide.

    • While I enjoy your writing, James T is quite right about your minis. They are quite good. I suggest that the next time you do a fundraiser, you include a “Correia Custom Painted Miniature” at a reward level. You might be surprised how popular that is.

      • Thanks.

        Though to further demonstrate what this original post was about, on Twitter a few months ago, I was being attacked by some caring type for something, and since nothing is off limits he scrolled through my feed, found a picture of a WiP of mine (a really good one by the way, got a 7 on Cool Mini) and said “Why’d you smear some shit all over that figurine idiot” That is what people like me get to put up with. :)

  29. So you old cismale gendernormative fascist Lord Of Hate you, tell us what you really thank… :)

  30. I’m a moderate / left-leaning guy. Agree with some of your politics, disagree with some of your politics. What really gets to me is the hypocrisy of all the the baseless and unfounded attacks against you. What also gets to me is this idea that you can only like a “certain type of book” if you are of the “correct political persuasion”. I don’t need to be leaning right to enjoy stories about magically enhanced people fighting it out between themselves, monsters and aliens.

    The optimist in me says that the very vocal left are of the extreme variety and not entirely representative of left leaning people. I’ll try to hang on to that optimism as long as I can…

    • Agreed. I’m about the same. Lean left politically, and probably disagree with Larry politically, more than I agree with him. But yeah, after this I’ll be grabbing copies of his stuff to read and share with friends. I’ll vote with my wallet. Micheal Z. Williamson and John Ringo I both disagree with fairly hard politically, but I like thier writing immensely.

      • Hell, I’m libertarian and a huge gun nut, but I wouldn’t have nominated any of Larry’s books. I enjoyed them all, but they’re not what I consider award-winning level.

        But the way the scifi blogosphere is reacting to this makes me hope he wins all the awards ever.

    • The thing about conscience, whether I agree with it or not, is that it won’t.shut.up.

      It is told that Quaker Wm Penn had scruples about wearing the ceremonial sword that went with the Governor’s hat. The sense of the meeting was “Wear it as long as you can.”

  31. I am NOT going to read the Wheel of Time — I made it halfway through volume 1 a long time ago. Blah. Tor cheerleaders are INSANE. Everything else will get a chance.

  32. Well said. Some of the most closed minded people I have ever met were Liberals. If you try to debate them, they just claim you are either “stupid or misinformed” because you don’t have their point of view. Orson Scot Card is a homophobic ass, but Enders Game is a good book. I have never read any of your books but I will be adding you to my list of authors to check out. The Hugos have always been a good place to look for the next best book to read but I think I’ll stick to the older lists for now.

    • Actually, Orson Scott Card *isn’t* a homophobic ass. He’s a very devout Mormon, and he’s been spending an awful lot of effort and reputation points to get mainstream Mormonism (which *is* generally very anti-homo) to be somewhat less anti-homo.

      Scotty went to BYU, and majored in theater, where he encountered a LOT of homosexuals, and couldn’t care less how they leaned. He also managed to piss off the movers and shakers, because he was there to educate himself, not to become a white shirt and tie clone.

      His essay (which I’ve read a couple of times) was specifically targeted to members of his own church. That church teaches directly that homosexuality is evil. (Our esteemed bloghost’s opinions notwithstanding…).

      If you’re going to write an essay to a mass of anti-homosexuals, you don’t start by glorifying rainbow power. If you do, they’ll throw your essay across the room and ignore everything you say forever. Card knows this well, and his point is pretty much “Hey, let’s start to not get after them so much.”

      Immediately after King Barry’s ‘evolution’ on gay issues (he used to be flatly against gay marriage, btw…) it became open season, again, on conservatives. They were attacking everybody, and Card is a conservative in Hollywood, so he was a perfect target for the hate. Hell, he’s a registered democrat.

      Yes, he most directly said ‘you can’t be a practicing Mormon in good standing if you’re gay’. It’s a doctrinal issue, and Scotty aint the Mormon Pope. It’s not his call, they’re not his rules. I suspect he’d be the first straight LDS guy to cheer if a new revelation came along okaying gayness. But I don’t speak for him, and don’t see that revelation in the works.

      As to Larry’s feelings on gayness, he strikes me as not caring in the slightest, except for how many copies of his books they might buy. At least, that was pretty much his answer when I asked in person recently. I seem to also recall him saying “none of my business” or some such. And neither of us were sparing the political opinions in the conversation.

      • Immediately after King Barry’s ‘evolution’ on gay issues (he used to be flatly against gay marriage, btw…)

        Did he evolve, or was he just lying before?

      • He’s “evolved” so many times on this issue that I can’t even count them all. His position on gay marriage (or anything, really) at any given time can be predicted by asking “which option is the most likely to gain or retain power for Barack Obama”.

        The point about Obama suddenly deciding that we’d always been at war with Eastasia…er…that gay marriage was awesome, followed by a Two Minutes Hate toward anyone who didn’t fall immediately into line is right on.

        Me, I don’t think the government (and certainly not the FEDERAL government) has any business getting involved with marriage in the first place, so I’m neither for nor against gay marriage (or heterosexual marriage) in the legal sense.

      • Speaking as a clearly impartial observer (wink, wink), I find it fascinating how the ‘evolution’ occurred mid-election, and the corollary declaration that he was ‘pro-gay-marriage, but gay marriage is a state’s rights issue so the Fed won’t be getting involved’ came out in January (if I recall correctly). It almost smacks of pandering. “Vote for me! I’m on your side!” [Promptly wins election] “Thanks for the votes! Oh, I’m on your side IN PRINCIPLE. Were you expecting me to do something about that? SORRY.”

      • @CombatMissionary

        Oh, but did you hear some bullshit story about his kids going to school with another student with lesbian parents. At the highest level every decision couldn’t possibly be motivated by politics, lol. Yeah I think these ‘evolutions’ aka stopping the discrimination are complete political bull too.

      • OK, I’ll type in all caps so you’re able to actually read my response (although, as history has shown, likelihood of comprehending it is small):
        MAKE ONE COGENT THOUGHT AT A TIME. MAKE IT RELEVANT TO THE THOUGHT YOU’RE RESPONDING TO.

    • Here we go again…

      “Homophobic” means “unreasoning fear or hatred”. In other words, to feel about gay people the same way I feel about spiders.
      Not approving of SSM, not approving of ordained gay clergy, being Catholic, being Mormon… is NOT homophobia in the same way that failure to appreciate the subtle genius of the man who thinks America has 57 states is NOT racist. Keep on abusing the word and it’ll end up in the same place “racist” is now: an in joke, and that’s all.

      • “Keep on abusing the word and it’ll end up in the same place “racist” is now: an in joke, and that’s all.”

        Homophobic is a joke already IMO.

  33. Hmmm…. I’m way behind on my reading already, but I guess it’s time to go buy a Larry Correia book. Gotta reward good behavior. :)

  34. Ignorance can be so comical. That’s all this hate speech really is: ignorance.

    Oh, wait, my bad. Ignorance is when you don’t know any better. Stupid is when you do everything possible to make sure you never know any better.

    • Thanks for explaining yourself at the end.

    • Aww, does the delicate little snowflake want a cookie? I’m sure your masters will be more than happy to award you one for commenting on a blog like a brave little man. There’s a good little sheeple.

    • Whoops, friendly fire with my last post. I didn’t know you were referring to the SJW whackjobs. Larry, please kill it.

    • That last bit is the definition of “active stupid.” I always liked the Ringo solution to active stupid in a combat zone: shoot the sumbitch.

      • Yeah, I’m pretty partial to that as well.

        The challenge is to figure out how to get the entire world declared a combat zone for a few months.

      • I’ve almost got my zombie virus perfected to only infect the terminally stupid, Give me a few more months Tom, and we should be good:)

      • If your virus will only infect the terminally stupid, there’s going to be a lot of vacancies in government office, and you may leave the blue cities in America looking like ghost towns.

        Proceed at flank speed, sir!

      • Awesome! I’ll check the zero on my rifle in the mean time. :)

      • They tend to suffer nasty injuries that get them evacuated from the front, actually, not killed. Because looking a man in the eyes and killing him may be a well-worn joke in the comfort and safety of the internet, but it’s a very, very different reality in the dust and the mud-colored blood.

        The real tragedy are the folks that never can quite get it all together, and despite their great heart and willing soul, are an active danger to everyone around them. When your soldiers come by draft, not by volunteer, and there’s no good way to wash them out – those are the ones who “accidents” are the hardest to bear by the folks who know they need to go before they get everyone else dead.

  35. Why the devil didn’t we nominate Hard Magic, Spellbound & Warbound together?

    • I suspect doing so wouldn’t have really made that much of a difference. Nominating WoT as a whole is somewhat different due to WoT’s unusual authorship. I’ve heard from a handful of people who liked the series but were unhappy with the books that Sanderson co-wrote. Nominating the series as a whole allows Tor to still draw in votes from those sorts of people.

      And also, it’s WoT. Barring a new Game of Thrones novel being nominated this year, I doubt there was much that would stop the WoT entry (whether it was just one book or the entire series) from taking the win.

      • I don’t know. After 8000 pages or so of hair tugging and descriptions of the draperies I just realized I didn’t give a damn about the WoT series any longer.

      • Yes, but…

        You’re in the minority.

        I lost interest in Game of Thrones much more quickly than I did in WoT (the end of volume 3 vs the end of volume 10). And yet claiming that a new GoT novel wouldn’t clean up in the voting would be denial, pure and simple. Each release of a GoT book is basically George R. R. Martin printing money. It’s the same with the WoT books for Robert Jordan’s estate. I don’t know what the sales numbers were on Memory of Light, but I do know that they were extremely high. And people usually don’t buy the last book in a series unless they like the previous books.

  36. I hope that one of the points you and Vox disagreed on was women’s suffrage. I try like hell to give real consideration to opinions that differ from mine; this particular point makes me think Vox and I would not be fast friends.

    But if he wrote a great book, give the man an award.

    • I’m a woman, and I could care less. I’m not voting for the man as King. I read Throne of Bones, and it was a darn good book. What he thinks about suffrage is a personal oddity that affects me in zero ways.

      I enjoy China Mieville, and he’s a flaming communist – a worldview I find horrific and rife with murder and genocide and oppression of the worst sort. So? I’m not electing Mieville world ruler. I’m just reading his damn books.

      It really is that simple. If you write a good story, and your politics or pet causes aren’t getting in the way of the story, I DON’T CARE.

  37. I’ve been watching the neo-fascist snit-fest for awhile, now. The only good thing I can say for it is that I now understand why the shelves at Barnes & Noble are full of junk. Tedious, mediocre, haven’t had a new idea since Tolkien, fantasy junk. (The only competent, entertaining fantasy I’ve seen in the past decade is from Jim Butcher. Yes, he has some very original ideas. Apparently a monopoly on such.)

    Especially today, with savage, feral human neo-barbs dominating the political and cultural landscape, writers of the ability and political leanings of Piper, Pournelle, Anderson and Heinlein should be filling the shelves.

    Nope.

    Vampire crap.

    Amorphous sexuality too-neurotic-about-my-genitals crap.

    Sword and sorcery crap.

    And the only thing original about any of it is the Leftist undercurrent.

    So, when are the grownups going to walk away from SFWA and start something fro the adults?

    • That “something” is called Baen Publishing ;). Oh, and there’s some smart holdouts still with Tor (*cough*JohnCWright*cough* and David Weber).

      Tangentially, WHY is weber publishing his safehold novels with Tor, and the Honorverse with Baen? Why not just stay with Baen?

      • Because money. And who can blame him?

        Spoils of the Egyptians, or Tor being sane — doesn’t really matter. Weber’s allowed to feed his household however he can.

      • As long as he has an editor for the remainder of the honorverse books. The repeated chapters from previous volumes has reached an unprecedented and intolerable high.

      • “Why is Weber publishing his Safehold novels with Tor?” Because he can? ;)

        Although I strongly suspect – given his apparent politics – that Tor wouldn’t be publishing Weber if he were just starting out (as opposed to already being well-established as a bestselling author). Indeed, I’m hard-pressed to name any actual conservative or libertarian writers at Tor beyond Weber, John C. Wright…and the late Robert Jordan his own self.

        (One wonders how long Brandon Sanderson will last before the Tor Borg assimilate or excommunicate him…)

        I’ll say one thing for Tor: Unlike Baen, they don’t seem to consider Weber “too big to edit.” (And I say this as a huge fan of Weber). Sir Brass’ comments below are one example of some of the issues the Honorverse books are facing; there’s also some jarring continuity issues and typos that have been popping up in them as of late. (“Elizabeth Pritchart?” Really?)

      • We should again remind everyone that Tor.com is a web site associate of Tor Books.

      • WES.

        Wellll… I dunno if Jordan was a conservative, but I know some tolerant types who knew him and his wife. Loved his wife – “waste of oxygen” was the phrase applied to Robert.

        As to Tor and not treating Weber as too big to edit – I’ll have to differ with you on that. I just went through the latest safehold, and the repetitiveness of some variant of “cold smile” started knocking me out of the story. I love the series, I GET why it’s so much show vs tell given the scope/etc. – but I’ve never had a phrase so repeatedly jump out like that in his books, even in the safehold series.

  38. Left at the Radish, although I doubt it makes it through moderation

    “”Ms. Luhrs,
    I haven’t spent a lot of time on this blog, so I was hoping you could help me out.
    Did you write about John Scalzi campaigning to be on the Hugo ballot when he used his blog for that purpose?
    Did you write about how TOR.com likewise encouraged its readers to vote for certain works to be included on the ballot?
    Considering the number of blogs that urge readers to vote for him for every work and begin promoting voting for his works *even before they are in print* will you likewise block Mr. Gaiman’s works in the future?
    Considering that you face no more risk than a few comments on your blog or perhaps your twitter account, do you honestly think that joining with thousands of others in condemning two writers is actually ‘scary’?
    And, finally, you state,
    ” …there was an insistence from both the trolls and other parties that I should judge the nominated works on their merits alone. These works do not exist in a vacuum and the context in which they are produced is, for me, relevant. The personal is political. I am not going to waste my time reading books written by people who hold me, my friends, and my family in contempt …
    …My refusal to allow that sort of discourse to take root here is not a sign of weakness. It is a refusal to allow myself to be diminished and to be made smaller. I’ve spent too much of my life trying to be small, measuring out my life in coffee spoons.”
    Does this mean you would support the return of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?
    Thank you in advance.””

    • Made it through moderation, but I think I am now banned

    • Wow! That was incredibly offensive. She probably did a double-take between banning you and dialing 911. I love her web site; it arguably makes men on death row happy they’re not in the situation of that great bag o’ privilege droppings.

    • And your arguments are all bad faith arguments.

      How in the hell old Natalie figures that is beyond me. They’re all valid questions. Why is it that all these other people can do it and it’s OK, but the second Larry does (and it works), it’s somehow a Jihad against all that the Hugos stand for?

    • My comment also awaiting moderation:

      [quote]The main thing I found incredibly interesting about it was how certain commenters felt they had the right to my space. The right to demand very specific answers from me. My refusal to engage except superficially led to goalpost shifting and increasingly vitriolic abuse and deliberate misreadings as well as outright lies about me.[/quote]

      Holy hypocrisy, Batman! You just happened to write an entire blog post about 2 specific individuals cherry picking statements and blatantly slandering them with no evidence. And then you get upset when some commenters make a few statements giving you a taste of your own medicine?

      I’ve got to say I’ve tried every way I can to understand your reasoning and logic but it just does not compute. The Hugos are a popularity contest. The rules for voting and nominating make it such. When a popular author makes an honest open bid for support that’s to be expected right? But it’s only horrible and unthinkable when someone who is a big meany to you and your friends gets it done?

  39. Going back to Gencon? Sweet! met you last ,hope to catch more of your panels this year.

  40. Larry has “spoken truth to power” or whatever the hell those leftists say.

  41. Just a note: I’m pretty sure that both Scalzi & Jim Hines have suggested to everyone reading their blogs to just READ the works, and vote based on what they think of things.

    I don’t think there’s really a conspiracy to keep the right wing writers off the ballots in the past…. but I’ve got no problem w/ trying to get a few books I enjoy on!

    • You’re right, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s a boldly spoken agenda. Scalzi and Hines might not be directly involved, but the panty-twisting SJWs of no renown and even fewer morals sure are, and the links provided show you their own words.

    • Re-Read Scalzi’s blog. He’s doing it in a read everything wink wink kind of way. He is too afraid to do it openly.

      “And, no, I’m not trying to be “the voice of reason” with regard to the Hugos. These are my views; disagree if you like. I COULD BE WRONG”

      all CAPS is like a wink…linking to people that aren’t afraid of doing it openly. Basically endorsing them without doing it so he can say see I’m so great I support all sides “wink wink”

      this paragraph talks about the virtue of the other nominations and backhanded complement of warbound

      “* Indeed, with regard to the novel, let’s recognize the strengths each nominee brings to the table: Ancillary Justice has been nominated for just about every major science fiction award this year — Hugo, Nebula, Clarke, BSFA, PKD — and is arguably the most talked and praised science fiction novel of 2013. Neptune’s Brood is classic Charles Stross, and a very good novel of hard(er) SF, which is always popular, and Charlie is also the only UK nominee on the novel ballot, which doesn’t hurt when the Worldcon’s in London. Parasite continues Mira Grant’s novel nomination streak, is scary as hell and a damn fine read. Warbound is the surprise in the field (which is not bad), entirely different from the other nominees (also not a bad thing) and, as has been established, has its own passionate set of fans.”

      It should have said something like.

      “Warbound, is the final book in a trilogy that has sold extremely well, been translated into a bunch of other languages where it has also done well, gotten tons of positive reviews (out of the thousands of reviews for this series from across all the various different places I’m still at 4 ½ stars) won and been nominated for other awards, is one of the bestselling and most praised audiobook series there is, has won two Audies, is currently nominated for a third.”

      but no its a “surprise”

      Scalzi is pretty much the head of SJW. No wait he stepped down as president a year ago.

  42. FYI, I feel safer with you AT the con I attend, cause you’re probably packin’ heat. :)

  43. Larry, there is nothing so satisfying as knocking a bee hive over and watching the little buggers go crazy. Good job, They deserved it.

    • Gary, I nominate you for a Metaphor Fail award. Bees pollinate flowers and make delicious honey. Plus they kill wasps, so they’re super useful.

      Special Snowflakes kill sweet freedom and prevent the germination of free thinking. So they’re kind of the anti-bee.

      Shame on you. ;D

  44. While you’re probably right that the Wheel of Time is going to stomp you…. (which, honestly – it shouldn’t – I haven’t read Sanderson’s novels, but I did read up to book 10 under Jordan.) The Wheel of Time is a lot of things. Overly long. Epic mostly for page count. Full of inconsistency because Jordan couldn’t keep his own political and geographical groups straight.

    Its also the only series I’ve ever gotten to book five on, and stated to a fangroup of said novels – “Jordan has forgotten what exactly he set out to accomplish here. If he finishes this before he dies, it’ll be a miracle.”

    And as it happens, I was right. Which, is really kinda sad. But yeah. Even taken as a whole… WoT is just not *that* good. It was some amazing world building and a whole lot of ambition… but the overall story…. meh.

    I’d vote for Warbound over it without any qualms.

  45. The SJWs are annoying / preying on their own. Attacking Scalzi for suggesting people read the works, and vote on their own merit – heresy! I guess on the positive side, they are exercising their tolerance with equal opportunity and similar depth of thought.

  46. Well, that was some blog post, Mr. Correia. :-) I actually tried one of your books awhile back, but just couldn’t get into it and dropped it. But, your blog posts are funny as hell, so I’ll be picking up one of your books to give it another try.

  47. Larry, you should totally do this again next year. However, you have a Manatee problem. Most Manatees aren’t as fiscally well off as Wendell. I propose you arm them with cost-saving specially-modified-for-Manatee-use armor-penetrating Russian battle rifles chambered in 7.62x54R. These Manatee-Nagants will allow your Manatee Minion Masses to hold fire superiority over even the most determined SJW mobs. They’ll pierce soft body armor and are available at a fraction of the cost of Dragunovs.

    • Manatees weigh about 1,300 pounds, according to the Googles. They could probably fire .700 Nitro Express on full auto. :-)

      That WOULD get spendy, though.

      • Wendell doesn’t mess around. Whatever he does, it won’t be pretty.

      • Will he have cookie monster as a side kick? CM going on a rampage because someone provoked puppy sadness would be…. justice for the puppies, I think :D.

      • @ SirBrass
        Let’s not get ridiculous. ;)

  48. Reblogged this on westfargomusings and commented:
    Larry Correia explains some of reasoning behind Sad Puppies and the controversy it’s caused in the land of SF/F. Personally, I think they tortured some interpretations in order to get Wheel of Time nominated (I’ve always been under the impression that definition was there for serialized magazine fiction rather than dictionary length novels). Because I’m a cheap ass, I won’t be reading hardly any of these nominees for a couple of years. But, congrats to all the nominees.

  49. I never thought I’d ever give Scalzi kudos. I find him insufferable but he’s not an unhinged SJW nutcase trying to get us to take his First World Problems seriously. Good on him for being objective here.

    Also, Tor has been dead to me for years, anyway. Their literary speciality seems to be in polishing turds and selling them as gold bullion.

    • There are a lot of good authors at Tor, and the guy who actually founded the company strikes me as an honorable man. But they’ve got some editors that are straight up crackpots. I’ve got friends who work for Tor (I bet they have to keep that secret!) and they were quick to let me know that Tor.com isn’t Tor the publisher.

      • Problem is Tor.com is the public face of “Tom Doherty Associates”, and it aint a pretty face.

      • Is there any way to backchannel the fact that Tor.com is costing the publishing arm goodwill and sales?

      • True — These days, I only buy a Tor book if I already know and enjoy the paticular author, because of quality issues.

        With Baen, it’s quite the opposite — admittedly, I’ve bought some Baen stuff I didn’t enjoy that much. But by and large, I feel I have better odds picking a random Baen title I’ve never read by an author I’ve never heard of, over a book by an author whose other works I’ve enjoyed that’s published by someone else.

        Baen simply seems to have a better crap/quality filter in place.

    • Meh, he’s annoying sometimes, but Scalzi strikes me as being a decent enough sort. I’m not surprised that he’s reacted the way he did.

      • Er, Scalzi wrote a novel-length piece of fan fiction then wrote a long screed AGAINST fan fiction. He is, at the least, a muddle-headed “thinker”.

      • Scalzi is the same guy who wrote an editorial from the point of view of a rapist talking about how much rapists support Republicans. “Decent enough” may be relative, but he’s got some atoning to do before he gets anything better than “crawling scum” from me.

      • Which is funny, since polling prison populations show that if they could vote, they’d vote democrat about 85%-90% of the time.

        Oh, and republican women shoot rapists. :)

      • That rapist screed drove me off his site.

  50. I have been around you a few times Mr. Correia at various LibertyCons. I am a 5ft3in female, I have NEVER felt unsafe in your presence. The same cannot be said for some of the SJWs.

    • Larry didn’t strike me as rapey either but then again I am a 5ft10in male. Also the other commenters seem to be expecting me to to be a creep because I don’t agree with them politically. Apparently if you are asian I am supposed to stalk you or something, ah who knows.

      If you are just shoot my ass, Larry will teach you for free to carry. Something about trucks and proving he isn’t racist. I could be an evil JSWs or the more sinister SJW.

      • Chlamydia, is that you? If so, no, you are not _supposed_ to stalk Asian females; you just do.

      • Naw, different idiot troll. He showed up a week ago after my reply to the Guardian, and said that I wrote too much in response, then he posted fifty times. Then in the thread about the French cover of a novel he tried to explain to a bunch of combat veterans about how gun confiscation would totally work in America. Now he’s spamming this one. He’s posted here dozens of times now. When you answer him he ignores it or doesn’t understand the answer, and when you don’t bother to answer him then he declares that as victory. He has a lot of down time behind the register at Taco Bell apparently.

        Sadly for poor Stupid Snake, he has finally committed the cardinal sin of boring me.

      • Right, so file him not under “Chlamydia” but under “limppecker,” yes?

  51. I hope you’re happy, Larry Correia. All this Hugo brouhaha has brought a repressed memory of trauma from my childhood (well, college, but I was pretty childish at the time.)

    My little college had a published author teaching creative writing for some reason, and although she wasn’t a best-seller or anything (I don’t think she’d ever lived solely by writing) she did make a habit of stressing that writing advice from “writers” was more important than any advice from people “living the writer lifestyle.” Effort, production, editing and publication were all key factors in differentiating these two classes of writer-like objects.

    My little college also had a contest for aspiring writers. Students could submit a portfolio of work and a panel of judges would award a $1000 prize to the best. The criteria were not explicit, but I figured I couldn’t lose anything by submitting, so I did.
    When the results came back, the panel turned out to have exceeded even your unnamed Tor editor; they announced that they would not award the prize that year, because no works worth publication had been submitted. Yes, that was the public announcement.

    I was not happy, but in fairness, I had not published any of the work I submitted. Of course, they had specified unpublished work in the submission guidelines, and I had two of the poems I submitted published later that year, but only in a small journal with a pretty specific genre, so, you know . . . not literary work. I did make a point of sending the publication notice on to my writing teacher, and I assume she followed through on sending it on to the members of the judging panel. She seemed fairly gleeful, in any case.

  52. I think we’re probably getting to the time where there should be something produced like “Straight White Man Comics,” “white privilege” buttons, and finally, a “cis peeeoooople” t-shirt in honor of UK resident Alex Binary MacFarlane.

    Also, a “Supercalifragiliciouscisheteropatriarchy” shirt might be nice.

    A quote from PC SJW SFF illustrator Jim McDermott on a t-shirt might be good: “Is this a WorldCon or a WhiteCon?”

    Other suggestions:

    Post-Binary Comics
    What the Cis-Het!?!
    Privilege=MC2
    Safer-Space Donuts
    Trigger Warning: For Everything
    My Privilege Itches

    Or these might be ironically ironicallycally popular t-shirts:

    “The power fantasies of disenchanted white men” (courtesy of two-time Hugo and three-time Nebula-nominated SFF author N.K. Jemisin)

    “If you’re white, you have white privilege.” (courtesy of guest post at John Scalzi’s site by Mary Ann Mohanraj

    “I was so pleased to realized that these people were brown.”  (same source)

    “the Campbell Award nominees are… at least 80% non-white-males… So that’s pretty great” (courtesy of non-racist Kate Nepevu who refuses to link directly to Larry Correia’s site because racism)

    “‘escapism': it’s geared to white patriarchy” (courtesy of anti-racist Hugo nominee Aliette de Bodard

    “Western Imperialist white dudes from space” (courtesy of non-racist Carrie Cuinn)

    “sour dough-faced” (courtesy of WisCon panelist and co-organizer of their racially segregated safer-space and dinner Jaymee Goh when describing the face of a white actor taking the role of Khan in Star Trek.)

    Of course you can always have the buried-in-irony quote t-shirt from Tor.com blogger and post-binary girl Alex D. MacFarlane: “I suspect the ability to push boundaries and not cause hurt requires the pusher to not be a middle class white straight man.”

    • Just go through that list, change white man to Jew, and it reads like a European eugenics conference of the mid 1930s.

      • Spittake trigger warning next time, please.

      • Oh, you tempt me so, to take an actual speech from those, change “jew” to “white male”, and submit it as a guest post to tor.com or the comments in some of these blogs… Who do you think would notice?

      • I think it would take awhile for them to notice. I don’t think they’re very self-aware in that area.

        DOOOOOOO EEEEEEETTTT!!! #egging on! ;-)

      • I bet if you were crafty you could pull it off. I can promise you would get it published in some SJW platform.

    • Hahaha. What’s with all the Portuguese all of a sudden? When did that happen? They’re always playing samba music and eating black beans and rice. I don’t like samba music. I don’t like black beans and rice. And they pronounce “R’s” at the start of a word like “H.” WHO PRONOUNCES “R” LIKE “H” AT THE START OF A WORD? UGH!!! Sylvester Stallone didn’t make “Hockey.” I’m worried SF might default to Portuguese. Do we really need an SF version of Captains Courageous – mebbe with Gatling guns… 20mm?

      Actually that might be cool.

      • First it was Mormons taking over sci-fi. Now it is the Portuguese. I’m cool either way. :)

      • As long as you don’t start writing your books by first staring into a magic hat to figure out what to write, I think we’ll be good, Larry ;) :P

      • When I contemplate all these people eating fish, I say to myself “Yipee!!! More delicious cows for me!!! …and no nassssty fishes.”

        They’re eating black beans and rice to save the delicious carne asada for you. Be grateful.

    • Of course you can always have the buried-in-irony quote t-shirt from Tor.com blogger and post-binary girl Alex D. MacFarlane: “I suspect the ability to push boundaries and not cause hurt requires the pusher to not be a middle class white straight man.”

      We white men don’t know how to push the right boundaries, obviously.

    • How about “The Space Caliphate: All Your White Patriarchy are Belong To Us”? ;)

  53. In other words, Larry played the left like a fiddle. Heh. I like that.

  54. Reading some of the lefty reaction to the Sad Puppies campaign…

    Good Lord, I feel like I’m back in junior high. “Ew, yuck, I don’t like you. Go away.”

    A commenter over at Vox’s place likened the Scalziites to a pack of Mean Girls, which I think fits. Myself, I’m taking notes of who says what, so I know who not to spend any of my hard-earned money on. Never have read, for example, anything by Scalzi or Charles Stross, and after this I won’t be reading of their stuff. And Seanan McGuire…well, I sort of liked the “Newsflesh” trilogy she published under her “Mira Grant” pen-name, but I won’t be buying anything else by her..,.

    Personally, given the reaction to Sad Puppies, I think next year we ought to get Kratman a Hugo nomination for “The Rods and the Axe” or somesuch. The Mad Colonel is already responsible for popping more liberal heads than Michael Ironside in “Scanners,” so I can only imagine the consternation on the lefty message boards should Colonel Crucify ‘Em get on the ballot.
    ;)

    • Big Boys Don’t Cry should be eligible for next year for novella.

    • Ha! I saw that Mean Girls comment as well. It’s strikingly apt.

    • That’s a shame you won’t read any Stross. The Laundry books (Jennifer Morgue and so on) are a lot of fun, in a scp-project kind of way. The Trade Wars books are really great too. Saturn’s Children was…boring, but still had some really great SF concepts to it. It’s more of the “art” sf that’s…boring, but stuff does actually happen and interesting ideas are explored (how to build surface cities on Mercury, for example).

      Don’t fall into the same trap as the lefties. There’s a ton of really interesting stuff out there that you might miss.

      • I like Stross’s first three Laundry books (the third is my favorite). But something was off with the fourth book, and I was somewhat disappointed with it. Unfortunately, I can’t put my finger on what was wrong.

        At the very least, people should read the various Laundry short stories that are available for free on-line (which I think is all of them except for the computer RPG short story that’s found in the back of one of his novels). You’ll never look at Santa Claus or unicorns in quite the same way…

        ^^;;

      • I stopped reading Scalzi after I read a blog post where he pretty much blasted libertarianism. I’m sorry, but if you deride the philosophy that governs much of my life, then you don’t really need my money anymore.

        The difference between me and the left is that I’ll still admit that Scalzi can write a pretty good story. They think it’s impossible that someone like Larry could tell a good one because of the hatey hate McHaterson stuff deep inside of him.

        Of course, they also don’t think that someone can write a story and their own politics not seep out into it and take over the whole project either. That’s just a case of projecting though.

      • The truth about sf history is that there have always been a lot of arguments, fannish politics, and annoying people at the top of the field. The difference is that nowadays, a lot of this stuff is enforced instead of found annoying, and it’s in your face. Whereas in the old days you only heard about this stuff as embarrassing stories about people’s rants in fanzines or letter columns, or during convention parties.

        However, it does seem that David Drake has been a favored hatey-mcHate target for a very long time, and the leftist approval for Samuel Delany apparently struck him as extremely racist. Even the first Worldcon had its Stupid Communist Political Moment. It took pushback to stop that, even in 1939.

        Still, some of this is just crawling out from under a rock now. So it’s good that pushback is now occurring, and not a moment too soon.

      • I don’t look on it as “falling into the same trap as the lefties.” I look on it more as making the lefties play the game by their own spiteful rules…in a Saul Alinsky sense. Why should people who utterly hate me for not sharing their warped worldview (or because I read authors that don’t share their warped worldview, for that matter) receive so much as one thin dime of my money? And why shouldn’t I encourage others to play the game the same way?

        Although there’s considerable merit in Dave P’s suggestion that if you want to read anything by the PC crowd, just buy it used….)

        To paraphrase a certain beloved fictional libertarian space cowboy: “If somebody comes to despise you, then you despise them right back.”
        :)

      • I live under a rock, apparently.

        Or have, since I pay extremely little attention to fannish things, and did not know that David Drake was one of their favorite dart-board fetishes. Odd, as he picks up a lot of their fave tropes- strong and highly skilled women, LGBT people treated as *gasp!* human beings like the rest of us (and no big deal made about it), colorful people… Wait. That’s not proper-think at all!

        No wonder. I never read Slammers, or the RCN series as having no discriminatory bias is actually having discriminatory bias before. *shakes head*

        And Tom, I’ll read Scalzi, or Hines, or heck, N.K. Jemsin when any one of them puts out a story I want to read. I read Old Man’s War, and it wasn’t awful- but subsequent books didn’t keep my attention. Hines’ Jig the Goblin books, first couple, were interesting. But the story got squelched in later books, and lost interest. So it goes.

        For the longest time I knew not the slightest thing about any author’s personal politics. Just that some books made more satisfying projectiles than others. I’ve gotten an idea of why that is, since. Still, I’m not going to let an author’s politics get between me and what I consider a good story.

        That’s what the other side does. For me, it ain’t happenin’ like that. *shrug* To each his own.

        But I’ve not gotten into a single one of Scalzi’s or Hines’ books in a long time. Maybe I’ve gotten pickier in my tastes. Never had that issue with Larry’s books. Or Kratman’s. Or Sarah’s.

      • Some of Stross’s work is pretty good, in my opinion. The Laundry stuff is an amusing conceit–spy novel + Dilbert + Lovecraft + hackers, played for bleak laughs–though already too much of them is Stross taking center-stage wearing the flayed skin of an author-avatar character and ranting at the reader about how much he hates the Yanks.

        “A Colder War” and “Missile Gap” are either existential horror or hilarious black humor–the difference seems to be in how you approach them and how you read them.

        The Problem with Charlie, though, is that he only wants to tell us one kind of story–a story about how we’re all buggered and life is meaningless and everything is bleak and horrible. Whether or not any of the characters snark a bit about it doesn’t matter so much. He even rants on his blog about “steampunk,” whatever that genre term means this week, about how it’s not bleak and depressing enough for his tastes, which therefore, somehow or other, means it’s bad writing. Now, I grant, his work sells. And, I grant, Mr. Stross doesn’t have to get permission from Her Majesty’s government to write a novel. He doesn’t have to pass everything he wants to write before a censorship board–not yet, anyway. I am not saying that he shouldn’t write what he wants to write or tell the stories he wants to tell. I am not saying that governments, or publishers, or SWFA, should censor him. I’m saying that I find his work depressing. He seems to want to shock, horrify, and sadden his readers. M. John Harrison and Peter Watts have the same obsession, and the same problem.

      • The problem with Stross (At least with his latest writings) is that it’s painfully obvious that he was bitten by a Christian when he was a child and he has years of vengeance fiction to write about it.

      • I do like Watts quite a bit despite his ridiculous politics and “EVERYTHING IS SHITTY FOREVER” way of writing. I bombed out on the Rifters series before finishing it because of the way the–one character, who ditches his moral programming, is suddenly all about being as sexually horrible as possible–but I really did enjoy Blindsight.

        But then I also enjoy taking apart his assumptions and Big Smart Scientist!! act. He likes writing well-researched (for a given value of “researched”) books, which I appreciate, but his habit of footnoting everything and then talking about what an awesome dude he is for doing it in the afterword amuses me.

      • “I look on it more as making the lefties play the game by their own spiteful rules…”

        Except then you’ve agreed to play their game, instead of the one you really wanted to play.

        (I will avoid authors, or actors, who’s work I can’t dissociate from whatever dumb thing they’ve said or done. I try not to notice too much, though, and practice a certain amount of selective hearing as long as possible.)

      • My problem with Scalzi is that he actively attacks and denigrates me. He’s a pretty good author – I loved Redshirts, and I’ve enjoyed several of his novels (didn’t much like his reboot of Fuzzy Nation; it read like a Hollywood screenplay aimed at the Occupy mindset).

        Contrast him to Eric Flint who (as far as as I know) is actually *politically* farther from me than Scalzi claims to be, but he doesn’t go out of his way to actively attack and denigrate me. And he’s a helluva good writer. I literally have not read anything of his I didn’t enjoy and repeatedly reread.

        One of these two strikes me as a mean spirited, hypocritical punk with plenty of talent who can kill my boredom the first time I read his stuff, and one as a gentleman who is a master of his craft who enthralls me even when I read his books to tatters.

        Guess which one I spend more money on?

      • Correction “Little Fuzzy”. What was I thinking?!?

      • I liked Stross just fine until his work degenerated into one long screaming atheist rant.

        Yeah, atheist, I got it, can we move on? No? Really no? Again the ranting? After two hundred pages it got kinda old.

        Its like he got big enough the publisher decided he didn’t need to be edited anymore, and once they let him off the leash he went completely apeshit.

        Same thing happened with Ian M. Bank’s last book. Kind of a shame, I liked most other things he did.

    • You are missing some great books. McGruire’s “inCryptid” novels are a delight, and probably would be enjoyed by anyone who likes Correia’s Monster Hunter tales. I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve ever ready by Scalzi with the sole exception of Fuzzy Nation, which suffered by comparison to the original H Beam Piper work he was trying to reboot. And Charles Stross writes a lot of very good books. His “Laundry Files” series of novels and short stories is a particular favorite, as well as his near future second person Scottish police procedurals, “Halting State” and “Rule 34″. I also enjoyed his “Merchant Princes” series.

      I know if I limited my reading to books by writers who pass my ideological purity tests, I’d be missing out on some great stuff. I encourage you to reconsider.

      • I want to read McGuire because the synopses of her stuff appeal to me, but I cannot get through her writing. It’s very–I’m not even sure how to say it other than it reads to me the same way teenage-girl slice-of-life novels do, and I cannot connect with it at all.

      • I enjoyed the Merchant Princes books, until the fourth or fifth one. Then, he started bash the then vice president. Message took precedence over story, and I found a different place to spend my dollars. YMMV

      • Fuzzy Nation suffered by comparison to Little Fuzzy, because it was *radically* different than Piper’s story in feeling and purpose.

        It’s as if someone rewrote Time Enough For Love and made W.W. Smith a Puritan and coward. Or the Vanderhoaxen version of Starship Troopers.

      • H. Beam Piper was also, by all descriptions of those who knew him, a true gentleman- and solidly opposed to collectivism. I don’t think he would’ve approved of either the treatment or the artist.

    • Buy ‘em used, ‘migo. And make sure the authors know you did, andd know why.
      “Here’s why I went out of your way to make sure you didn’t get a royalty from me…”

      • Public library’s another option.

      • Naw, don’t want to say anything at all to ‘em. Saying that will get other glittery hoo-haas to feel sisterhood, and others will get motivated to send them money or buy books or something equally as society destroying.

        To really hurt an author, let the tumbleweeds blow through their blog.

    • I’m reasonably willing to take one for the team, Wes, but, as Vox pointed out on VP once or twice, I’m even more hated by the left than he is…which is saying something. But note that “take one for the team,” above. I said it before, maybe here or maybe in FB: The _only_ reason to nominate me would be to clear the slate for someone else.

      • Yeah, Tom — if they found a copy of Vox’s work on their shelf, they’d call an exterminator, maybe wipe down with Clorox sheets.

        If they found one of yours, they’d have to invent a secular humanist exorcism. . .

      • On the contrary.

        See, the level of anger and bile that folks like you, Mr. Correia and Vox, uh, “engender” (snicker) is really unhealthy. By causing all the head ‘splody angst and bile we’re shortening their lives.

        Since their lives are so miserable and painful we’re helping end their misery early.

        Since they’re annoying (at least some of) “us”, ending their lives early puts them out of OUR misery.

        So it’s a win win.

      • Well…wouldn’t that also be clearing the slate, William, as I suggested? ;)

      • It seems that the slate-clearing has already begun. Quote:

        “Anyway: if Kratman really gets nominated, then I would lament, in a way that I have not been made to this year. Correia passes – again, for *me, ymmv – the plausibility threshold; VD does not but is at least trying to write and showing some minimal-pulse level of ability. Kratman’s stuff is both utterly reprehensible *and* completely void of any storytelling or language-manipulation ability. Yeach.”

        http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015838.html#2242499

        Quick work, Colonel. :P

  55. “forced to drive their mobility scooters into the SAFE AREA whenever I came around.” Thanks for laugh of the day. What a great visual. Demographics are changing around here in SoCal and it’s sad to see all the young people who can actually walk being ignored and put down by the Scooter Store crowd.

  56. Remember, Larry, this sage advice: When the game playing of the simple-mined wears your patience thin take a few minutes and look at your bank accounts and smile.

  57. Hi. I have been a SFF reader for about 36 years now and have read widely and kind of indiscriminately. (You know, for fun.) I haven’t really participated in much fandom, because I’m not really that kind of person. But I’ve been reading more blogs/fanzines etc this past year, and I can’t say I’ve seen a lot that I like. There seem to be two different crowds (you know who you are) and I’ve seen A LOT of uncivil behavior on both sides. It has only convinced me that I really don’t want to participate.

    But the thing that has freaked me out the most is the insistence (by folks on both sides) that one should not read books by an author whose personal beliefs do not match my own. Really? Cause I might get offended. And just for the record, I am so liberal, I can’t even call myself a Democrat in good faith. Gay marriage? Awesome. Gun control? You bet. But I also fervently believe in the rights of others to believe and say whatever they want within the letter of the law. And that means ideas that I might find offensive. And I might read books with ideas I hate. I reserve the right to engage with ideas I don’t agree with and to let others do the same. I’m going to read all the Hugo nominees this year and vote for the ones I think best. I think that’s how one does it.

    • I hear ya. All of the Hugo hooha aside, I never thought I’d see the day when people were encouraged to read or not read an author based on the author’s personal beliefs. The idea is absolutely ludicrous. What person agrees 100% with another? No one. Therefore, if we all followed such a system, no one would be able to read.

    • Well, I can’t speak for everyone on this side of the aisle, but as for me, I’ll tell you who I think you should read. Anyone who writes a good story.

      Politics be damned. I’ve got a couple of writers I won’t buy, not because of THEIR politics, but how they’ve derided mine. However, I won’t tell anyone else to not buy their stuff.

      • I have exactly one author I won’t read because of her personal beliefs. She was the first person to suggest such an idea to me with a straight (virtual) face. Yes, she’s one of those SJW people. I thought banning her from my reading list was poetic justice, but I don’t actively campaign against her works. My mother raised me to have better manners than that.

      • Same here. I’ll mention the name, but usually among other people who aren’t buying his stuff in the first place. However, like I said, I won’t say he can’t write. He certainly can. If he had been a bad writer, I’d probably never have bothered to find his blog and see what he thought of people like me.

      • I like Eric Flint and have read a lot of his stuff, both solo and in collaboration with others.

        Even though he’s supposedly a communist, I feel sure he’s not down with muzzling anybody or putting them in camps.

        Miéville, I won’t read. Scalzi, I won’t read. I won’t read anything that the Nielsen Haydens have touched. And I won’t read any of these people who are trying to prevent folks from reading Correia. That last one won’t be much of a sacrifice, since I’ve yet to see any who sound like they’re worth reading.

        The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are both on the net for free. Why would I want to pay money for some dullwitted remake?

      • I like Flint’s stuff too. Despite his politics, he tells stories that appeal to me. In part, it’s probably because he knows that his politics don’t have any place in a good story.

        Loved the Belasarius series the most, but I’ve liked some of his other stuff too.

        See? We right wing types DO read non-right wingers. We just don’t want to hear how left wing they really are in stories that are supposed to be about entertainment.

    • Adelkaide —

      It’s not their personal beliefs that cause me to avoid certain authors based on philosophy. (Point of fact, I think Eric Flint is a better *writer* than Larry in many respects. Sorry, Larry, I love ya, and would read your grocery lists, but Flint’s got some mad game. ;-) )

      I *do*, however, refrain from financially rewarding people who use the fame and money thus gained to overtly attack me and my core beliefs on a nearly continual basis. Especially when they aren;t even as good at their business as otehrs who do NOT go out of their way to tell me how evil they think I am. Pro-tip, SJW types — don’t spit in my face and try to sell me a towel to wipe up with afterwards. (Sell me something I actually *want*, and feel free to spit on my shadow as I leave. Machts nichts.)

  58. […] Via sci-fi author Larry Correia: […]

  59. Silly sad little SJW Stalinist. A little lesson from history, just for you. People keep trying to shut down freedom of speech. Often times the motives are pure and noble (we don’t want people saying undeserved and mean things about people). But it soon becomes a way to shut out critisism- because critisism hurts, and people like to self justify.
    Thus, one winds up with massively obvious flaws that nobody is allowed to point out or fix, because that would go against the official party line and Chairman Mao Thought. See also the Bloody History of the 20th Century.

    Thus, free speech is essential. It allows problems to be brought to light, and fustrations to be vented. But what about the hateful, the SJW may ask? Simple- let them talk freely. They’ll self discredit. However, one can give them legitimacy by trying to supress their views. They become countercultural, hip, and rebellious that way.

  60. So this was brought to my attention. On of your fans tries to use reason and logic and is banned and later made fun of on Twitter…

    http://radishreviews.com/2014/04/21/do-i-dare-disturb-the-universe/#comment-31283

    I usually try to stay clear of this shit but The Other Rick’s comments are so far from “trolling” that I felt his valiant effort deserved to be pointed out.

    • Way to go, Rick. :)

      And what the hell is a “bad faith” argument?

      • Badthink is bad. Shrug. Ms. Luhrs can return to her panel moderating and minor cons and romance novel editing.

      • The argument here is that trolling is the only possible reason anyone could nominate any of the books on Larry’s list. The books are so self-evidently bad (because, penis! and right-wing!) that no one could possibly nominate one of them in good faith.

        Once again: judging from sales figures, Jeff Bezos must be in on the conspiracy, ’cause it sure looks like a lot of people have laid out their cold, hard cash to read these supposedly terrible books.

      • Well, in law, “bad faith” usually means intent to deceive, which is the usual motivating action for the crime of fraud. Philosophically, as far as I can make out, “bad faith” is equated with doublethink — an intent to deceive ONESELF, which usually involves rationalizing away one’s own hypocrisy by inventing complex reasons not to apply to oneself the same set of rules one expects others to live by.

        This SJW type seems to catch onto some nebulous combination of the above definitions, define “bad faith” as “fundamental dishonesty”, and condemn her opponents on those grounds. Mainly because she’s still intelligent enough to know that calling him a “lying son of a bitch” will still be regarded by some as bad manners.

      • SJW types project a lot.

      • Well, to be honest, SBP, some of us HAVE bought multiple copies of the same of Larry’s work. . .

        I’ve worn out a copy of MHI already, and I had to buy a loaner copy, so even if loaned out I still had access. . . {grin}

      • re: Geodkyt I’ve personally bought all of the books written by Correia multiple times, albeit electronic form. It’s cheaper than booze (and I don’t drink). So I buy them in Baen library format, Audio Book format, and since I’m impatient, eARC. So Larry, when is Nemesis audio book release date?

      • Usually, imputing bad faith is meant to discredit the speaker’s argument on the grounds that the speaker does not actually hold that position (i.e., is trolling, a practice once referred to as Tartuffery).

        The desired further implication seems to be that no thinking person would genuinely possess the frame of mind required to ask questions such as Rick’s unironically. Who is the Tartuffe now?

      • Usually, imputing bad faith is meant to discredit the speaker’s argument on the grounds that the speaker does not actually hold that position (i.e., is trolling, a practice once referred to as Tartuffery).

        I think what it really means, as used, is “he’s being a big meany and I can’t respond so I’ll just blame him and ignore these uncomfortable questions”.

    • Fun quote of the day:

      “Natalie Luhrs ‏@eilatan 2h

      “@katsudonburi I’ve never worn a corset–in part bc I would have to get one custom bc I am SUPER short-waisted.”

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      • Is “I am SUPER short-waisted” code for “it would look like someone shrink-wrapped a tube of cookie dough”?

    • Wow. My favorite bit about that? She couldn’t even answer any of his questions. Just banned him. Because SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!

      We’re dealing with some intellectual heavy weights here. //eye roll//

    • “We’re (un)wanted men. I’ve got the ban sentence on twelve SJW systems!”

  61. Having wandered around the ‘net for a few days reading posts about this, I’ve started wanting to leave comments that are simply “Hail Hydra!” on most of their boards. Since that seems to be the sort of world they want to promote, they should be acknowledged for it.

  62. Mr. Correia, if only I were a pagan, I would erect to you a shrine, and sacrifice a manatee while forcing my wife and daughter to dance around the sacred statue of you. Alas, I am a member of a heteronormative plutocratic Islamophobic fascist pro-Aryan phallocratic religious cult where I pray fifty times a day to a Jewess named Maryam, therefore forbidden from the enlightened Roman practice of having the Patrician senate vote you deification honors.

    You’ve talking me into buying the sequels to your HARD MAGIC as soon as I can beg money from She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed. Good thing I am a phallocratic male chauvinist patriarchy. (And by the ‘Patriarchy’ of course I mean the government of the bellicose catlike aliens of 61 Ursae Majoris, of course).

    I must use caution in asking She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed for book money, but am willing to do so for your sake. Here is an explanation of my domestic arrangementshttp://www.scifiwright.com/2009/08/she-who-must-be-obeyed-has-commanded-friday-postings/

    • I appreciate that very much, John, however the manatees are on our side. We don’t want to sacrifice them. Most people are unaware of the extremely free market, pro liberty nature of the noble manatee.

      That and I stuck one in a funny short story, where he helped save Christmas, so Wendell was an obvious choice for spokesman for my campaign. :)

      • So they’re Scottish manatees? :) (That’s probably a joke only philosophy nerds will get.)

      • Turns out Adam Smith was a quarter manatee on his mother’s side. No joke.

      • John, I am willing to dance around a manatee–a live one, mind you–in Larry’s honor…but the Princess never will. Alas, she is too fastidious.

        As to Mr. Correia’s books, I am all for it.

      • Very well. When you are elected to the post of divine Godking by the Forced of Evil, we will spare the Manitees. I propose sacrificing Vegans instead. This can either be intelligent life forms from the planet orbiting the star Vega, or Earthlings who do not eat meat, milk, or eggs. Your choice.

      • If it’s someone/thing on the *other* side it’s not really a sacrifice, now is it?

    • And by the ‘Patriarchy’ of course I mean the government of the bellicose catlike aliens of 61 Ursae Majoris, of course

      Shouldn’t that be “Petriarchy” then?

    • Hell, at this junction, I’ll buy the 3 books in your favor format and ship it to you. I’ve bought enough of your book already (currently reading Golden Age).

  63. Mr. Correia,

    I doubt you will read this, but I just felt that I needed to let you know that I originally didn’t believe you and what you were saying about the politics of the Hugos. I am a big fan of your books and recomend them to everyone I know who wants a good book to read. I also happen to be a fan of Tor.com and was listening to their new podcast “Rocket talk” specifcally their episode of going over the Hugo nominees. When I heard them talk about your writting, or more correctly your politics and not your writting I was honestly flabbergated that for some reason they were complaning about your politics and not your writting. What also started to boggle my mind was that some of the people who posted stated planning ways to prevent “a large and action oriented” fan base like yours from having an effect on the Hugos again. I don’t always agree with your views, but I hoestly hope that you win the Hugo to shut these people up! The Hugos are about good stories first politics second if at all. If you or any of your readers are interested the post I made:

    http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/04/rocket-talk-episode-5-the-hugo-awards

    I’m the long one #11 under BigJim. Again, I hope you win, and I will continue to buy and read your books. Thanks for being a voice of reason and good writting in the wilderness I have unfortunatley found myself in.

    • Jim, I try to read all my comments.

      Thank you for posting over there. People like you are exactly who I did Sad Puppies for. I wanted to demonstrate what I’d personally witnessed so that everyone could see.

      And your user name? My wife is from Milpitas.

      • I was thinking, which Milpitas? ’til I Googled it, and confirmed there is only one of us, or at least only one G can find. (I’ll admit to only looking at maybe a dozen pages of results before giving up :) )

        Embarrassing how many years I’ve been here, and never realized it had a unique name. I’m thinking that’s not a common status in the US.

        So, did you drag her out of here, or did she run on her own? :D

      • We’re both from California, but met at Utah State. Been here ever since.

      • @Will:
        I think she’s a white wimmenz, which means that the filthy hispanic stole her. He also stole the some writer’s job.

        Upon reflection, after comparing sales numbers, he stole the jobs of a many hundreds of message fic writers. They’ve been ‘outsourced’.

        They forgive him, though, since by writing good stories, he’s doing a hard, dirty job that they won’t.

      • I remember it well… There I was, hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot when Toni Weisskopf pulled up in her pickup and said “I need two guys who can do tile and a novelist.” I hopped in back and have been taking their jobs ever since. :)

      • Ah, yes. Milpitas. I recall a contest our gun club once had. First prize was a week in Mipitas. Second prize was TWO weeks in Milpitas. Just i kidding, though my mother (when quite young) once in describing how much she liked to travel to different places, said “I’d even go to Milpitas.” Great hilarity ensued amongst the East Bay listeners.

        I am SO glad I no longer live in California, the straw hat broke the camel’s back being when I started seeing billboards in San Jose written entirely and only in Spanish. I felt as if I had been pushed out of my own house…

      • Portagee migrant authors — taking work Americans won’t do!

      • @Correia45. Yeah I remembered that your wife was from here> I know her Dad. and met you out here one time, I was the guy without the pen. :)

  64. At some point, they have to realize that their uproar is counter productive. For instance, Clamps was a moron, but I never would have read Vox, John C. Wright (Awake in the Night Land is awe-inspiring), or a handful of others without his Crusade Against Evil here and on other blogs.

    So, Clamps, SJWs, please, by all means, tell me what I shouldn’t read and think. I need more reading material and your negative endorsements have turned out to include some really good reads.

    • Clamps/Yama/Andrew Marston is the literati poster child. I should have dedicated this whole campaign to him. Sadly, he’s voting against me. So I’ve lost the creepy stalker sex offender vote.

      • Gosh, if I’d known that Yama had the power to generate free publicity by the sheer force of stupid, I might not have banned him from my blog.

      • Larry, Vox Day devoted 2 pages to emulate Clamps/Yama/Alauda/Andrew Marston in his novel A Man Disrupted. I think it was harder to write that block of text than the rest of the novel.

      • Yama’s kinda responsible for my finding out about you, and if it hadn’t been for him, I’d never have discovered your L5R writings, and then from there, your books, which are such delightful reading. If he hadn’t been sneering about you, I wouldn’t have your stories to read!

        So, I guess he’s done at least one good thing in his life?

        I know about the creepy stalker part – the sex offender tag is somewhat new to me. o_o

      • Maybe Clamps should come with his own trigger warning? :D

      • Our very existence is a trigger, I’d guess. There would be waaaay too many warnings to issue – and rather than read ‘Warning, Correia trigger!” or “T.L Knighton trigger!” or Shadowdancer trigger!” ad nauseum, I’d much rather read a new post or L5R story ^_^

        “Correia Trigger” sounds catchy though.

      • Actually, I was thinking that some script should be written so whenever his IP address shows up, WordPress put text at the top of the post. Something like:

        Trigger warning: Strange stalker behavior and possible mention of fish semen.

      • I like this idea – a warning to the readers that he’s around, seething in silence, glaring at our merry conversation…

        But a poorly executed script might open vulnerabilities, and given the various WordPress CVE emails I’d been spotting lately… *sigh!*

      • So, we agree that a trigger warning for Clamps’s presence is good. It’s the execution we need to work on. :)

      • Certainly a library of randomly chosen trigger warning descriptions might make it (more) amusing.
        Alas, writing scripts or coding anything beyond basic HTML font and paragraph markup is not one of my skills…

      • I actually bought a book once because of the trigger warnings. It had things ranging from “paganism and the occult” to “cohabitation of a non-married male and female couple” and a few others that were just hysterical.

      • Reminds me of the person who thought “Libertarian gun porn” was a negative review of Michael Z. Williamson’s Freehold.

      • Holy crap. Monster Hunter International would have caused an aneurysm.

        For me, a review like that ranks the book as a “Must Buy!”

      • ….those things need trigger warnings now? *boggles*

      • Well, in all fairness, it was pretty clear the warnings weren’t to be taken seriously.

      • Sadly these days it’s difficult to tell.

      • Yep.

        I have thought about putting out “Trigger Warnings” based on me having Asperger syndrome (which is true).

        Said trigger warnings would be things like “Warning I don’t suffer fools lightly. If you’re a fool I will attack you.”.

        The problem is that I think somebody would take me seriously. [Sad Smile]

      • This had so much mundane stuff, like “failure to use proper safety equipment” that it was pretty obvious.

        If it wasn’t meant in humor, then I want to blow up the world.

      • A Trigger Warning for Clamps/Yama/Andrew Marston? WARNING: These spammy blog comments may contain stupidity, ignorance, obliviousness, really pretentious bad fiction writing, drool, all from a creepy stalker of Asian women. :)

      • And fish semen. Don’t forget about the fish semen.

  65. Here’s the funny bit: the UK has no First Amendment protections for free speech. Hate-speech which amounts to racial incitement is against the law. If that were pressed home in a truly neutral fashion, the social justice Torlocks lose Hugo nominees: 12 to 1. That is what law is, and why law, principle and neutrality are worthless to the PC. That ratio shows the amount of bald-faced delusion the PC indulge in to justify their racism.

    Keep in mind: the UK is where a guy was arrested for racism for singing “Kung Fu Fighting” because it was heard by a passer-by. ARRESTED!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380971/Simon-Ledger-arrested-racism-performing-Kung-Fu-Fighting.html

    Start shame-walking those perps out of the Hugos right now.

    • Yeah, UK’s speech laws were often used as the basis for “libel tourism”. A book would be published in the US by a US author that was perfectly in-line with US speech laws. Some party annoyed by something mentioned in the book would rant and rave about “hate speech”, but wouldn’t be able to do anything because the things stated in the book were perfectly true (and thus protected). Then the book would go on sale in the UK, and the party in question would file suit against the author based on the UK’s speech laws.

      iirc, a few years ago the US passed a law that essentially made the judgements from such cases non-enforceable.

      • I’m sure that’ll be very comforting to 6 of the 12 who live in the UK.

      • ?

        Not sure what that’s about.

        In any event, US laws can’t protect UK residents. But at least you have the opportunity to get hold of books that might otherwise be withheld from release in the UK due to the lack of proper free speech protections.

      • It’s worse than that. You don’t even have to publish in the UK, it just has to be available. ISTR that the definition used of “available” was “a copy has been imported”.

      • Yeah, UK Libel laws are atrocious. See the case of the British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCA_v._Singh ). Fortunately, Simon won, but at the cost of many thousands of Pounds. I recall hearing there was a movement afoot to change those laws, but apparently that’s not happened yet.

    • Now watch someone make a criminal complaint in the UK against Loncon and the Hugos because they are allowing the works of such a notorious racist evil hatemonger on the ballot!

      • Well, they have no quotes against Correia, which is why they so rarely use them, preferring instead libel and slander, which are also much easier to prosecute in the UK than the US. Several times I’ve seen Charles Stross mention he’s not going to get specific on his blog about a given UK dust-up for that very reason. It’s different in the US – a free-fire zone.

  66. Reblogged this on The Worlds of Tarien Cole and commented:
    Larry’s latest on the Hugo hatcheting.

  67. To the morons who keep talking about how they wouldn’t “feel safe” if I attended WorldCon, you may untwist your panties

    God, what’s WRONG with these people?

    (I confess I’ve never read your books, though not out of dislike of your politics … just never gotten around to it. Maybe one of these days.

    I concur completely that a man’s politics don’t make his books bad; Iain Banks was a flaming Communist, but the Culture novels are brilliant.

    Now, when someone’s politics actually invade their work and it distracts, that’s another matter. Literally, another matter.

    Banks does well because the little economics he talks in the Culture books works because they’re post-scarcity; his failures there, which are minor, are offhand remarks about how savages hadn’t stopped using money yet, despite not being post-scarcity.

    Not bad enough to get a “will not read”, as he almost never does it.)

    • I have to wonder about the people who “wouldn’t feel safe” — have they ever been to an SCA event? Everyone has a knife, many of the people there are trained in how to use them.

      • Some of them would not “feel safe” because they wet themselves at the mere thought of weapons in the hands of citizens.

        Some would not “feel safe” if the weapons were in the hands of non-communists.

        Most merely use “not feel safe” as a passive-aggressive, cowardly way of saying that they want to silence those they disagree with.

        For example: the feminazis at Wiscon claimed that they “felt unsafe” because an invited guest expressed the opinion that the fundamental texts of Islam contain material that mandate intolerance and war. There is no rational basis for claiming that expressing such an opinion makes anyone “unsafe”, but the little kommissarettes in Madison WI were too cowardly to actually give their real reasons, which revolved around their intolerance of opinions that contradict their lunatic ideology, especially when rational and honest discussion of those issues would reveal the schizophrenically irrational contradictions in their beliefs.

      • Yeah. Standard SCA joke: “Anybody got a knife?” – followed by belt knives being unsheathed by 20-30 people within hearing range, offering to be helpful.
        Avoiding the over-reactions of modern-dress visitors who happen to be SJWs is a major reason for most SCA events to encourage only those who are willing to dress the part and go along with the culture / site rules.

      • Alan —

        My ex-wife got a similar response from some DC-based corporate types when someone asked for a knife, and she whipped her “dressy knife” (a small, flat assisted opener) from her bra strap and snapped it open.

        Apparantly, there are some people who leave their homes feeling fully dressed without carrying the most basic of paleolithic tools with them. . .

  68. Pretty left leaning guy here. Reposted this on FB, with a comment along the lines of ‘If it really is about the art, Larry’s got a point’. Read the books, make the decision based on the book. I read plenty of books from folks I disagree with politically.

  69. I think you meant “gender-normative”. Sigh ;)

    • Nope. It is Gendernormative. No hypen. Or at least that is how it was used on me as an insult. Think of it as a Buckminster Fuller style word smoosh. :)

      • All languages borrow from one another. English follows other languages down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar. When that doesn’t work, English will just make crap up.

  70. Now, you didn’t Need to reference Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, but damned if it didn’t make that post better

  71. I hope Wheel of Time doesn’t win. I thought the first book was good. The second was OK. Couldn’t finish the third.

    • Couldn’t stand WoT either, but was forced to read through them at gunpoint. The series got good once Sanderson started writing.

      Any how, people buy them and love them, including my friend with the gun. They don’t buy stuff I write.

      Yet.

  72. I only heard about the kerfuffle today, and frankly wouldn’t have blown $40 to get involved in it anyway.

    But i paid for and own all three Grimnoir books, (and all your other books) and think they absolutely rock. So I guess I’m a rightwing hater of hatey-hate hateitude too.

    (and on a personal preference note: Thank you thank you for writing a kick-ass trilogy with a beginning, middle and end rather than writing an X-number-of-books series into the ground, as seems common in the Baen universe.)

  73. […] An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy (Larry Correia) […]

  74. Something I just noticed. Didn’t Mike Resnick get virtual-lynched for using the term “lady editor” (among other things) in the SFWA Bulletin recently?

    One of the nominees is “The Lady Astronaut of Mars”, by Mary Robinette Kowal. LADY Astronaut.

    Isn’t that badthink on her part or something?

  75. This is… a very long post.

  76. I don’t normally enter into interweb arguments any longer, they usually give me gas. I did want to comment, however, because I’ve been following the explosion of rhetoric about all the Hugo noms.

    Big fan, by the way. Six people in our family (parental units and four boys), and we’ve all read all the books in the Monster Hunter series.

    I read this today:

    “However, the position of a white, cisgendered, heterosexual man is a demographic position of privilege and power both in fandom and without it. ”

    Do whut?!! Huh?

    Do people actually talk like that? Seriously? What the hell does “cisgendered” mean anyhow?

    And what’s with all the folks spouting the vitriol… yet they have no desire to read what other people might believe? Freedom of speech for me, but not for you?

    I teach. Band. In a junior high. Beginners. (I’m deaf, btw). Teachers LOSE arguments with students (serious arguments, not the “but I didn’t kick the crap out of him” arguments) when they refuse to listen to their students. Students, especially middle school kids, aren’t always right, but they will (in most cases) respect a teacher that listens to them before pronouncing judgement. If I can show that much respect to a 12 year old kid, then why can’t grown-ups do the same with an interweb blog?

    Seriously folks, I find the entire hub-bub nauseating.

    By the way, if you ever want to see a school full of teachers turn into drooling zombies, announce that they have “standardized test” training at a faculty meeting.

    • “Cisgendered” means, as I understand it, to be born of a certain gender (male or female), happy with it, no sexual/gender/identity confusion, and remains as such.

      Or, short version, born with a penis and likes it/born with a vagina and likes it, and stays that way.

      • Damn, that’s weird.

      • denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex.

      • Yep, it means “normal”.

      • “Cisgendered” means, as I understand it, to be born of a certain gender (male or female), happy with it, no sexual/gender/identity confusion, and remains as such. Or, short version, born with a penis and likes it/born with a vagina and likes it, and stays that way.

        Yep, it means “normal”.

        And that, in a nutshell, is how I think many people see the world: Anyone just like you is “normal” and anyone else is not. That doesn’t just mean your gender identity or sexual orientation (which are two different things, in case you didn’t know it), but your race and ideology as well. You define yourself as “normal” and everyone else as abnormal.

        Maybe you just don’t realize just how grating that is to people who aren’t just like you. I certainly do, and I’m a white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, English-speaking American.

      • Yep, that’s the problem in a nutshell. If we’re normal, we should be ashamed of being normal. [Sarcasm]

        And if we’re not ashamed of being normal, it is ok to hate us. Which is what we see happening.

      • Word have actual definitions you know, including words like “normal“.

      • On the other hand, writing poems that suggest “libertarian” = “Nazi” is perfectly okay. Because that’s not at all insulting.

        Right?

        ” a white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, English-speaking American.”

        I’m a person, myself.

      • Of course it’s insulting. See the saying that a proper English gentleman is never unintentionally rude.

      • People who are deliberately insulting are “asking” to be insulted back. Is that the world Liberals want? Do you really want a world full of hatred because that’s what Liberal insults seem to creating.

      • I’m going with ‘anyone just like 98%+ of the population is normal.’ While I have no doubt that some people are offended by the word meaning what it means and not what they /want/ it to mean, I’m not losing any sleep over it.

      • @ kastandlee

        Let’s look at “normal”

        <b<nor·mal

        adjective
        1.
        conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
        “it’s quite normal for puppies to bolt their food”
        synonyms: usual, standard, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted; More
        ordinary, average, typical, run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road, common, conventional, mainstream, unremarkable, unexceptional, garden-variety, a dime a dozen
        antonyms: unusual
        (of a person) free from physical or mental disorders.
        2.
        technical
        (of a line, ray, or other linear feature) intersecting a given line or surface at right angles.
        3.
        MEDICINE
        (of a salt solution) containing the same salt concentration as the blood.
        CHEMISTRYdated
        (of a solution) containing one gram-equivalent of solute per liter.
        4.
        GEOLOGY
        denoting a fault or faulting in which a relative downward movement occurred in the strata situated on the upper side of the fault plane.
        noun
        noun: normal; plural noun: normals
        1.
        the usual, average, or typical state or condition.
        “her temperature was above normal”
        informal
        a person who is conventional or healthy.
        2.
        technical
        a line at right angles to a given line or surface.

        let’s look at adjective 1, and noun 1.

        Conforming to a standard. Usual. Typical. Expected.

        In this context, one could say that it is nromal to run into a few people who are not straight in any sufficiently large crowd (20-40 or more).

        The usual, average, or typical state or condition. Informally – a person who is conventional or healthy.

        Even with the most optimistic estimate of the percentage of people who are gay, it could be said as above that it is normal to run into gay people, but not that it gay people are the norm….

        When someone says that we should be tolerant in understanding the adjective – that gay people exist, et over it, that’s one thing.

        When people insist that we MAKE non-normal gender the redefined “norm”, they are asking us to redefine language. And as Lincol reputedly observed – you can name a tail a “leg” – and though a dog may then have five “legs” – he will only have four LEGS.

        People aren’t computer variables to be interchanged like spare parts.

      • “You define yourself as “normal” and everyone else as abnormal.”

        Sorry, no, we don’t, and it is extremely ugly of you to make that accusation. No one has said anything negative about “abnormal” at all. Only that “normal” should be allowed, too (and in SFF, that’s hardly going to be “normal” anyway).

        I am sick to death of people like you accusing me of beliefs I do not hold, based on no evidence whatsoever, only your own prejudices, in order to allow yourself some manufactured outrage. Do you feel all superior now? Are you really that petty?

      • Petty? I reacted angrily to the dismissal of an actual value-neutral term (“cisgendered”, which is the opposite of “transgendered”; “cis-” and “trans-” being antonyms) with a loaded term of “normal,” implying everything else as “abnormal,” which is generally a negative term. I’m sorry, but that dismissal infuriates me, because I’ve seen just how much harm it causes to the people who don’t fall into those nice little “normal” buckets.

      • Proper English gentlemen don’t lie.

        Other than that, great point.

      • It is a lie, Kevin. You’re not stupid. You know that it’s a lie.

        It’s a lie no less reprehensible than claiming that Jews make matzo out of the blood of Christian babies.

        You’re comfortable calling people who do stuff like that “your side”? Really?

        I guess I’m going to have to revise my previous statements about accepting your word.

      • And because the replies are so intertwined, I’m going to have to post that again with the quote to which I replies included because it’s probably impossible to figure out its context.

        It is a lie, Kevin. You’re not stupid. You know that it’s a lie.

        Can you write that again with the reference replacing “It”? I honestly couldn’t figure out what you were saying.

      • ” that dismissal infuriates me”

        There is no dismissal of anything here, no matter how much you need this to be so. And you do need it, I think. Again, manufactured outrage, allowing yourself to hate, even if what you hate exists only in your head. There’s a word for that. It’s “bigot.”

        Perhaps you are tired. Perhaps you’ve been listening to the bigots on the other side too much – and they are bigots. But right now, I’m beginning to question your assertions of honesty, if you are this dishonest now.

      • There is no dismissal of anything here, no matter how much you need this to be so. And you do need it, I think. Again, manufactured outrage, allowing yourself to hate, even if what you hate exists only in your head. There’s a word for that. It’s “bigot.

        Would I be right in assuming that you are a cisgendered person yourself with no personal knowledge of any transgendered people? (I’m not talking about seeing them on TV or on the internet.)

      • Would I be right in assuming that you are a cisgendered person yourself with no personal knowledge of any transgendered people? (I’m not talking about seeing them on TV or on the internet.)

        Sir, your assumptions and biases are remarkable.

        How about, with all your talk of sensitivity and appreciation of diversity you try avoiding the assumption of a monolithic culture “over here?” Do you think you could see your way there?

        Or is it necessary to reduce any apparent opposition to a simple stereotype in order to bolster your sense of truth and honor?

      • Equating libertarians with Nazis. That’s a lie, Kevin.

        Let’s see… so far we’ve had you defending political blacklisting and Goebbels-style Big Lie tactics. I’m really curious to see just how far a “man of honor” will go down that road.

      • Equating libertarians with Nazis. That’s a lie, Kevin

        Thanks. Seriously.

        Yeah, I don’t think most libertarians are actual Nazis, just as I think the accusations of being communists thrown at US-type political liberals are overwrought as well. I think many of them, given the world they claim to want, would not get what they think they would out of it. Based on the behaviors of I’ve seen of some-but-not-all self-described libertarians, I tend to think a society that started out with pure libertarianism would collapse into feudalism at best and gangsterism at worst, but Nazis? Nope.

        I also don’t subscribe to any of the other words you’re trying to put in my mouth. But then again, as far as the Big Lie goes, I at least am not anonymous. Or does everyone else here know who you really are and you’re not just hiding behind a pseudonym and piece of artwork?

        — Kevin Standlee, whose icon photo is in fact of him in September 2002 just before the 2002 Hugo Awards Ceremony.

      • “Would I be right in assuming that you are a cisgendered person yourself with no personal knowledge of any transgendered people?”

        No, you would be utterly wrong – best friends and family, and many dead of AIDS in the 80s.

        You really are a bigot, aren’t you?

      • Okay, you don’t have the excuse of ignorance. Sorry.

      • Okay, you don’t have the excuse of ignorance. Sorry.

        And thus he attempts the Kafkatrap.

      • @kastandlee
        Odd, you hear the word “normal” automatically think “abnormal” about people who don’t fit in as “normal” and somehow it’s other people’s fault?

      • Exactly.

        Everyone’s abnormal in some way. Personally, I’m ADHD and dyslexic (big fun for a writer). Those are abnormalities.

        How someone views the term “abnormality” tells us a lot more about themselves than the people pointing out that it’s not normal much of the time.

      • “Yeah, I don’t think most libertarians are actual Nazis”

        So some are, you’re suggesting? Names? Quotes?

        “I at least am not anonymous”

        Well, Kevin, your “honorable” friends don’t want to blacklist you, now do they? That’s what they’re doing to people, you know. Teresa Nielsen Hayden has admitted it, in public.

        Patrick Nielsen Hayden has published, front and center, a poem that suggests libertarians are Nazis. He’s not stupid. He knows it’s not true, just the same as you do.

        “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

      • Yeah, I don’t think most libertarians are actual Nazis

        So some are, you’re suggesting? Names? Quotes?

        Nope. Statistics; lots of people, lots of opinions. Some of the far left are authoritarian Communist-types. Some of the far right, libertarian-identified people are Nazi-types. In no case are they hugely significant numbers of people though.

      • Some of the far right, libertarian-identified people are Nazi-types.

        You can’t name any but they just have to exist, is that it?

        So, basically you either made it up or are mindlessly repeating others claims without any substantiation.

        So, anybody want to invoke The List on mr. “kastandlee”‘s posts?

      • My name is Kevin Standlee (the handle is an artifact of how the login system works as far as I know; the “a” is my middle initial). I was co-chairman of the 2002 World Science Fiction Convention and have served in a variety of other roles in various Worldcons and in WSFS administrative duties, from gopher up to deputy Chairman. I’m not anonymous, unlike most of the people who post here. (Or on Making Light as well; I don’t like it there either. And my LiveJournal is in my own name as well.) Indeed, my name is so oddly spelled that I’m trivially easy to find. Who are you, thewriterinblack?

      • Who are you, thewriterinblack?

        Oh, a very good diversion from the post. You can’t name anyone, can you? All of this “who I am and who are you” BS is just a smokescreen to cover that.

        Yeah, I use a handle. The term, in case you aren’t aware of it, is “personal branding.”

        Just how “anonymous” is someone where the link associated with their handle takes you to their WP blog (currently in the process of porting over from blogger) which has, plain as day, a “My titles for Sale” where their name is plastered all over their covers.

        Here, I’ll give you a direct link to the blogger version:

        http://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

        My name is David L. Burkhead. In addition to being a writer I am also in metrology and have written software that supports more than half of the DVD production worldwide and was instrumental in the development of Blu-Ray. So if you have a DVD or Blu-Ray player and disks that actually work in it: you’re welcome.

        As for who you are? I don’t give a rat’s ass. The content of your posts is all that concerns me.

        And it’s still diversion from the the fact that this “libertarian nazi” thing is pure fabrication. You can’t name a single case.

      • “Okay, you don’t have the excuse of ignorance. Sorry.”

        Excuse for what? You’re the one making vile accusations with no evidence. The only person who has brought up anything about anyone being anti-gay is you.

        Bigot.

      • Anti-gay? Hardly touched on it. Sexual orientation and gender identity are different things. But if you want to put it in those terms: There was a time when the perceived antonym of “homosexual” was “normal.” I’d like to think we’re past that now, an that “heterosexual” isn’t perceived as an insulting term of some sort. Similarly, the opposite of “transgenered” is more appropriately “cisgendered,” not “normal.” That’s what got me riled up.

      • Mr. in some ways I’m not “normal”. I’m an asper. However, I don’t go around “whining” about it or expecting others to “bow down to me”. I do my best to deal with other people as an adult not a child.

        Unfortunately, in the Liberal world as a white I am said to “live life on the easy setting”. In the Liberal world, as a non-gay male, I’m said ‘to live life on the easy setting”. I haven’t heard much about “Christian privilege” but I’m sure some of the Liberal bigots would say that as a Christian (not as good of one as I should be) I live life on the easy setting.

        Sorry but I find it too easy to hear talk about “living life on the easy setting” as Bigotry.

      • “Some of the far right, libertarian-identified people are Nazi-types”

        Nazi means “National socialist” – and Nazism is a form of socialism. Hitler hated capitalism and the free market, and everything was under government control. That’s the opposite of libertarianism.

      • Nazi means “National socialist” – and Nazism is a form of socialism. Hitler hated capitalism and the free market, and everything was under government control. That’s the opposite of libertarianism.

        Yep. I agree with you. I also think that there are people describe themselves as libertarians but who, given the chance, would impose their will upon people as much as any other authoritarian types. Personally, I lean (social) libertarian in some aspects myself, except that the actual behavior of some (most definitely not all!) self-described libertarians makes me not want to associate with them. What I said earlier applies: I believe that given a chance, the libertarian utopia would turn into “gangsterism” (see parts of Northern Mexico for an example) with a potentially stable form at a kind of neo-feudalism, as the biggest, strongest, and best-armed ones subjugated the other utopians. Depressing, really.

      • “So, anybody want to invoke The List on mr. “kastandlee”‘s posts?”

        Well, we’ve certainly got Disregard inconvenient facts and Make Shit Up. Would groundless accusations of anti-gay count as Racism?

      • @Laurie: You are impure for using doubleplus ungood terminology. Confess! Confess! *eyeroll*

        Though it’s interesting how he is the one who uses “abnormal” to define “not normal” and presumes everyone else does and does so in a negative context… like he does. Yet it’s those icky awful people who don’t use “cisgendered” and other buzzwords who have problems.

      • Nazis are socialists. So are fascists. Neither has anything to do with anything that could remotely be described as “libertarian”. As I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, Nazis are only “on the right” if you’re a Stalinist.

        lib·er·tar·i·an [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
        noun
        1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
        2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).
        adjective
        3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
        4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

        Na·zi [naht-see, nat-] Show IPA
        noun, plural Na·zis.
        1. a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.

        Yep, those two are very similar, to be sure. An understandable mistake.

      • “Similarly, the opposite of “transgenered” is more appropriately “cisgendered,” not “normal.” That’s what got me riled up.”

        I’m assuming you work either in academia or publishing*, because no one, and I mean NO ONE, in the real world, including all my gay friends and family, use words like “cisgendered.” Sorry, but no. In fact, we laugh at people who do – as you saw on this forum. But that’s just academic silliness. Publish or perish has produced some pretty ludicrous stuff.

        The fact that you would actually attack people for not using it is even worse, not to mention your ugly, self-righteous assumptions – these are SFF readers, fergawdsake. We read stuff like this all the time, we’ve done it for decades (because none of this is new, believe me. I remember one writer used a new pronoun for gender neutral, way back in the 70s, but it was really annoying to read.)

      • “cisgender” is jargon used by a couple of specific ingroup, consisting of transgendered folk, feminists, their allies, and the academics that study those issues.

        Having an ingroup apply a jargon label to an outgroup, and then become offended when the outgroup doesn’t accept the jargon label and use it to refer to themselves is absolutely absurd.

      • “Having an ingroup apply a jargon label to an outgroup, and then become offended when the outgroup doesn’t accept the jargon label and use it to refer to themselves is absolutely absurd.”

        Being offended is the whole point. In the mind of a certain kind of offendee, it conveys automatic superiority. Same as knocking down strawmen.

        I have friends who do this, and every one of them, while personally likable people, has something lacking inside of them, something broken. And none of them have pursued careers that would help fix this – they’re in academia, mostly, or writers. A good dose of the real world, and solving some real problems would do wonders for their psyche – get them out of their heads, at least. Instead, they’ve chosen the most isolating, crazy-making paths possible, surrounded by people who are equally isolated and crazy.

    • Part of this discussion emphasizes the quantitative meaning of “normal,” as in being x standard deviations away from the mean. People on this thread are talking across each other in part because what the transgendered and their advocates want is for us to think that “transgender” is value-neutral, and that’s why they insist on “cisgender” as its opposite. People are right-handed and left-handed, not right-handed and normal.

      However, transgender is not quantitatively -normal-but-value-neutral, like being left-handed is. In at least the case of those who take steps to change gender (i.e., true transgendered people vs. transvestites), there is a problem, or there would be no need to fix it. Either there is a problem with the desire that causes them to want to change gender, or there is a problem with their physical gender that they need to change. There is no need for remediation where there is no dysfunction.

      I reject the term “cisgendered” *because* it is an attempt to be value-neutral. And I fully expect to be excoriated for that, but I don’t see how I can be intellectually honest and do otherwise.

      This doesn’t mean transgendered people are evil or whatever other awful thing you think I want it to mean. It means they suffer with a legitimate problem in their lives, with potentially devastating consequences, and we should be sympathetic to that.

      But let’s not pretend that there’s *no* problem.

      • *quantitatively-abnormal-but-value-neutral

      • “There’s no problem”? Actually, those sorts say that there’s a problem but the problem is with “normal” people. [Sad Smile]

      • transgender is not quantitatively -normal-but-value-neutral, like being left-handed is…

        Being left-handed used to be considered “abnormal,” rather than just being part of normal human variation, and left-handed people were subject to “correction” sometimes rather nasty. And that wasn’t very long ago, either. It was effectively the use of the power of the state (working through the public schools, because that was the most likely place for such coercion) to “cure” people of their deviant behavior of being left-handed.

      • Being left-handed used to be considered “abnormal,” rather than just being part of normal human variation, and left-handed people were subject to “correction” sometimes rather nasty.

        I wondered if you’d say that. The clear difference is that other people felt that left-handedness was qualitatively abnormal, and tried to change left-handed people; with transgendered people, they themselves feel that something is amiss and want to be changed.

        You can’t say on the one hand that there’s nothing wrong, and on the other hand want to remediate it.

      • Therefore “right-handness” should be considered bad. [Sarcasm]

      • kastandlee said: “It was effectively the use of the power of the state (working through the public schools, because that was the most likely place for such coercion) to “cure” people of their deviant behavior of being left-handed.”

        You want to experience some “power of the State working through the public schools” kicking you ass, you should try having a helping of Asperger’s syndrome. That’s a whole lifetime of people fucking with you because you “don’t act right”.

        Talking to me about “normal”? Check your trans-privilege at the door, baby.

      • *bleak look* I know more about this than you would likely be aware of.

        It’s wrong to do that to people with Asperger’s. It’s wrong to do that to left-handed people. And it’s wrong to do it to trans people.

      • I note that I have not named any “it” that would be substituted into “do it to trans people”. I was discussing what transgenderism vs. normalcy, not any specific actions.

    • “By the way, if you ever want to see a school full of teachers turn into drooling zombies, announce that they have “standardized test” training at a faculty meeting.”

      Ooh! Larry, here’s a scene you need to put into your next book.

  77. Very late to the party with this, but I think it’s relevant to what Larry’s been talking about. From the angle of a past triple-nominee.

    http://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/fear-and-loathing-at-the-awards-table-3/

  78. We’re all neocons now :)

    • The only good that came from that was I learned a previous head of the Republican Liberty Caucus was a big fan, saw that, said there was no way in hell I was a NeoCon, and claimed me as a Liberty Republican.

      Because seriously… I could hang out with Mike Lee, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz. I don’t think I could hang out with John McCain or Karl Rove.

      • The only true thing about ‘neocon’ is the ‘con’.

      • If, for example, you had a horrible parasite phobia and were simply unable to finish an excellent novel, how would you tend to rank it?

        Can I still register?

        Admittedly this has more to do with my lingering bitterness over the last wheel of time book delaying its eBook release than anything else…and me wanting a copy of Stross’s space opera…problem is I tend to hate his space operas.

        I lean left as often as right, but, I wish you well. Half of it is that I rather like to see vocal twits being embarrassed. The other half is that the Hugo, independent of politics, seem to underemphasize readability. Eg, did I miss something or did Redshirts just suck?

  79. ,(and I personally think it is as grossly exaggerated as anything else these people decide to attack)

    Although this is usally true, I think in this case they are not exaggerating based on what Beale has actually writen.

    Now, I do suspect that Beale is doesn’t actually believe half the stuff he claims to, but is merely interested in blog traffic, but that’s not something that I’m in a position to prove

    As, given all those descriptors that have been heaped upon you, I think those morons are conflating you and Beale.

  80. Oh wow, this’ll leave a mark. From a fellow named Jake Freivald:

    “If you’re not watching the Hugos this year – and why would you? They’re normally a popularity contest among people who think they can understand how alien species would think when they can’t even understand how people from their own culture think — you might just consider paying attention.”

    Whoever Jake is, he owes me a keyboard. :)

  81. I spent the first day I was ever in Britain in the British Museum, and want to go back so I can spend another day in the British Museum. And some days other places.

  82. Sir, your post made me cheer! It is so delightful to know that there are genuine heroes left in the world. Bravo!

    And thank you for your support of Brad! He certainly deserves it!

    (Currently reading Hard Magic.)

    Mrs. John C. Wright

  83. Frankly, the thing this post made me most curious about is what the hell Vox’s day job is.

  84. i would only like to disagree with one thing:
    This SJW angry mob inquisition has been a gradual and relatively recent development in our culture, mostly as a result of the anonymous and instant internet.

    it’s not recent. and it’s NOT because of the internet.

    this is the final flowering of the Gramscian ( marxist ) ‘Long March’ through the institutions of western power. the western institutions of education were suborned back in the early 1900s.

    you can read Ayn Rand’s “The Return of the Primitive” to see her observations on the creatures from the 60s-70s.

    or you can follow Mike Adams adventures with college admin, who don’t behave any better than the shitstains who are trying to ostracize you from the Hugo:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/

    or you can watch Bill Whittle’s historical retrospective on Gramsci:

  85. Interesting post. I agree that those who are supposed to be tolerant are the most intolerant ones around.

    I would note in response to a comment near the start of your post that some of us oppose so-called homosexual marriage since it is the act of shoving it down our throats. They can claim to be married to whatever they want, but when the state steps in and forces the embracing of that it has gone too far.

    The problem is the same as this awards issue, you have to embrace the full scope, not just let people do whatever they wish.

    • The best part is that, no shit, they’re *demanding* government registration of homosexual relationships. For themselves.

      It boggles the mind.

      If they had any brains at all they’d ask why the 2A folks are against gun registration.

      Or perhaps these folks have absolutely no idea where the hell the pink triangle came from. I guess I can’t blame them for not knowing, since most of the publicity is for the six million Jews murdered at the same time, in the same place.

      Utter idiots. Absolutely everything they want to accomplish by gay marriage could have been had, and in far better ways, by simply getting power of attorney laws and medical insurance eligibility laws amended.

      • You rely on public pronouncements as being the true goal. These awards would be purely about the quality of the written work if that were true. The homosexual agenda is ultimately one of being embraced for their choices, kind of a feel good situation. It won’t happen, but it takes increasing government involvement to make it happen. Kind of like how it will take increasing “government involvement” to keep these awards pure in the eyes of some.

      • Expendable Henchman –

        “Absolutely everything they want to accomplish by gay marriage could have been had, and in far better ways, by simply getting power of attorney laws and medical insurance eligibility laws amended.”

        If that were true, then the Civil Union laws would have been sufficient. And Civil Union laws were quite popular in the places where they were suggested. But instead the pro-SSM crowd basically ignored them except as a stepping stone. We had a Civil Unions law on the books here in California, but the State Supreme Court ruled that (paraphrasing here) the fact that Civil Unions existed meant that not allowing SSM was a violation of the State’s constitution.

      • The point of gay marriage is to shock and appall “Ozzie and Harriet” Christians.

        The joke of gay marriage is that the Ozzie and Harriet Christians they’re targeting have been dead for forty years.

  86. Great post – I’ll be honest, I only discovered The Wheel of Time series a couple years ago, shortly before Robert Jordan passed on. I actually really like the series, and it has nothing to do with political messaging – the story engaged me and got me to care about the characters.

    I am perfectly fine saying that I also really like Mr. Correia’s work as he caught my attention the same way Mr. Jordan’s work did. In both cases I was pleasantly surprised when I picked up one of his books in a major bookstore the day before I had a flight and realized I had been standing in the aisle for twenty minutes reading their respective books when I had only intended to read the first page to see if it would catch my interest. Normally, though, I tend to go to the library before I buy a book simply because all too often, something I thought might be an interesting read turns out to be one long snoozefest full of message wankery.

    • I’m also a huge Wheel of Time fan, for Robert Jordan’s skill at world-building as well as characterization. (Those are two things Brandon Sanderson also excels at, which made him, in retrospect, the perfect choice to finish the series.) Actually, Jordan was so skilled at world-building that he didn’t seem to want to leave it…which might explain why it took twenty-six years, fourteen books and two authors to finally finish the series.

      George R.R. Martin seems to have that same “problem” with Game of Thrones…although his Westeros is so friggin’ depressing that I’m not sure why you’d want to spend one more minute there than you had to… ;)

      I’m not going to go all sparkly “YAY!!!” (like Leigh Butler over at Tor’s website) over a prospective WoT Hugo win, but it certainly wouldn’t break my heart to see RJ (and Brandon) so honored. From what Larry has been saying, it probably won’t break his heart, either.

  87. […] An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy | Monster Hunter Nation […]

  88. I’ll read anyone who tells a good story, with interesting characters, and doesn’t insult my intelligence doing it. Now, there are a handful of good authors whose personal views I consider so completely beyond the pale that I refuse to put money in their pockets — but that’s what used bookstores and the public library are for.

  89. Keep writing just as you have Larry. I picked up Hard Magic despite a few misgivings because frankly, anything at that Barnes and Noble that was worth buying was in my collection already or just couldn’t catch my interest. I gave your book a chance and enjoyed it enough I read the first three Monster Hunter books also.

    As has been noted, much of the genre is complete dreck these days. Driven in part at first by the residual cache of the prize from when it was a sign of something note worthy and interesting. Publishers keyed on that and emphasized the appearance of value until they drove out the writing with real content and merit. Much of it simply meets checklists for the pc crowd. Despite what the rabbits think, a large portion of the fans look at the Hugo awards these days as a contra-indicator of value. I mean hey, didn’t Charles Stross tweet something about them being used to choke chimpanzees or something? That’s just plain wrong, man.

  90. Okay, I may not agree with your political views, but who cares!Your entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

    I love your writing and the stories you tell!

  91. I’ve long been of the opinion that entertainment (be it films, books, etc) that win huge awards like Oscars and Hugos and the like usually turn out to be long, boring slogs that are meant to make one feel terrible about oneself. That or they’re long boring slogs that just don’t make any sense.

    Personally, I could care less if a book wins an award or calls attention to a particular cause. I’m just after something good to read. Thank you, Mr. Correia for actually voicing something I’m sure many people have felt for a long time.

    That being said, I do hope Warbound wins. It, along with the other of the Grimnoir books and the MHI series (I’d mention Dead Six, but I haven’t started it yet), is quite worthy of recognition.

  92. Get ready for an Instalanche.

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/187369/

  93. I wish Heinlein were here to give them hell.

    • Heinlein has millions of children, and we’re giving them all kinds of hell.

      • Yup.
        I’d bet, based on a SWAG and nothing else, that if you did a Venn diagram of “people who loved RAH’s juveniles” and “people who comment on Larry’s blog”, you’d hit an awful lot of overlap.

      • SJW will auto exclude you if you state that liked RAH juveniles. It is an instant reveal of a patriarchal, priviledged white cismale.

        I was careful to give all my sons access to Red Planet, Starman Jones, Podkayne of Mars (they liked the little brother) etc. when they hit 8-9 yo.

      • Never thirst, bros.

      • Walk the Glory Road, brother.

  94. Good for you man. Congrats on speaking up and against the usual liberal hordes who claim fairness, tolerance and equality and all those other feel good liberal words that don’t apply to anyone who disagrees with their crap. You’re already a winner in my book.

  95. Yeah, WoT is going to curbstomp everybody. It will not be over quickly, and we won’t enjoy it.

    But next year. The SJW have shown their true colors, Larry will have a title from his flagship series up (I am assuming that MHN will be eligible, correct?), and there are people like me who didn’t participate this year and have realized how much fun we’re missing out on. If I were you I’d have space for a rocketship cleared on the mantle.

    • Maybe we can get John C. Wright a Hugo nod. Judge of Ages is certainly worth it. 2014 so far is starting out as a better year for SF/F than last year.

    • I’m enjoying the hell out of this kerfluffle. The Hugos have long since gone down the toilet due to political correctness. I think it’s great that the rats are coming out of the woodwork and are showing what they’re really made of.

      I’m certain the publicity isn’t hurting Larry’s sales in the slightest.

      • I hadn’t really heard much about all this, and hadn’t read any of Larry’s books. Both of those are now changing, as I’ve purchased and started reading Hard Magic (not too far into it yet, but it’s good so far).

      • Yeah, but in the aftermath of a WoT win we’re going to hear the snowflake brigade crow about how their staunch resistance was instrumental in keeping our favorite cisgendernormative fascist out.

        But it will make next year all the sweeter.

      • The aftermath of the WoT win is also going to be a chance for a major rule revision. It will start with “WoT really shouldn’t have been competing” which I agree with.

        The revision will continue with “We need some common sense limits o̶n̶ ̶g̶u̶n̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶g̶a̶z̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ on nominations that game or abuse the system. We promise never to abuse this new oversight. Really. Pinky swear.”

        “We have to have it to make sure that L̶a̶r̶r̶y̶ ̶C̶o̶r̶r̶e̶i̶a̶,̶ ̶V̶o̶x̶ ̶D̶a̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶l̶e̶s̶ another series of books doesn’t get in.”

      • While I think it likely that there will be some attempt to modify the rules to say that super-long book series cannot be considered a single serialized work, any attempt to restrict the awards _by content_ is extremely unlikely to succeed. And how would you word it? I’m dead serious about this.

        Here’s something the infuriates me at both people like you and people on the far left: you _both_ appear to think that the other side is going to seize control of everything and impose draconian controls that effectively say, “Only things that I personally approve up will be allowed onto the ballot.” This is not going to happy. They aren’t going to pass rules prohibiting your friends from being on the ballot, and you’re not going to pass rules prohibiting them from being on the ballot.

        I really wish that both you and them would stop engaging in such fantasies about how the Hugo Award administration works. Y’all seem so convinced that the people running them are just dying to disqualify works and make sure that their friends win. Is that because that’s what you’d do if you were in charge? I administered the Hugo Awards in 1993, 1994, and 2002, and frankly, hardly anything that I personally nominated made the ballot, let along won. The other admins have been cut from the same cloth. Worldcon committees deliberately set out to select people who they think will be neutral and fair about administering the rules. The administrators may make what you consider bad technical rulings, but it has been something like twenty years since the last time something was ruled out for reasons of content, and WSFS immediately turned around and changed the rules to clarify that the works in question should be eligible. Consequently, Administrators have been very reluctant to ever overturn the will of the voters save for the narrowest of objective technical grounds such as word count, running time, or publication date. On anything else, such as “Is this a work of SF, Fantasy, or a related subject that is worthy of being nominated?” they will defer to the vote of the members of WSFS, regardless of how they personally feel about the works in question.

      • “They aren’t going to pass rules prohibiting your friends from being on the ballot, and you’re not going to pass rules prohibiting them from being on the ballot.”

        Sorry, Kevin. The equivalence argument isn’t going to fly here. There’s only one side arguing for the suppression of crimethink fiction.

        Hint: it’s not the people here.

        Were there people arguing to remove China Miéville from the ballot, even though he’s a hardcore Marxist? Not just a dilettante college Marxist with a Che tee shirt, mind you, but someone who has an advanced degree in Marxist economics and who has been a candidate for a Marxist party (one with…troubling…views toward Jews, at that).

        There were not (certainly not on this scale).

        Has Miéville been expelled from any professional organizations?

        He has not.

        Would any of us here be in favor of such things? I for one would not, even though I personally choose not to read Miéville’s works. I don’t think Larry Correia would, either, nor (likely) the majority of others posting here.

        The pro-censorship argument is coming from one side only.

        Would you be behind an initiative to prohibit political litmus tests from ever being a factor in Hugo eligibility. I take you at your word that those in charge of the WSFS at this moment would never do that. But now is not always when it comes to organizations. Jerry Pournelle was once the President of SFWA, you may recall. Things change.

      • Would you be behind an initiative to prohibit political litmus tests from ever being a factor in Hugo eligibility.

        No I would not. I would oppose such attempts as strongly as I would oppose any attempts to impose such tests. Here are two reasons why:

        1. Philosophical: Attempting to prohibit it presumes that such oppression exists. It does not, except in Oppression Fantasies.

        2. Practical: How in the world could you enforce it? You really do not want a Hugo Award administrator enforcing such things. People claim to want a Strong Administrator, but what they really want is a Strong Administrator who always does what I say. Much better and safer to leave it up to the voters.

      • “It does not, except in Oppression Fantasies.”

        So a major editor admitting that she uses politics when evaluating stories is just a fantasy?

        It’s a fantasy that virtually all of the evil right-wingers publish with Baen (who also, as several have pointed out, are perfectly willing to publish left-wingers if they can tell a good story) and almost none are published by Tor?

        Someone’s living in a fantasy here, but it’s not me. Me, I’m just going by what these people have said. Publicly.

      • Nuts. Oppression fantasies — in which both people here and people on the other end of the ideological spectrum are engaging — are claims that the rules of WSFS are going to be modified to legislate the content of their preferred authors out of eligibility.

        Editors saying how they evaluate works is individuals engaging their own freedom of action. It has nothing to do with how WSFS rules work,

      • “Philosophical: Attempting to prohibit it presumes that such oppression exists.”

        Addendum: by that reasoning the Bill of Rights should never have been ratified, since it was a presumption that such oppression might exist.

      • “Oppression fantasies — in which both people here and people on the other end of the ideological spectrum are engaging ”

        As noted before (but not addressed by you) only one side is actively calling for the suppression of a nominated work. That’s not a “fantasy”. It’s a fact.

        You are invited to provide evidence of anyone here calling for a nominated work to be removed from the ballot, now or ever.

        I’ll wait.

        “Editors saying how they evaluate works is individuals engaging their own freedom of action. ”

        So, sorta like lunch counters deciding that they don’t want to serve black people, then?

        I just want to probe the boundaries of what’s permissible under “individuals engaging their own freedom of action”. We’ve already determined that you have no problem with political discrimination, but how far does this go?

      • You are invited to provide evidence of anyone here calling for a nominated work to be removed from the ballot

        I have yet to see anyone here do so. I have also yet to see anyone anywhere else calling for a nominated work on the 2014 or 1939 Hugo Awards ballots to be removed from the ballot by the Hugo Awards Administrator. If I see anyone doing so, I’ll criticize it as well.

        Viciously attacking the merits of a nominee or of its author isn’t the same thing. I consider it distateful and rude, but then again, I consider the name-calling that has taken place here distasteful as well.

        So, sorta like lunch counters deciding that they don’t want to serve black people, then?

        No. Your contention that these are the same things is deeply insulting and in my opinion confirms my opinion that you are searching for a reason to wallow in perceived oppression.

        I just want to probe the boundaries of what’s permissible under “individuals engaging their own freedom of action”. We’ve already determined that you have no problem with political discrimination, but how far does this go?

        I don’t see why Tor’s editors should be forced to publish works with whose authors’ attitudes they disagree any more than Baen’s should be.

        You’re trying to equate these things with official government oppression.

        Look here: the US first amendment means the government can’t legally shut down my freedom of speech. It does not mean that Our Gracious Host here can’t decide that he’s had enough of me and kick me out. He’s not violating my rights if he does not; he’s actually enforcing his own property rights.

        The reason I don’t want anyone trying to impose their own version of the though police upon the WSFS rules is this: “I trust none but thee and me, and I’m none too sure of thee.” The best way to preserve my own rights is to not try to take any of yours away.

        Incidentally, this trust-no-one attitude is IMO a primary reason why WSFS has virtually no central governance, and the only stuff we do have is the stuff that is utterly irreducible because it’s impractical for any one Worldcon to actually own the service marks of WSFS. And it’s why we require Worldcons to publish so much information about how the ballots were cast. Of course, if you assume that Everyone Is Lying, I can’t have a useful conversation with you.

        Talking of governance, I am personally and deeply aware of how little government WSFS has. Since you seem to like analogies with the early US government, WSFS is run like the USA was run under the Articles of Confederation, and I’m in the position that the President of the Continental Congress was in, including the general powerlessness of the position and the fact that virtually all the real power was concentrated in the states, not the central government. Don’t assume that I don’t know my American history.

      • I don’t see why Tor’s editors should be forced to publish works with whose authors’ attitudes they disagree any more than Baen’s should be.

        Who said anything about “forced to”? They’re allowed to make their choices. And we’re allowed to look at those choices and make our own interpretation of what those choices say about the choosers.

      • Who said anything about “forced to”? They’re allowed to make their choices. And we’re allowed to look at those choices and make our own interpretation of what those choices say about the choosers.

        Of course you do. As they do about you.

      • As they do about you.

        And since “we”, pretty much without exception, have been saying “read the works in question and let the work stand or fail on its own merits rather than on what one personally thinks of the author” while the ranting on the other side has been all about the politics and character of the authors, the difference is pretty telling.

        Of course, they lie about it. They attribute to “us” goals of censorship and elimination of differing views. All you have to do is see their own words quoted in this discussion (and, please, go check to see that they’re not being misquoted). But that’s no surprise either. It’s called projection.

      • As for restricting Hugo nominations based on political biases, well, there was a time when the idea of expelling a writer from SFWA based on that author’s politics would also have been unthinkable.

        But the same people using the same tactics being brought to bear here made that happen. Thus your assurances of “it can’t happen here” ring just a tad hollow.

      • SFWA is not WSFS. (A distinction that many people seem to be utterly incapable of making, particularly those who mistakenly thinking that WSFS is dominated by SF/F writers, which it most certainly is not.)

        Nor is WSFS perfect, nor are individual Worldcon committees. Worldcon have banned people, starting with the very first Worldcon. Some very notable controversies have stemmed from individual Worldcon committees to refuse admittance to individuals. (Search “Breendoggle” if you really want to know one of the most notorious cases.) But WSFS has strongly resisted all attempts by individuals with axes to grind to try and do things to write bans or impose censures upon those individuals no matter how unpopular those people are. As I’ve mentioned, a particularly unpopular member of WSFS who was very well known for making a pest of himself was targeted with several resolutions and attempt to write rules into the WSFS Constitution aimed at him and him only. The only people who voted in favor of such proposals were the person who made the motions and the stooge he hauled along with him to second his motions for him. Members who detested the targeted person killed any attempts to legislate against him.

        The way I defend my own freedom of speech is to allow you yours.

      • SFWA is not WSFS.

        Nobody said it was. But you seem to be making the claim that it is somehow immune to the same kind of influence that drove SFWA to knuckle under to the Shrill Special Snowflakes.

        I simply find your assurances unconvincing, particularly when you attempt to play the moral equivalence game.

        You’re here, arguing with us. I’m sure, given your stance on allowing us our free speech, you are also arguing with the Special Snowflakes elsewhere, right? Your arguing with them how important free speech is and how for something like the Hugos the work should be the focus, not the politics or personal positions of the authors. Right? You’re doing that?

        And I’m sure you can provide links to those arguments, right?

      • No, I’m telling them to put away their Oppression Fantasies as well, and that there is no voter fraud and that attempts to change rules to make their favorites ineligible aren’t likely to have legs, and so forth.

        You claim you read all works equally without the slightest concern over the politics of the individuals involved. I don’t believe you. When people here crow about how voting for X will make other people’s heads explode, y’all lose any credibility with claims of impartiality.

        But bear in mind that any claim by anyone that the Hugo Awards (or any literary award) can somehow be “objective” is utter nonsense. There are no objective standards for literature. With the Hugo Awards, you vote for what you like and I’ll vote for what I like and they’ll vote for who they like, and they will average out — because IRV tends to converge on consensus candidates. Note that extremes almost never win, unless they’re so overwhelming as to score a “knockout” (a first ballot majority). For instance, as I recall, the last time one of Harlan Ellison’s works made the ballot, it had the highest number of first-ballot votes but ultimately finished last.

        I’m not claiming that I’m apolitical or objective. I’m not. I have my own opinions and biases. So do you. So do they. So does everyone. Claiming otherwise is merely pretending that you are the Standard Human Being and that everyone but you is a deviation from that Standard.

      • No, I’m telling them to put away their Oppression Fantasies as well,

        Link?

        Seriously, I want to see the reaction that you got from that.

      • It wasn’t as necessary to be so blunt, because they were more likely to believe me when I explained how things actually work, and that no, there’s no pattern of voter fraud and that no, the Administrators are not Out to Get You. Also, unlike you, many of them have been participating in the process for years now and therefore know how it works, instead of assuming that there are Evil People In Charge.

        I’m annoyed at almost everyone right now, because any accusations of institutional corruption hurt Worldcon and The Hugo Awards no matter who makes them, and I’m a WSFS partisan. (See, I told you I’m political, too.) I wrote about my annoyance on my own LiveJournal: http://kevin-standlee.livejournal.com/1333403.html

      • It wasn’t as necessary to be so blunt,

        That’s what I thought.

      • You claim you read all works equally without the slightest concern over the politics of the individuals involved.

        I guess you also don’t believe that I use avowed Trotskyite Eric Flint’s “1632” series as bedtime reading for my daughter, hmm? Or that I haven’t endorsed far left writer Mercedes Lackey’s writing? Or that I had as one of my “writing mentors” the late Marion Zimmer Bradley who was just a tad to the left of the political spectrum? And one of my favorites cannot possibly be The Stainless Steel Rat series by the late Harry Harrison (another pretty far left author), right?

        Why, I even enjoyed the movie “Silverado” (one of my favorite westerns of recent vintage) despite several of the actors politics (including Danny Glover’s rabid anti-gun stance).

        Mind you, I’m not a big fan of the late Asimov’s “Foundation” books. I prefer my fiction more “up close and personal” rather than big, impersonal epics. I prefer his Robot novels because of that.

        Funny thing is, it’s the story, first and foremost. A gripping story with compelling characters in an interesting world? Oh, yeah, I’m there.

        You can believe, or not believe, what you want. You’re allowed to be wrong. Are you sure you’re not engaging in projection?

      • Are you sure you’re not engaging in projection?

        *shrug* I might be. I don’t claim to be objective. I’m a partisan for the Hugo Awards, and for the neutrality of the process, for which I’ve been working and putting my money where my mouth is for more than twenty years. I believe neutrality of process, whereby the administrator counts votes without letting his/her personal feelings about the administrators bias the results, is possible. Claiming that it’s somehow possible to force every participant in the process to have some mythical standard of objectivity is IMO absurd. How can there possibly be objective standards of quality for things that are implicitly subjective?

      • Claiming that it’s somehow possible to force every participant in the process to have some mythical standard of objectivity is IMO absurd.

        Good market for scarecrows where you live? I mean, if you’re going to build straw men, you might as well get paid for it.

        Go back and read the kind of vile vitriol being spewed in the direction of Larry and others (but you didn’t need to be so blunt in those cases–and I still haven’t seen a link of you even being not-blunt). Some mythical standard of objectivity may not be achievable but how about not engaging in character assassination that rises close to, if not to, the level of outright libel? You think maybe avoiding that might not be a reasonable expectation?

      • I don’t keep track of everything and everywhere I post, but if you want to see one of the places I responded to insinuations of fraud, you can search for my name here: http://radishreviews.com/2014/04/19/obligatory-hugo-nomination-reaction-post/

        I also have posted several times to http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015838.html

        Unlike most people here, I’m not anonymous or anyone’s sock puppet; you can search for my name, “Kevin Standlee” within those pages to see every post I made.

      • I’ve repeatedly said that I see no dishonesty from the ConCom, and I was looking. LonCon has been totally above board in their dealings. I think you’ve been reasonable and have defended your organization.

        My fans are mostly taking issue with your statements of moral equivelence. I am glad to see that you are morally consistent to both sides. Yes, you will find some people on my side saying some of the things you’ve said. However, for the other side I started to cut and paste all of the personal attacks about me from the last few days into a blog post, from several hundred different people, but I gave up in disgust and deleted it after I hit 30 pages. For the most part it isn’t my side pushing organized bias. Hence, this debate.

      • I can understand the disgust, but maybe that thing needs to be resurrected from the bin and put up anyway.

        There’s a reason people feel like they’re getting kicked in the teeth every day. Aggregating the insanity on a topic as relatively innocuous as the Hugos might shine some light.

        There’s honest folks out there on both sides that don’t run in the right circles to see some of this vitriol. Perhaps they need a chance for one-stop-all-day-hate shopping to understand?

      • Or how about not smugly passing judgement on works one has not even read and calling for others to do the same?

        Larry, and others, have said to read the works and judge the works. It’s not “us” who call for shunning works we haven’t even read.

      • “I guess you also don’t believe that I use avowed Trotskyite Eric Flint’s “1632″ series as bedtime reading for my daughter, hmm?”

        Why not? A Trot he may be, but Eric’s love of America oozes from nearly every page. The pages where it doesn’t ooze? That’s because it gushes.

      • Why not? A Trot he may be, but Eric’s love of America oozes from nearly every page. The pages where it doesn’t ooze? That’s because it gushes.

        In the end, though, he writes a damn good story. I could just have easily used Mother of Demons or the Belisarius season (although I don’t know how much was Mr. Flint and how much Mr. Drake) or Heirs of Alexandria (ditto about how much was his) or the Pyramid books (likewise). I just didn’t happen to be using any of those as bedtime reading for my daughter.

      • “You’re trying to equate these things with official government oppression.”

        Got it. Corner lunch counters are “the government”, but major publishers aren’t. Not serving you lunch is oppression. Destroying or limiting your ability to make a living isn’t.

        Whatever, dude.

        I realize that a lot of these people are your friends, so you (understandably) want to defend them. At some point, though, you’re going to have to make a decision about what’s right. I will point out here that Ernesto Miranda and Clarence Gideon weren’t exactly nice guys either.

        “Look here: the US first amendment means the government can’t legally shut down my freedom of speech.”

        You’ve seen that idiot cartoon that’s going around, I take it.

        First Amendment issues are only a subset of free speech issues, not the whole ball of wax. The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t the government, either. It was the Church. Therefore no violation of free speech. Right?

        Yes, you (or anyone) has the right to ban someone from your blog for any reason whatsoever. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. And just because it’s legal doesn’t mean that others won’t consider you to be a fascist thug.

      • Also: “I’m offended” is not an answer to the question. Let’s drop race and switch to something that’s a matter of choice.

        1) John Q. Redneck decides that he doesn’t want to serve Muslims (or Jews, or Wiccans, or Roman Catholics) at his lunch counter.
        2) Teresa Nielsen Hayden decides that she doesn’t want to read or buy stories from anyone to the right of “Iron Feliks” Dzerzhinsky.

        What’s the difference? Be specific.

      • (insert sound effect of crickets chirping)

        While Kevin is busy ignoring the previous two hypotheticals, let me add a third:

        3) Louis B. Mayer decides that he doesn’t want to hire communists.

    • It sure seems to me that there’s a lot of overlap between the critics that slam the Wheel of Time nomination because of WoT’s “popularity” (which they always seem to describe in terms of WoT being too “bourgeois” for their tastes), and the critics that slam Correia’s Sad Puppies slate because it’s right-wing/racist/sexist/cismale blah blah blah.

      Myself, being a fan of both Correia and WoT, I figure that no matter who loses, I win. And hippie tears are *so* delicious, no matter what the cause.

      • Yes, but the strongest complaints I’ve heard from the people most likely to be able to craft coherent proposals have focused on what they consider a fundamental unfairness with having a super-length work like a 15-volume fantasy series being treated as one long serialized work. Some of them also objected some years ago to how a single season of Game of Thrones was nominated as a single work. Both of these things are technical arguments, and despite them being new to you, they’ve been going on for years and aren’t particularly new.

      • You’re equating technical objections with calls for political orthodoxy?

        As Mr. Winnfield would say, those aren’t in the same ballpark, league, or even sport.

  96. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts.

    Say it isn’t so, Larry. Log rolling?! You fiend! ;-D

  97. On the plus side, now I’m going to start buying your books.

  98. Loved this post. And I agree, WoT is likely to win, which makes me sad because I seriously haven’t been able to get more than 100 pages into it without falling asleep. My husband’s reading the whole thing again and it’s the one book guaranteed to put me to sleep. MHI, on the other hand, got me through a very long day at the mechanic. I’m working on the rest but I’m a slow reader (not really, I have 3 jobs, I do a little happy dance when my car has to go to the shop) so I haven’t gotten to Warbound yet but I’m moving that series up my To Be Read list.

    • I I started out with the World of Time series enthusiastically, and kept at it for about 10 books, and then gave up. I finally realized that in all 10 books:
      1. No real progress at all had been made toward any solution of the initial problems. Plenty of activity, but zero real progress in the story.
      2. None of the bad guys had been really killed, once previously killed Forsaken began magically arising from the dead. So what was the point in cheering in previous books when they knock off a bad guy, if they magically come back later. And why cheer or be releived when future bad guys get killed, when you now know they arent really dead anyway, and the whole battle was pointless.
      3. I was being taken to the cleaners reading an endless series that would never end, so the author could milk as much of my hard earned money as possible.
      4. Then the author started writing prequels, making any possible ending and resolution even further away. Please write the prequel after the original story is finally done. Otherwise its just another ripoff and delay to keep us hooked.
      5. At that point I resolved that I would never buy another book in the series, until I got word that the definitive last climactic book had been written, so I had confidence it would really end someday.
      6. Then the principle author died, making me very glad I quit when I did.

  99. Came here from the Instapundit link. Bought The Monster Hunters. Keep fighting the good fight.

  100. (Late to the party as usual)

    Kudos to Mr. Correia (yet again) for speaking ‘openly’, for that is the real ‘crime’ they all despise. It’s not the disagreeing they are vilifying (although they do that anyway), it’s disturbing the ‘narrative’ that all ‘right thinking’ (and therefore ‘good’) SF authors are rampantly lefty polemicists. Shame on you Sir! ;-)

    I’m (UK – X Sqdn) military and took the entire MHI series with me on my last deployment to the Stan (big fan). I made the mistake of loaning them out. They apparently did the rounds. Do you have any idea how annoying it is to come back to Bastion, on the way home from my (home-from-home a few hundred miles away) FOB, report to your CO, and find him reading ‘your’ copy of MHA? Apparently a bit of hit too (a number of team patches appear to have been ‘designed’ – the usual, expected, ‘minimi toting bulldog’, …, but you really don’t want to imagine ‘Team Thatcher’s patch) . I never did find all of them (although rumour suggests MHV may have ended up in the OM at Whale Island – thieving, cheapskate, b’rs!). Ever consider a book-signing visit?

    So, if MHI becomes required reading at Sandhurst I’d appreciate a percentage of the sales revenue generated if you’d be so kind, and Poole and Hereford would like to know your recommendations as where to get the best deal on a load of Abominations?

  101. I’m reading my Baen eBooks copy of Hard Magic and realize something:

    I want to see this as a movie or similar. Animated or live action. Especially anytime Faye starts teleporting all over the place and kicking butt.

    • Larry, when you start getting movie deals, be sure to get a deal to make a Lego Monster Hunters game so that my kids will force me to send you more bags of filthy, filthy cash.

  102. SFF author and Nebula nominee Kate Elliott: “Just read another call from a white man about the need for ‘nuance’ rather than shrill ranting.”

    Reply from SFF fan and blogger Jenny Thurman: “as if they’d know ‘nuance’ if they tripped on it”

    Kate Elliott: “nuance is when we are complaining about what they don’t want us to complain about.”

    Here’s the post by SFF author Richard K. Morgan they’re talking about:

    http://www.richardkmorgan.com/news/1114/new-aunts-and-catching-up-in-westeros/#comments

    • I need to do a post where I take all of these that you guys have been collecting and replace white with Jew just to prove a point about how horrible these people sound. If a one word search and replace makes you sound exactly like Heinrich Friggin’ Himmler you may want to rexamine your life choices.

      • We could create a guessing game called “Mein Kampf or Pink SFF Author?”

        To be honest with you, I am completely blown away by how casual their racism and identity supremacy and advocacy is, especially in light of the fact they put themselves out there as anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-supremacists.

      • If you ever wanted to seriously do this, might I suggest a slight variation? Instead of substituting words, censor out the targeted party. And sprinkle together quotes from both the modern day people and Approved Racist Targets(tm) from the past (like the Nazis). Then play a “Guess who said that?” game with the quotes.

      • The oppression of whites is similar to Jews so that replacement to legitimate instead of complete bullshit. It couldn’t possibly a false equivalency.

        You know who you sound a lot like Larry, Adolf Hitler. All you need to do is replace your insane ramblings with insane rambling about Jews. Let be clear here I am not making random Nazi comparisons just because that is in fashion and ‘our’ generation’s most recent evil. I mean you know who else was a white man……………….. Hitler, Karl Marx, and Heinrich Friggin’ Himmler (aka Heinrich ‘Fucking’ Himmler, unsourced).

        TURNS OUT YOU ARE A NAZI BRO! REXAMINE YOUR LIFE CHOICES!!!!!!!!

      • No one is saying whites are oppressed, Slippery. What we are saying is these comments occupy the same intellectual and philosophical space as classic racists like the Nazis. There’s a very large difference between your straw man and what we are pointing out. The bottom line is that mainstreamed hate speech will always have a bad outcome. Just ask Rwanda.

  103. I’ve been in organized fandom since I joined the LASFS in’78.
    I’ve seen regulars who are as militantly intolerant as those described.
    But I’ve also seen a club that ran conservative to libertarian and was quite militantly tolerant on issues of race and gender identity.
    But then perhaps it’s just because everything in California is weird.

  104. Personally I don’t give a sh!t about an author’s political views. All I care about is the story. I will say this though, it does seem that the story is better if our political views are similar. That is why I think John Ringo’s books are among the finest I have ever owned and read. I have 1 bookshelf in the living room where I keep my most valuable and favorite books. On those scant shelves are some 300 year old James Fenimore Cooper and a set of ‘pocketbooks’ from the 1800s and every book written by Ringo. I reread his entire catalog every month or so simply because I am a voracious reader and lack anything worthy to read. His politics skew to a certain ideal and it is one of the many things I like about his books. I have never read any of your books, but anyone who pisses off the Libtards like you do is worth a look imo. Ringo is certainly on their shitlist as well, so if you are as well, I might have to find space for a few more books! =). Keep giving the Libtard socialists the finger Larry! The PC carebears piss off more than just you!

  105. Funnily enough, I had never heard of you until I saw people screaming about how evil you were. Then I went and bought Monster Hunter International and LOVED it… so, um… thanks outraged crowd. You found me a new author. :)

  106. […] sci-fi writing’s Hugo awards. This year conservative author Larry Correia got nominated and all hell broke loose. (I enjoyed reading that post so much I’m going to get one of his books […]

  107. F***’em all, Larry: I just found my signed copy of your self-published version of MHI. LIFE is GOOD; and – distantly – I hear the lamentations of the wymyn…

  108. The decontamination bill for cleaning up all the exploded lefty heads must be astronomical.

  109. Well Larry, I read your books and enjoy them. So you have succeeded in successfully competing for my beer money. As far as I am concerned, that puts you in pretty good company, i.e. entertaining authors.

    As far as Hugo and Nebula Awards, I quit paying attention to those somewhere around 1980. Except that with very few exceptions, I don’t bother to even read the blurb (the exceptions being authors I know will provide a good read despite being a winner).

  110. I saw a link to this blog mzg over at instapundit. I may have seen glenn recommend an earlier book. After reading your comments i am motivated to read all your books and turn my three sons onto them. I guess thats one positive from the whole affair!

  111. I’m torn on this subject. I think people were so burned by Orson Scott Card’s views that they will dog pile on anyone that looks similar (Mormon, right wing, outspoken). I would love if works of art could stand by themselves, but that will only work if all novel’s were written under pen names.
    The American Public has always been told to vote with their wallet. If you don’t agree with someone and it matters enough, don’t give them your money. Heck, I love tasty chicken as much as the next person, but I can’t go to Chick Fil A anymore because they will take some of the profit from my meal deal and use it to stand against what I consider to be a basic civil rights issue.
    I just happen to be a 2nd amendment loving, large govt fearing man that happens to like your novels. If your personal politics offended me, I wouldn’t have picked up your books either.
    How this ties into the HUGOs; even a Hugo NOMINATION will get someone’s novels shot into the stratosphere. People will get riled up just thinking that all of this money is going to the “enemy”. It’s a tough subject. I think you are doing a great job, but remember, this is all business, and when you put your personal beliefs on line, people WILL use that to judge you and your works, they can’t and shouldn’t be unbound.
    That is just my personal thought on the subject.

    • Except that Orson Scott Card isn’t right wing. If it weren’t for the same-sex marriage thing – well, he likes gun control, affirmative action, environmental regulations, and he’s just shy of being a full blown socialist. Yet, because he’s against SSM, the SJWs must destroy him. Correria is Mormon and outspoken, so I guess 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

      Both OSC and LC are among my top 5 favorite authors.

    • Except that Orson Scott Card isn’t right wing. If it weren’t for the same-sex marriage thing – well, he likes gun control, affirmative action, environmental regulations, and he’s just shy of being a full blown socialist. Yet, because he’s against SSM, the SJWs must destroy him. Correria is Mormon and outspoken, so I guess 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

      Both OSC and LC are among my top 5 favorite authors.

  112. With all of this I’m realizing that I’ve never before thought of even paying attention to the process of the Hugos or participating. I don’t know what the categories are for or what the limitations are. What I wish I could have done, if I wasn’t so clueless, was nominate Wen Spencer’s Eight Million Gods… whenever that was eligible. Sure, you probably need to be an anime nerd to *get* it, but on a second read through I’m even more impressed with how tight she writes a plot and how engaging it is, and how she can write something that *ought* to make no sense whatsoever without the reader loosing track of where you’re at.

    But I just never thought, before, “Hey, I ought to pay attention so that I can get nominations in for stories I think are great.” It was just that thing those other people did, over there someplace.

  113. Well said! :D

  114. Whenever I read something like this, I always think of the line from HHGTTG about having a whelk’s chance in a supernova, because we just don’t care as much as they do. The people who want to be left alone are always at an organizational and motivational disadvantage.

    I’m seriously wondering how much longer the left will allow us to peacefully coexist with them. “We’re scared of you” is a short trip from “We need to shut you up, take away your guns, seize your property, lock you up. For our safety.”

    I don’t mind them having their no guns, single payer, zero carbon, GINI-optimized junk-food-controlled Blue Paradise, I really don’t. I just don’t want to be forced to fucking live there myself, with the high crmie rates and 10% unemployment and monthlong waits for an MRI and tripled energy costs and mass diabetes from crap nutrition guidelines.

    Today Scotland, tomorrow Texas?

    • I’m seriously wondering how much longer the left will allow us to peacefully coexist with them. “We’re scared of you” is a short trip from “We need to shut you up, take away your guns, seize your property, lock you up. For our safety.”

      Yeah, that’s going to work out well for them.

      • I see all these police forces being militarized, and I see a real possibility of something incremental like Japan did in the 1600s, where they licensed guns then stopped issuing licenses. You only have to lose a few elections for it to happen.

    • **I’m seriously wondering how much longer the left will allow us to peacefully coexist with them. “We’re scared of you” is a short trip from “We need to shut you up, take away your guns, seize your property, lock you up. For our safety.”**

      “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side.”

      And here I thought we were the ones with the cookies.

    • There’s one big difference. We can self-organize whenever we want to. We can also align our goals without having to become a hive-mind. Larry’s spelled out the numbers before. There are too many of us to take our guns if we don’t let them. Extend the principal to the rest of our rights….

  115. Bully for you! I’m not a fan (yet), but I’m going to add Warbound to my 2014 list. Anyone who trumpets their vote (non-vote) for a literary award by telling everyone they didn’t read it is, um, doing it wrong.

    Really sad to see Peter David in the mob. As a Trekkie, that stings.

    D.GOOCH

    • Agreed. I read David’s books in the 90’s when the Trek series were still on tv- thought they were pretty decent, actually. He’s a good writer.

      BTW- if you’re going to read Warbound, you should know it’s the third in a series and you’ll want to start with the first book in the Grimnoir Chronicles: Hard Magic. It’s EXCELLENT.

      I’m not exaggerating when I say that the Grimnoir chronicles is my favorite series in years. It’s really good. You’ll love it.

  116. I really liked Terms of Enlistment by Kloos. Especially the non-standard alien nemesis. It seems most SF aliens are either human, feline, or lizard. It’s nice to see something significantly different and seeing it done well.

  117. […] Social media reaction to the 2014 Hugo Award nominations has started to resemble the Mexican standoff from Reservoir Dogs–complete with shouting, cursing, and threats of mutually assured destruction. Actually, the current row might be worse because it’s escalated to flinging false accusations of spousal abuse. […]

  118. I like your books. You’re a good writer. But you write combat science fiction, and combat sci-fi tends to be conservative. You, as a writer, echo that: your writing style is conservative. By this I mean you write descriptive books about straightforward events. You don’t often write about ideas, and the ideas you do write about are pragmatic, not exploratory. You characterize with great skill; but your characters are also conservative. This echoes what I’ve seen in the military – people who go to war rarely break the mold, because it works. It functions, and in combat, functionality is generally more important than innovation. Functionality keeps you alive; innovation gets you killed in innovative ways.

    There’s nothing wrong with conservative writing; it works for a reason, and the majority of books use a basic conservative style because it communicates ideas effectively. In an analogy, you are a blacksmith creating functional things which are sturdy and serve their purpose well.

    But it’s not what I’m looking for in a Hugo. When I’m picking a book I want to see as a Hugo, I’m looking for a writer that said something new about science fiction, about society and how we’ll interact. I’m looking for a writer who did something interesting and a little different. Now, this is just me, not everyone else, and I don’t know how other people vote – but for me, conservative is safe, and safe will not make me nominate you. Hugos need to take risks. I’d rather nominate an interesting failure over a safe success. In an analogy, a Hugo writer would be someone making a clock that doesn’t tell time properly, but exhibits new gearing techniques or is decorated with cheerfully fornicating printer’s devils or something.

    The essence of being conservative is not taking risks. If it worked for our parents and our grandparents, who are we to change? We conserve. We stand for family values and tradition.

    Liberal writers take risks. They don’t stick to a set formula. They experiment with words and ideas, with societies and behaviours. They write unsafe things which are difficult to read. This is the essence of innovation. This is what Hugos are – or should be – about.

    (Then again, go too liberal and nobody will understand a damn word you’re saying; so it helps to strike a balance. Conservative enough to get your point across, liberal enough to present a challenge.)

    Compare and contrast: I fucking hate reading China Mieville, he’s often boring or frustrating or both, but I’d vote for him over you because while I enjoy your books and don’t particularly enjoy his, he takes risks and does different things with his concepts. I would rather nominate a distressing, difficult book over an easy, amiable one. Conservative things have value for one reason, but difficult things also have value, and the Hugo, to me, is about the value of difficult, different, dangerous things. (I do get the feeling a lot of people would vote for China Mieville simply because he can be obscure, and people like to look smart – like they understand shit even when they really don’t.)

    Anyways. While I’m interested that you got yourself nominated, I hope you don’t win. Because if you manage to win, you won’t be doing so on the basis of having challenged anything except the system. Artistically, the Hugos should be about more than the system. They should be about the science, and the craft of fiction, and some sort of challenge to safety. You are one of the building blocks of science fiction. You are excellent at writing books – but you are not a challenge. You don’t make me think any differently, or see anything any differently. Oddly enough, despite you writing about the danger of the unexpected, there is no danger of encountering anything unexpected in your books. While this is something a lot of people are actively looking for in their reading, it’s not what the Hugos are, for me.

    I reward you with money and purchasing your series and sending you fanmail about enjoying the product you create. I reward other people who do less popular things with Hugo nominations.

    Seeing you complain military science fiction doesn’t get the Hugo nod from fans seems to indicate a lack of understanding about the books that *do* get the Hugo, and a lack of understanding about the science fiction community in general. If you want an example: Lois Bujold writes military science fiction, but she writes it in an unsafe way; she breaks the traditions of the genre and gets a Hugo. I’d have voted for David Drake’s earlier works for Hugos, if I weren’t still reading Fox in Socks back then. John Steakley’s Armor. The Forever War. Starship Troopers. Old Man’s War. I’d vote for them because one and all they challenge something, are difficult in some way. Uncomfortable. Embarrassing. Honest.

    • Uh… Thanks?

      Only I don’t write combat sci-fi, and my “safe and conservative” novel which has been nominated is a 1930s pulp noir, well researched alternative history, epic fantasy, with characters who are basically magical proto super heroes, with a magic system that I don’t think anybody anywhere has ever done (magic is a symbiotic parasite), which leads to it being a sci-fi, alien invasion story.

      Or you know, you could actually just read it before judging it, and since basically everything you just said about this book was wrong, I’m assuming you’ve not actually read it. :)

      • “magic is a symbiotic parasite”

        Midichlorians?

        (Please don’t kill me. :-)

      • @ Dr. Mauser

        Huh, If you combine the Midichlorians as a symbiotic parasite with the lore inherent in Knights of the Old Republic II which was subsequently excommunicated by Lucas It illuminates a very large deal of fridge horror inherent in the SWverse.

      • The web serial Worm has a symbiotic parasite (basically) as the mechanism for superpowers (including magic), which leads to it being a sci-fi, alien invasion story, but it’s set in the present day. An alt-history pulp noir take on that mechanism sounds like a fun ride — I’ll be picking up a copy.

    • I think you’re missing some of the undertones of Mr. Correia’s writing. It’s actually aimed, and fairly pointedly so, at the current cultural and political hierarchy. Almost all of his fiction positions the individual in opposition to authority as well as the foe of the book. Most of his fans understand that the primary foe and the authority are intertwined in their opposition to the individual, and his work is a challenge to the enabling effects of corrupt sociopolitical institutions. If anything, I think the books make an effective point that while we all accept the existence of wrong in the world, those wrongs rarely gain a true foothold to expand their vile effects without a corrupt sociopolitical authority obstructing the individual’s sense of justice.

      It’s an anti-institutional commentary about the fundamental sanctity of personhood and the sacred nature of the individual. That commentary is in direct opposition to the current popular cultural norm. I’m surprise that you feel writers like Scalzi (who does good work no doubt) are somehow “challenging” that norm when they write to support and advance its ideas.

      However, it’s entirely possible that your current perceptual framework doesn’t let you perceive the response to counter-revolution (call it, counter-counter-revolution) as a legitimate critique of the dominant cultural trend.

    • ” he takes risks and does different things with his concepts. ”

      Sorry, Marxist dogma hasn’t been “different” or “risky” since 1848.

      Except, of course, in the non-literary sense of “likely to get you murdered if those people ever get in power”.

    • Have you read any of the Grimnoir books, or just the MHI books?

      I have been voting in the Hugos since 2011. I enjoyed books like Red Shirts and Capt. Vorpatil / Cryoburn, but there isn’t really anything new there.

      The idea books, like 2312, Embassytown, Dervish House… they had some clever ideas, but they were really not that entertaining (or simply too long by half), and with narcissistic characters that I couldn’t care less about.

      I was reading through 2312 with the excruciating knowledge that I had Warbound already purchased and downloaded, waiting for me when I was done with my Hugo list.

      Warbound, much more so than MHI, has clever ideas… people combining different powers for different purposes, spell tattoos, powersuits and other tech based on magic… but it was also a lot of fun to read.

      I am reading through the rest of the nominees for 2014, but Warbound will be the book to beat for me.

      … And depending on the nominees, it might be killing me that I have half of MHN already waiting for me. Why Larry, must you put out books during Hugo season? =)

    • How are any of the books in The Grimnoir Chronicles not “uncomfortable,” “embarrassing” or “honest”? How do they not deal with the overall narrative of the trilogy in a “difficult” or “unsafe” way? Or the books in the Monster Hunter series, which may contain a lot of combat scenes but also deal with social issues that we all have to face at some point in our lives (e.g. family ideals, teamwork, supernatural vs. physical warfare, MONSTERS both literal and figurative)?

      Your pigeonholing of the type of fiction that Larry writes is unconvincing, more so because you shovel it into this little space hemmed in by political ideology and because you label it “conservative.” Whatever.

      Frankly, you’re not seeing the forest for the trees. I find that sad, but unsurprising.

      • I just think she’s missed the point. The Grimnoir Society, Exodus, and MHI are all free associations of individuals in opposition to fundamental wrongs in the world. They are all opposed by the dominant social system and authorities, and those authorities are, at best, entangled with, and at worst cooperative to, those wrongs. Larry writes about the self selected individual, persecuted by those covetous of and greed for power over the lives of others. It’s likely that her own viewpoint allies her with the authoritarian outlook, and prevents her from seeing the arguments being proposed. Books like MHI might be too subtle to breach the divide.

      • Come to think of it, a big part of the Grimnoir series is about the rising facism and totalitarian nature of the 1930s, and the overall theme, at least the bits with Francis are “Does the government own the people, or do the people own the government?”

        Of course, I’ve still got idiot reviewers accusing me of ripping off the X-Men because I’ve got FDR rounding up a hundred thousand “dangerous” people without any due process and tossing them in camps. :)

      • “Of course, I’ve still got idiot reviewers accusing me of ripping off the X-Men because I’ve got FDR rounding up a hundred thousand “dangerous” people without any due process and tossing them in camps.”

        Their ignorance and hypocrisy on that is staggering. I got in a Facebook fight with one of my lefty friends over something they reposted from a FB group called ‘Being Liberal’ (which uses a pic of FDR as its avatar). It was something to the effect of how all us evil rightwingers want to throw minorities into camps. I pointed out the irony of that lame accusation considering whose face was on that group and also pointed them to info about Executive Order 9066. I think they unfriended me after that. Heh.

      • mekadave5 – Don’t forget to add that lefty hero Earl Warren was a big supporter of the internment camps as well. He was Governor of California at the time, and apparently thought they were a great idea.

      • Really want some see some ‘splody heads? Point out what party the President behind the Trail of Tears belonged to, which party the KKK largely supported, and which party the only Klan official who was elected to Congress belonged to. He wasn’t some outlier/marginal dude, either. He was the longest-serving U.S. Senator in history, and was being named to important positions (e.g., Majority Leader, chair of important committees) by the other Dems well into the 21st Century.

    • So, you would vote for a book you can’t stand over a book you actually liked because of some misguided idea that an enjoyable read should be second to “ideas”?

      Every book has ideas. Ever. Single. One. They’re all based on the author’s worldview and how they see things unfolding. Larry’s are no exception. His ideas simply aren’t the most popular ones with certain segments.

      Every single book of his I’ve read, and there’s not a full length novel out there by him I haven’t read, have some element of the power of individuality. That is an idea. It may not be an idea you like, but it’s there.

      The truth is, ideas abound in a multitude of books that you’re already denigrating as “conservative” fiction. What’s more, you have already described yourself as part of the problem. You have claimed that ideas matter more than just writing a kick ass story.

      You know what? If writing crap is what you would vote for over stuff you genuinely enjoyed, may I never receive a vote from you for anything in the course of my life.

      • You know what? If writing crap is what you would vote for over stuff you genuinely enjoyed, may I never receive a vote from you for anything in the course of my life.

        Me too.

        And I’m OK with that.

      • I suspect that’s true of a lot of us.

      • You act like people should enjoy reading. If you keep on this way no one will ever make your book one of the mandatory educational requirements that children are required to read. They’ll just go read the book if they want to and no one will be there to tell them what it really means. People will just have to make up their own mind, and what good would that be.

      • Yeah, I know. Probably a poor business decision. I mean, if people actually want to read my book, I might make some money. Who knows, I might actually make enough to live well off of. Everyone knows that’s a problem.

        However, if I wrote stuff that would be required reading, I might make enough to survive, and that’s the correct way to live according to the Lefty Powers That Be.

    • Anne,

      In my experience “liberal” writing is neither challenging nor “unsafe” nor particularly about ideas… at least not interesting ones. Half the SFdom brouhaha, in fact, has been all about the demand that no one ever ever have to read anything or meet any person that might possibly write something that makes them feel “unsafe” either by refusing to include a bucket list of required inclusions without which any reader might feel that they aren’t allowed into the future or, heaven forbid, possibly writing something that really is mean or challenging or suggesting something that “right thinking people” are against or bringing up a subject that’s no longer up for debate among our intellectual betters.

      What you find “unsafe” in “liberal” literature, I find insufferably dull and excruciatingly repeated. Stuff that’s been done a million times but because it’s anti-human or it attacks a very *safe* and approved list of religions or traditions that have been attacked for the better part of a century by every science fiction author since Jules Verne, well…

      … it’s really all a big yawn. Or unpleasant but not in a good way, more in a “I could be flossing my teeth instead” sort of way.

      BTW, I’ve been a major Lois Bujold fangirl and I can’t imagine what you’re talking about if you insist that she’s unsafe. She writes the safest possible space opera on the planet. She writes it in an extremely safe way. This is part of why she’s brilliant, because her stories about Miles appealed to everyone, they judged *no one*, they alienated *no one*. They were full of interesting ideas because all entertaining fiction is full of interesting ideas.

      Bujold, btw, was attacked and derided for being a hack. For writing space opera. For not being a real writer. For not writing literature.

      Probably, it was because her Miles books weren’t depressing and anti-human as much as anything else. She got the last laugh there, though.

    • Liberal writers take risks. They don’t stick to a set formula.

      As usual you’ve confused “Liberal” with “Progressive”, and you’ve got two OTHER mistakes in two sentences.

    • So, Anne, presuming it’s well written, you would be up for a military sci fi work set on a planet which aliens set up as a preserve to protect earth’s animals from the ravages of sentient life? You would be up for a sci fi story that breaks the common sci fi meme of monocultuaral planets? You would be up for a book with a series of revolutionaries in the mold of Lenin, Mao, and Ho, otherthrowing corrupt oligarchies and establishing at least a limited socialist worker’s paradise that works? You would be up for a new kind of government? You would be up for one replete with poor but brave brown and black people stomping rich arrogant whites like narcs at a biker rally? And how about a book or series that attacks just about every meme, left or right, there is? And married gays serving openly and honorably in armed forces? And elite female infantry? Are you up for all of those?

      Anyone want to explain the joke to her?

      • Oh, may I? Because it’s hysterical! :D

      • Oh, all right. ;)

      • Well, Anne, first let’s keep in mind that Lt. Col. Kratman may well make more liberal heads explode than Larry, Vox, John Ringo, Michael Z. Williamson, and George Bush rolled into one.

        Yet, what he outlined sounds like a liberal utopia. It’s got all those “unsafe” ideas and stuff that you think should win.

        Of course, he also happened to have written that.

        But hey, military science fiction’s not about ideas or anything.

    • “The essence of being conservative is not taking risks.”

      By the way, Anne, I’ve just got to ask; where will the conservative safe room be at Worldcon? You know, the one where we’ll never be exposed to any of those evilwickedbadnaughtybadbadbad liberal thoughts, and where we can run when confronted by all those icky non-white people? And where we’ll be safe from fat jokes and such?

      Because, ya know, liberals aren’t afraid of taking risks.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Ha.

    • 1. I’m more libertarian than conservative. Not take risks? Stick to a set formula? Tradition? Ha! You don’t understand us at *all*.

      2. Isn’t it amazing how quick leftists are to try to put other people in a box? Most often an unflattering box sitting on a lower rung of whatever stupid great-chain-of-being they are ginning up than they fancy themselves as occupying. Of course only *we* have a monopoly on truly innovative imagination! Only we can be truly creative! (gagg)

      • PS – Mr. Correia, good luck and congratulations. Even leaving aside your kickass novels, I’m greatful for the push-back against the ubiquitous condescention and the thought police.

        I loved Grimnoir – of all the fantasyish things I’ve read over the past few years, it was *wonderfully* creative and new. And awesome. It took a fascinating time in history (very very interesting to me in other respects because of the science and physics and technology that was undergoing a hard takeoff at that time), it vacuumed up some of the most fascinating people and events in history (you aren’t joking about Dyson’s propensity for neologisms!), it portrated some far less covered and far more alien cultures (Imperial Japan!) than a vanilla faux-medieval Tolkein ripoff could invent. I loved it!

  119. […] …has apparently become community organized: […]

  120. Way up there, Laura Curtis said “I laid off of SF/F for a long time because if I wanted a political lecture, I could watch MSNBC or any broadcast news show.”
    Bingo. How many ‘comedies’ have sunk because they stopped being funny because they turned into half-hour “You must believe this way! Otherwise you’re a hater!” lectures?

    And then, when the show is cancelled, they bitch and whine that it was because ‘people can’t handle homosexuals/blacks/(fill in all the other choices). They just can’t seem to understand that people coming home after a hard day DON’T WANT TO BE LECTURED TO by a freaking COMEDIAN. As she notes, they can get that by turning on most major media ‘news’. So they stop watching.

  121. […] latest in the Larry Correia versus WorldCon saga. He makes an excellent point about enjoyable reading. I read The Hundred Thousand Kingdom which is […]

  122. Never read one of your books, but I just bought the first in your Warbound trilogy from Amazon to check it out. I’m sure you’ll regard that response more warmly than any kind words I could say.

  123. These people make this stuff way too easy for me.
    One of Tor’s Nielsen Haydens just said:

    “The awards we give out are are a giant signal saying “This is what we love, this is what we value, this is what we think is important.”

    Why the hell am I supposed to lie about what those things are?

    Why have I not been flaming hairless people who refer to the bizarre text-only voting protocol they’re trying to push on me as “honest”? It’s obvious they’re suggesting that doing anything else is dishonest.

    The way they want me to vote is not honest. It’s not how I think. Nor is it how I’ve ever voted. Nor is it how most of fandom has thought, or how it’s voted, year after year, for many decades.”

    http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015838.html#2220863

    BWA HA HA HAW! snort.

    Yes. My side is pushing “text only” judging of books, and that’s bad. But when I said there was political bias in the awards I was just making that up. The SJWs are the gift that keeps on giving.

    • I made an exception to my general rule of “no Nielsen Haydens” for this one.

      She’s admitted, in public, that OF COURSE she routinely judges books that she hasn’t read based on the politics of the author.

      Stalinists: A-OK! Libertarians: Ewww!

      You might want to screencap this in case it goes down the memory hole later.

      Regardless of whether or not that’s actually “how most of fandom has thought”, it’s not the way that anyone who pretends to be a professional editor should think.

      I seriously doubt that “most of fandom” gives a single thought to the politics of a book’s author. Ask the average Bujold or Flint fan who they think those authors voted for in the last election and the most likely answer is going to be “Huh?”

      She’s defining “fans” as “people who think like me”. I believe this is called “othering” in the jargon.

      • I made the mistake of checking back on that “Making Light” link earlier today. After endless posts of the Nielsen-Haydens and some of their allies whining about how evil we all are, demanding we come over there to defend ourselves, our beliefs and our favorite writers (while pointedly refusing to expose themselves to this blog), and mocking, banning, apparently deleting, and even “disemvoweling” (thus turning to gibberish) posts by people who actually took them up on their offer…

        …the male-ish half of the Nielsen-Hayden symbiont was reduced to claiming that he was so *not* a political bigot because he condescended to edit David Weber’s “Safehold” series for Tor.

        Yeah, and I’ll bet some of the Nielsen-Haydens’ best friends are black, too.
        ;)

      • Exactly. Or maybe more like a 1960 country club manager pointing out that “Of course there’s no racial discrimination here. Sammy Davis Jr. is a member! See? See?”

      • Also, note that not one of them has showed up over here. They’re not interested in participating in any forum they don’t control.

      • …note that not one of them has showed up over here.

        *Ahem*

        I almost certainly have more in common with Patrick and Teresa than with most of the people who post here, starting with the fact that we’re the Old Guard of people who have put in the work to make Worldcons possible. (P&T are a half-generation before me or so.)

      • Just so everyone’s clear: I’m not casting any aspersions on Weber (whose books I like in general, though I can’t speak for his Tor ouevre) or on Sammy Davis Jr. (who was a great entertainer, and I think I’m going to listen to some of his stuff on YouTube right now).

        However, there sure were a lot of organizations, movies, shows, political campaigns, and whatnot back in those days where Sammy was the only black face in evidence.

        Hiring Scalzi to rip off libertarian/conservative writers of the past and spin them to the left doesn’t really count toward political diversity either.

      • Sure, you’re here, Kevin. You’re just not very responsive. :-)

        Most of your posts consist of assertions that the Hugo Awards aren’t rigged, and taking it as personal affront that the question was even raised.

        Larry Correia is an auditor. As several people have pointed out, that’s what auditors do. It’s nothing personal. Note that the Academy Awards hire PriceWaterhouseCoopers to run the process, and I would guess that other major awards do the same.

        Having the process run by personal friends of the people being voted on looks bad, whether anything bad is actually going on or not. I don’t think it is, and Larry Correia (whose professional opinion is much more valuable than mine) doesn’t think it is. That the question could even plausibly be raised, though, is a problem. Or so I see it.

        However, that’s not the biggest problem. Just to put it out one more time (and I don’t expect you to answer):

        1. Louis B. Mayer decides that he’s not going to read anything by communist screenwriters.
        2. Teresa Nielsen Hayden decides that she’s not going to read anything by “right-wing” authors.

        Which of these is wrong? Either? Neither?

      • Heads you win, tails I lose. Sorry, I don’t play that game.

      • It’s not a complicated question.

        Either:

        1) It’s okay for a editor or studio head to engage in political discrimination.
        2) It isn’t.
        3) It’s okay to discriminate against Republicans and Libertarians, but not okay to discriminate against Communists.

        I understand fully why you don’t want to answer. I’ll leave you alone now.

      • I don’t care if Louis B. Mayer didn’t want to read scripts by people he though were communists, although in your zeal to try and win Persecution Bingo, you seem to consider it very important.

        What a proper Libertarian should say, I think, is that “I have the right to publish those things I want to publish, and you have the right to publish those things I want to publish.”

        Nobody’s forcing you to buy Tor’s books, any more than anyone is forcing anyone to buy Baen’s. What’s the big deal?

      • As a (small l) libertarian, I think you should be free to deal with (or not deal with) anyone you want.

        However, this isn’t about me. I’m not a major editor who makes noises about “diversity”, am I? I haven’t been going on for decades about how terrible the Hollywood blacklist supposedly was, have I?

        I’m not trying to “win” anything. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

      • “Persecution bingo?” Is that where people defending themselves in court using evidence and facts is “persecution bingo?” You realize you’re stipulating that all court cases should end in a tie.

        Are you going to assert “heads you win tales I lose” when no one is kafkatrapping you? Who’s kafkatrapping you? No one. A kafkatrap would be “white privilege.” Get angry and deny it, it’s proof you are guilty. Admit it, you admit to guilt. You are fleeing from logic and evidence, not a kafkatrap.

  124. Congratulations on your nomination. I have to post this because after reading the reactions of Best Fan Writers, I’m disgusted with that category. The Best Fan Writer is supposed to be for someone who brings the fan community together, but clearly these women are not interested in doing that. They seem to feel that the Hugos are for their clique only. I’m afraid I will have to vote them beneath No Vote.

  125. What I’d like to see now, a post with the best/worst tweets, and blog comments.

    By best I mean most hateful, by worst I mean the type of idiotic unintelligible replies I quoted in my book There is No Update for Stupidity.

    The more idiotic the posts the funnier they are, the hateful threatening ones are a joy to read too.

  126. […] of the left, who were waiting to pounce using their issue of “racism.” It is how they shut down all conversations with conservatives: by somehow linking the discussion to racism, which is so evil it’s beyond […]

  127. Thank you for your statement that you saw no sign of the voter fraud that seems to accompany every set of Hugo Awards results. In case you care, I have said the same thing to the “left” people as to the “right” on this — the failure of your favored works to make the ballot, or of disfavored-by-you works to get on the ballot despite your dislike of them or their authors, is not a sign of a failure of process or of fraud. I’m neither “left” nor “right” about this. The people who actually administer the Hugo Awards from year to year have been, to my knowledge (which is extensive, including having been one in the past — not this year!) uniformly honest and open about the entire process, short of revealing how individual voters cast their ballots. (I hope we all agree that this would be a bad thing.) What utterly frustrates me is the people who say “it’s not supposed to be a popularity contest, it’s supposed to pick the best there is, and of course everyone knows that if it sells more copies/makes more money for its author, it must be the best there is.” When judging subjective issues, _there is no objective best_ — if all we were doing was giving an award for “who sold the most copies” you’d just have to produce your sales records, like with gold records.

    For the record, I don’t object to people who like your work joining the World Science Fiction Society and voting for it, any more than I object to anyone else joining and voting. I’ve said all along that this is an award presented by those members of WSFS who cared enough to join and vote to collectively say, “This is what we thought was best.”

    But fraud in the votes? It’s not happening. People lying to you about how or whether they voted? That’s more plausible. One of the things about a secret ballot is that it’s secret, after all, and that’s fair in my opinion.

    • Which was one reason that I was glad to say that for the two years I paid attention and watched the stats I saw zero indiction of dishonesty.

    • Keep watching. The night is young, and I don’t recall any parallel of this unbridled hate in the past.

      Also, I’m willing to bet one hundred dollars that if WoT wins, there are going to be a lot of pushes for major rule revisions, with the obvious intent of preventing the ‘wrong’ authors from getting nominated next year.

      Any takers?

      • No way am I taking that bet. Nope, nope, nope, nope…..

      • You or any other two members of WSFS can _propose_ anything you want. If you think any such stupid proposals trying to regulate _content_ rather than form will both pass the current year’s Business Meeting and be ratified by the following year’s meeting, you’re engaging in an Oppression Fantasy and don’t have the foggiest idea of how the WSFS governance system works in practice. I’m dead serious about this.

      • However, having said the above, I make a real distinction between the _Wheel of Time_ issue (super-long series) and about the content of specific author’s works. The former is a technical issue and almost certainly _will_ be debated. There are ideas being tossed around such as requiring that serial works not spanning more than two calendar years (the previous year and the year before that), which to be honest was probably why the serialized-work provision was in the WSFS Constitution to begin with.

        Do not conflate people saying that they think it’s wrong that a half-million-word novel series was nominated as a single work with people who are angry because specific authors with whose views they profoundly disagree were nominated.

      • I think it would be a mistake to change rules in response to Wheel of Time. I mean… how many other Wheel of Times are there out there that have to be guarded against? Game of Thrones? That assumes he ever finishes it.

        It would be a case of the barn door and the horse.

      • For some reason, I’m not able to reply to the specific comments….

        @synova

        This isn’t likely to happen again at this scale. Game of Thrones wouldn’t be eligible as a series because Dance with Dragons and other parts have already been nominated. It is a fluke (or a testament, depending on your opinion) that none of the 14 works in this particular series were ever nominated.

        @kastandlee

        I deeply respect what you are saying and that you have come here to say it.

        Expendable Henchman may not have been conflating the people, but predicting that the issues themselves will be conflated as way to try to get a change through. As gun owners, many of us see this happen all the time, such as the poorly conceived NY “Safe Act” that has already lost once in court. (Our governor said he didn’t want to ban guns… he just wanted to require us to buy seven round magazines that no one was manufacturing.)

        I wouldn’t be surprised if changes were suggested that would have the spoken intention “cover” of preventing WoT getting on the ballot again, but have the unspoken intention of preventing the wrong kind of people from getting on the ballot. Censorship under the guise of technical rule adjustments.

        I am happy to hear that you are already opposed to that kind of thing, and I am glad that you feel you will not be alone in that.

        Thank you for what you do.

  128. Flak? Over target. Check!

  129. Just wanted to add, I’d heard of you but never read anything by you, picked up Hard Magic on Kindle today. Looks fun, I seem to end up just endlessly cycling between Zelazny, Glen Cook, and Neal Stephenson stuff I’ve already read twice, so hopefully I have something new to read.

  130. I haven’t read Warbound yet, but I have read the prior two and also the entire WOT series.

    I am a Brandon Sanderson fan, but the last book in WOT just wasn’t very good. It was seriously anticlimactic. Most likely this was due to neding to incorporate the ending that Robert Jordan left behind. Also, the whole series jumped about quite a bit and vast swaths of story line could have been eliminated with no negative impact. Plus it just plain pissed me off that Jordan took time to write a preqel before he finished the main series.

    Assuming Warbound is as good as the prior 2 I would certainly vote for that over the WOT series.

  131. WisCon SF Convention organizer, panelist, and co-creator of its racially segregated “safer-space” and dinner K. Tempest Bradford: “Just… Fuck all you white dudes wagging your finger at the community on twitter. It’s not like most of you are helping. Sit your asses down”

    Same: “I am all done with white people today. All out of fucks to give.”

    *

    WisCon SF Convention organizer, panelist, and co-creator of its racially segregated “safer-space” and dinner Jaymee Goh writing about a film project: “There’re way too many white people” but “a really good range of actual non-white folks.”

    Same: “The truth about which white people are innocent of racist acts? Yeah, I’ll admit to not caring about that.”

    *

    SFF author and Nebula nominee Kate Elliott: “‘lazy’ is such a code word for white people to use to denigrate & dismiss.”

    *

    SFF author and Hugo nominee Foz Meadows: “Old white guys. What are going to do with them?”

    Reply from “Cranky LGBT rights supporting, proudly pro-abortion Aussie atheist feminist who hates rightwingers, MRAs, liars, and wankers” Ann Somerville: “they’re already jerks, so…jerky?”

    • Hope you’ve got your flak vest on, because you’re about to take incoming, I bet. “How DARE you suggest that people demanding respect should be willing to give it!”

    • Kate, honey. You’re white. You’ve just disqualified yourself of being able to say everything you’ve ever said on your Twitter. Yes, even against other white people.

      You did it. Gold star. A for effort.

  132. WisCon SF Convention organizer and panelist Jaymee Goh referring to racially segregated room and dinner at WisCon she co-manages: “Come join us for delish Nepalese fudz and non-white company!”

    Then president of the SFWA and Hugo and Nebula Award-winning author John Scalzi: “If you followed who I blocked, you’d see a lot of spam and ranting from scared white men.”

    SFWA member and Nebula nominee Kate Elliott: “White male privilege doesn’t need to describe the world that caters to it” 

    Retweeted by WisCon SF Convention organizer, panelist, and co-manager of WisCon’s racially segregated “safer-space” and dinner K. Tempest Bradford: “white people #PSA: Your specific ancestors needn’t have been slave-owners or native-killers for you to benefit from white supremacy.”

    Blog post by Nebula and British SF nominee Jason Sanford: “Why Super Angry White Man is a pretty shitty superhero.”

    Hugo and Nebula Awards nominee and two-time John W. Campbell nominee Saladin Ahmed: “Just FYI, folks, most ‘Black’ movies –from Who’s Your Caddy to Akeelah and the Bee to Gimme The Loot– are written/directed by white men.” 

    SFWA member Jim Hines writing about what an SFWA member, former vice-president and multiple SFF award nominee and winner Mary Robinette Kowal did: “… stood up and asked everyone in the audience who was white to raise their hands.”  

  133. I saw this on twitter talking about the Hugo awards
    “@colorlessblue: @katsudonburi @eilatan …the right to not be discriminated against trumps the right to free speech.”

    I just don’t understand this thinking, maybe because I don’t trust who is to judge what is the “RIGHT” speech. I have also read where they would like to use the laws of in the UK on Hate Speech with the awards and Authors

    • All they’re really doing is simply trying to set up their own kind of discrimination.

      I suspect that if we were to set up a dummy Twitter account and send all these people tweets that laws should be passed to actively discriminate against white people, particularly white straight men, and watch how they agree.

      I hate to break it to those people, but is was the right to free speech that broke segregation. It was the right to free speech that ultimately lead to the end of slavery. It was the right to free speech which won the right to vote for ALL Americans.

      But hey, there’s stuff that trumps that. I bet some of the governors down my way had realized that about fifty years ago or so.

  134. “… the worldwide dominance of English as spoken in the US or in the UK, the vast reach of Hollywood movies and US/UK books like Twilight, Harry Potter or Fifty Shades of Grey, is another instance of cultural imperialism, recalling times when children were sent to English, American or French schools and made to feel ashamed of their own ancestors’ achievements.” – multiple award-winning SFF author Aliette de Bodard

    “the dominant (Western) culture… was utterly unaware that there was even such a notion as cultural differences” – Aliette de Bodard, unaware of the 127 year history of the American National Geographic Society

    Hugo and Nebula Awards nominee N.K. Jemisin: “… the bigotry in SFF does not merely passively reflect that of US society. It is an active, ongoing, threat. It has done, and is still doing, real harm.” 

    “There is a belief in egalitarianism. But it has mostly been used to support the usual suspects — the straight white men at the core of SFF — while marginalizing the usual targets — women, people of color, anyone the straight white men don’t like or want to objectify or want to own.” – N.K. Jemisin

    • Damn… You’re a more patient man than I am to collect this stuff. The little Ctrl H word flip thought experiemnt is starting to make my skin crawl.

      (My maternal Grandma’s family immigrated from Poland. That’s where I got the Byreika name from)

      • No kidding. I hope none of them ever run for office in a blue state. The thought of any of them actually having any power is making my stomach queasy.

        I was wondering about that! My wife is from Poland, came here about a year ago. With all the crap we’ve been seeing in the news here, I’m having a hard time convincing her that we’re not just a socialist playground like the EU. I have to keep reminding her that there’s a culture war going on and most of the media goes left more than a NASCAR race.

      • SFF has mainstreamed hate-speech to the point it is not only perfectly acceptable, but rewarded. Welcome to the latest edgy trendy Nuremberg rallies. It’s cool, man – hop on board! White straight men stink – in multiples of tens of millions – each with a human soul – theoretically.

  135. SFWA member Delilah Dawson: “Growing up in the South, I assume that most white people I meet, especially the Conservative-Christian-Republican types who people my family reunions, are racists.” 

    Stacy Whitman, editorial director of young adult SFF publisher: “White writers have started to examine their privilege…”

    Post titled “When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like ‘Avatar’?” at the SF webzine io9 which was named to the Top 30 science blogs by The Times, written by Knight Science Journalism Fellowship and research fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annalee Newitz: “…whites need to rethink their fantasies about race.”

    Hugo and Nebula nominated author Saladin Ahmed: “I know that the Clarke shortlist (British SF Award nominees) is all male. Looks like it’s all white, too? Does that just go without saying?”

    SFF author and SFWA member Sunny Moraine: “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.”

    SFF author Sophia McDougall on casting the new Dr. Who TV show: “…would honestly have thought it had reached the point where it was simply *embarrassing* to cast another white man.”

    WisCon SF Convention organizer and panelist Jaymee Goh: “Seems lately every week is white stupidity week. And they complain about a month in a year!”

    Retweeted by WisCon SF Convention organizer and panelist Jaymee Goh: “How much to [sic] white tears go for on the open market? I would likely think not much given the abundancy of them.”

    *

    Hugo-winning editor, SFF author, Tiptree Award Honor List, Analog Readers Poll Winner Ekaterina Sedia: “I think it’s the law of the internet that we can determine how racist something is by how many white people show up to defend it.”

    Response by SFF author/editor/publisher, SFWA member, Manchester Fiction Prize finalist, winner of the Carter V. Cooper/Exile Short Fiction Competition Silvia Moreno-Garcia: “CAN SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE WHITE PEOPLE?!!”

    • Hugo-winning editor, SFF author, Tiptree Award Honor List, Analog Readers Poll Winner Ekaterina Sedia: “I think it’s the law of the internet that we can determine how racist something is by how many white people show up to defend it.”

      The typical trap of the left. If you defend it, it’s proof you’re a racist. If you don’t defend it, it’s proof that the thing is racist, and you are by extension.

      Can’t they get that most of us just don’t give a damn what your skin tone is? We applaud competence and excellence, and deride the inept. We don’t really give a damn what the melanin content of your skin actually is.

      • The the fake feminist PC in SFF are experts at Orwellian statements that sink into a black hole of logic. I done with the quotes… for now. You get the idea. To me, it is little short of incredible that “artists” could write such things. And make no mistake: this thing about “white people” is accepted orthodoxy at the SFWA and Hugos.

        Here’s SFWA president Stephen Gould yesterday:

        “Ink-Stained Wretch ‏@StevenGould 21h

        “’Should white people write about people of color?’ http://www.malindalo.com/2014/04/should-white-people-write-about-people-of-color/ … by Melinda Lo. Yes, it’s complicated.”

      • Of course, but judging by the last name, I’m going to doubt she’s a white person. However, to play by the left’s rules, we’re not allowed to tell non-white people what they should write about, yet it’s fine for them to tell me what *I* should write.

        Part of me wants to rewrite the cast of the novel I’m working on to remove the Nigerian female pilot or the Asian mechanic and make them all white guys.

        Too bad I’m just too lazy to do it.

      • @Tom:
        The typical trap of the left. If you defend it, it’s proof you’re a racist. If you don’t defend it, it’s proof that the thing is racist, and you are by extension.
        </I

        Best admiral Ackbar voice:

        "It's a (kafka)Trap!!!!

      • #facepalm

        You just HAD to go there, didn’t you?

      • Yes, I did. Low hanging fruit and all that.

        Or, to put it differently:

        “I had the shot. There was no danger, so I took it.”
        :)

      • “You took it! And broke a major rule of engagement!”

        Love that movie!

      • Sortof do too – but I had been afflicted by it as a customer service rep at Circuit City so I easily OD.

        (imagine every tv in the store running top gun over and over again for hours on end……, day after day, working 30 hours a week….)

      • “Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.”

      • And against that torrent of filth from INSIDE SFF’s institutions the PC have who… Vox Day? If I accept that, that’s one person. Who else… Larry Correia and Sarah Hoyt? I will not accept that – show me the quotes. And who else: Orson Scott Card and Brandon Sanderson who oppose gay marriage on the same religious grounds the Muslims the WisCon SF convention defended by throwing Elizabeth Moon under a bus? Dave Truesdale?

        Show me the quotes. This is not a question of bigotry being only on one side, but the proportion of it. In my opinion, when it comes to institutions within SFF, the supremacist rhetoric of the so-called racist, homophobic, misogynist straight white males are outnumbered by PC supremacist racist, heterophobic, androphobes by an easy 30 or even 40 to 1.

      • And don’t forget how they stack the deck.

        Like I said earlier, if you argue against being called a racist, it’s proof you’re a racist. If you fail to argue against it, it’s proof you’re a racist.

        They tell white men to sit down and shut up when we try to be part of the conversation, and then complain about how racist we are because we won’t be part of the conversation. They tell cisgendered heterosexuals that they want to end the default, but rather than listen to other people who talk about how the approach was wrong, we get told to “piss off”, and then we’ll find that because we’re not actively engaged in discussions, we’ll be labeled as desiring to do nothing more than maintain our “power”.

        Folks, I’ve sold just over 40 books (but it’s only been out for four days). What “power” do I really have? I’m struggling to keep my family fed. If I had any power, I’d have used it by now. My family wouldn’t be suffering.

        But they’ll still use people like me as a scapegoat for whatever is wrong in their world. I’m just trying to figure out if I can find someone else I can blame for my lot in life. Oh yeah, it’s me and me alone. Maybe if they realized that it’s not all on folks like me, they’d move forward in life.

        As it is, they’re happier blaming everything on people who’ve never done a damn thing to them.

    • I’m going to put up a blog post about this first part of next week. I’ll link back to this post for the comments if anybody wants to see who actually said these things. Thank you for gathering them.

      • Many white people seem to forget the key distinction to the problem of “Dealing with people racist against you”. We can say “HAHAAHHAHAAHAAHAHA, we have all the fucking jobs and get paid way more than you all. All you can do it talk on the internet and complain about it while our entire society favors us unfairly.”.

      • So I have to take it on the chin from some racist as long as white people make 57 grand a year and black people 33 grand? What about Asians then? Is it in turn open season on Asians cuz they average 68 grand? The problem here is that we always seem to talk as if black folks and white folks are a single person. I am not involved in a tacit racial conspiracy despite Scalzi’s claims otherwise and I see no reason to behave as if I am not fully human or have different rights as a human until black income hits white income. Should I put my life on hold until Egyptians put men on the moon and women form female tank divisions? Exactly when does my life start and when did it end? I can’t lobby for equal treatment based on statistics that have no force of law behind them? Is this income disparity based on the same cultural value system that has black folks involved in rap to an amazing degree? Cultural value systems determine lots of bigger pictures – some good, some bad – some puts people on the moon – others not. The moon isn’t an unfulfilled unfair pie-chart, but the result of culture.

        You’re logic actually is slippery and somewhat snakeful.

  136. So the fascist leftists have now taken over sci fi fandom as well. I wonder what brilliant past libertarian authors like Heinlien, Pournell, and Orson Scott Card would think. They might want to read “Fallen Angels” a book both standing up for real science and technology, and a tribute to how great fandom used to be. They would find out how much their leftist hate and fascism have corrupted something that used to be great.

    • No, the fascist leftists *haven’t* managed to take over SF/F fandom, despite their best efforts. That’s what’s driving them so batshit crazy at the moment.

      More hippie tears, anyone?

    • Well, but who saw this all coming? When I’m a kid I got total strangers coming up to me and telling me to tuck my shirt in. Why? Some bizarre addiction to conformity. Same with haircuts. Adults had this thing about “a good Roman haircut.” Why? Usually the answer was “cuz I said so,” or the classic “‘shut up,’ he explained.” Pushback happened. It’s only natural kids would grow their hair long. Had adults told them to grow their hair long they would’ve sported crewcuts. It was a contrarian culture.

      Fast-forwarding to 2014 and the SFF community, there is little doubt it is the most intellectually corrupt in it’s 100 year history. It is a completely Orwellian scenario where Burroughs to Heinlein are written off as ignorant racist sexists but with absolutely no proof those folks were male or white supremacists. Burroughs clearly had characters defined by what they did, not their alien-ness. After all, we’re cheering on a 15 ft. tall green monster with four arms to kill people just like humans. And I wouldn’t mess with a Burroughs women; they weren’t faint-hearted secretaries, unless you think of faint-hearted secretaries as sticking a dagger in your eye.

      Heinlein went to bat with his editors to keep in gender-free aliens and ethnic characters and he wasn’t taking “no” for an answer. That is documented – in the ’50s. Yet somehow he’s a racist sexist pig, even though the 6 times the N-word is used in Farnham’s Freehold it is clearly demonstrated the speaker is a jerk. Heinlein wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote.

      On the other hand, the rhetoric from today’s PC SFF community is awash in supremacist, racist rhetoric that would make a Klansman alternately blush and be proud. To say SFF of today is ruled by the orthodoxy of a bunch of confused retards is an understatement.

      TRIGGER WARNING for “retards” for all you retards out there.

      I mean, on Twitter yesterday, a woman who has laughed at the idea of reading literature by straight white males went after a guy cuz using the word “crazy” – in ANY context – hurt people. When you’re that nuts – so unaware of your own lack of fair play – and considered a wise, just, and noble hero, that is a literary movement in deep, deep, trouble.

      • Hear hear! (or should that be “Harrumph! Harrumph!” “I didn’t hear a ‘Harrumph’ out of you! ‘Harrumph’ for the governor!”?)

      • Oh, Burroughs was a racist, well enough, for at least some part of his life. However, the past is a foreign country and the world had just discovered genetics and eugenics and Burroughs was, actually, right on board with the *scientific consensus* concerning evolution. His shipwrecked white women and men were genetically more intelligent and culturally refined, just automatically nicer and better people because they were more highly evolved than the brutish cavemen and women on the island… etc., Tarzan was the ultimate example of nature over nurture because he was born a white baby boy to noble parents and no amount of brutish upbringing could wipe away his inherent, gene derived, nobility.

        But It’s really not right to hate on Burroughs. It was the scientific consensus of the time. All “right thinking” progressives believed that morality was genetic and that humans were evolving to a higher form. Criminal tendencies were directly from your parents. Onward and upward to a better day, a Brave New World and breeding the master race… even if Americans and Brits were rather nicer about the details than some. In relation to his times Burroughs *may have* been a revolutionary for equality, but his *times* were really that bad among the intellectuals and learned.

        What any of this isn’t, is a reason to ban him or his work or retroactively decide he ought to have had a 2014 sensibility instead of a 1914 sensibility. Rather than wiped from History, the eugenic passages in his various adventures ought to be viewed as curiosities and anachronisms that tell us something important about the past.

      • I have no idea what you’re talking about Synova. The Tarzan novels consistently show an attitude where Europe and America are considered debased, decadent, and spiritually and morally empty compared to Africa, as often as not in a satirical manner. The entire point of the Tarzan series is an escape from the artificial constraints imposed by civilization. However it is also obviously a fantasy – fiction, entertainment. Tarzan has a deep distrust of the West, and visitors from the West who are decent and who meet Tarzan are considered an exception to the rule. When Tarzan meets greedy idiot Americans or Europeans it confirms his own thoughts. That’s in the novels for anyone to read.

        Burroughs’ heroes are no more genetically refined than anyone else’s heroes. Who would follow a hero who’s a moron and had no special qualities? Heroes by definition have some special quality. That is not the same thing as racial supremacy because a given hero is white, or Turkish for that matter.

        As for Tarzan’s upbringing: again, it’s a story. Had it been real any boy of any color surviving being raised by apes likely would be a feral retard. One can’t really sell that story, and that realization of a paying market is not the same thing as embracing the inherent nobility of “whiteness.” Burroughs was looking to make some money, not pushing a racial agenda. Sinbad went to foreign lands; was Sinbad an idealization of an Arab or a hero? What about Ulysses? Heroes go to strange lands – always have – that’s not Critical Race Theory.

        I am wary of anyone who talks about “times” as if it’s a brush smeared over an entire entity. At the same time black folks in the deep south 120 years ago were having problems, the state of Minnesota had anti-Jim Crow laws that were constantly strengthened through to 1947, when the trend that would become the landmark series of cases known as Brown vs. Board of Education would change everything. So there are “times” and there are “times.” And there is Burroughs’ “Apache Devil” to consider. The bad guys are whites. Are there “eugenics passages” in that?

        Given the quotes I’ve laid out here from the PC, it’s pretty clear Burroughs was more advanced racially than they are, so I see no need to apply disclaimers to him, his times, or anything else. Jim Crow didn’t make all whites racists any more than Prohibition made all Americans anti-alcohol. When Burrough wrote his first novel, 90% of blacks lived in the deep South. What Jim Crow did do was institutionally discriminate against blacks and favor whites. In case anyone has noticed, SOME whites instituted Jim Crow and others de-instituted it, just as SOME whites fought on one side of the Civil War and SOME whites the other. There is no need to pretend all whites were ever on the same page when it came to blithely accepting racism. That is a fantasy anti-white racists love to push not born out by facts and history. Were it true, we’d have Jim Crow today and there never would’ve been a Civil War or the Northwest Ordinance.

        It’s also pretty clear to me that if anyone should be banned for racial bigotry, it wouldn’t be Burroughs but a dozen 2013/4 Hugo nominees. If Burroughs was a racist, I say “compared to who?” N.K. Jemisin? Aliette de Bodard? Saladin Ahmed? Kate Elliott? Before you can have such a conversation one must establish a neutral principled definition of what a racial bigot is, not simply say it’s someone else regardless of the rhetoric.

      • I recently read a few of Henry Rider Haggard’s Allan Quartermain series. He didn’t appear racist, but seemed to fully embrace how British society made its people more educated and materially blessed, if far less adventurous than African societies of the time. Really, if there were to be a comparison, the Quartermain books made Africa out to be the Wild West to Britain. Great stuff.

    • Do these fascist leftists happen to be Marxists and Socialists as well? I mean this bullshit is basically interchangeable. I am surprised you didn’t reference Hitler, I mean you might as well make it all up if you are going to allude to it.

      • I’ll refer you to “Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives” by the British historian (and socialist) Alan Bullock. Quoting the Wikipedia blurb, “It analyses inner doctrine that made victory and unparalleled terror possible.” Reading through that long, detailed analysis is a very difficult slog, but worth it.

        The National Socialist German Workers Party was/is a radical variant of socialism, as is Communism. In fact, the party platform for the NAZis could have been written by today’s Democrats (with appropriate substitution of proper nouns).

      • Yep, the Nazis were socialists. You can go through the party platform they proudly ran on and got elected on, in the land that was the birthplace of socialism, and they they implemented socialist policies. I went through it in detail here: http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/05/09/hate-mail-response-to-my-hate-mail-and-i-godwin-the-hell-out-of-this-post/

        But Stupid Snake won’t get it anyway. He’ll just come back at a different angle and fling more poo.

      • I once read that the basic difference between Socialism and Communism is:
        Socialism: The state (read: the party heads) owns everything.
        Communism: The people (read: the party heads) own everything.

      • Well, socialism and communism just haven’t been tried properly, you see. They were distorted by those right-wing Nazis and Stalinists in their grab for power, which is what all right-wingers want. True socialism and communism wouldn’t have those problems.

      • BTW, Mr. Correia, I made a disparaging comment about the dearth of decent SciFi on the shelves of the local B&N that may have nicked you as friendly fire. Truth to tell, I’ve had very little time for fiction lately and so have stuck with the tried and true (Weber and Butcher). I intend to remedy that and start on MHN this weekend.

        Anyone the Left hates as much as you has got to be writing stuff that’s worth my time.

      • Read “Icebreaker” and “The Chief Culprit”, by Viktor Suvorov (who, as an ex-GRU colonel, might just know a thing or two about socialism and about Nazis) . Not only was there actually little practical difference between the National Socialist German Worker’s Party and the Soviet of Socialists, but the red ones were pretty much responsible for the feldgrau ones.

  137. Taking a quiz on Buzzfeed, one of the questions was “which animal best represents you?”

    I clicked the manatee. After all, Wendell is a Manatee, and he’s one of us, so I guess they represent me just fine :D

  138. You made fake people!!! Ooooooo!

    I want the recipe!

    Best of luck on the Hugos.

  139. The only thing I have to say about this kerfuffle is that I’m a fast reader. All this time spent on this issue instead of another novel is depriving me of reading another enjoyable piece of Correia fiction. Wrap it up and get another book out. *heh* I can hardly wait to part with a few more shekels for another.

    But seriously, apart from that lil problem, it is nice to see folks standing up to the Wee Wussy Brigade. Every time it happens, a Founder sheds a tear of joy.

  140. Reblogged this on The Raptor's Claw and commented:
    Well. This is not unexpected…

  141. It is funny reading the SJW’s current thoughts in light of the messages the American Left has tried to convey throughout the decades:
    -40’s: Classism is bad, even the most humble can teach us things

    -50’s: Witch hunts are bad, we shouldn’t destroy and slander others by trying to root out possible threats

    -early 60’s: Racism is bad, people should be judged by who they are, not by skin colour

    -late 60’s: Conformity is like, bad, man, we should all, like totally be true to ourselves…wow.

    -70’s: Government abuse of power is really bad, Nixon should be imprisoned for domestic spying and lying.
    (ect, ect)

    And now, dear SJW Lefties, look where you stand. Classist? Yep, only people with apporved degrees are ‘real writers’. Witch Hunts? Oh, yeah. Racisim? Heck yeah, because saying ‘all white people are racist’ isn’t racist… or something. Conformity? Toe the party line or be tossed out. Gvt Abuse of Power? Like!
    In short, the SJW’s have become the exaggerated image of the very thing they fight against. They are the new Mcarthies, Hoovers and Fawells of this age.

    • Lol, damnit the witchhunts seem to suck a lot of balls if the missed Vox and Larry. All our plans for naught.

      • 51 posts in a week and I still can’t understand what Stupid Snake is saying half the time.

      • I believe what boring banned boi is trying to say is “our hate is alright because we haven’t had a chance to start up some gulags… yet.”

  142. Well, if anything ever convinced me not to make creative writing my career, it’s this essay. If you, a self-proclaimed right-winger, get this kind of abuse, the kind of “militant moderate” I sometimes joke I am (one who has no trouble saying he thinks economic left and right and social authoritarian and libertarian – cf. the Political Compass UK online – are just four different axes of More or Less Crazy) would get hit by flak from all directions at once.

    Thankfully I don’t have to make my fiction my living. I can do it for a tiny but grateful group of fans and my own edification while making my real living as a biblical apologist and specialist in the biblical “reading tradition”. That way if I get persecuted, at least I know I get persecuted for righteousness’ sake.

    Just remember, every quadrant of the Political Compass has had its turn in history at going radical and persecuting those who don’t agree with its views. The apostle Paul condemned “party spirit” as a salvation-breaker for a reason. That kind of perversion of logical systems thinking enables one to see the faults of everyone but himself.

    • What you just said about “SJW Lefties” becoming what they fight against illustrates my last point. It’s not a leftist problem, it’s a human problem.

      • Sorry, I mean Joe, one of your respondents. :)

      • If you look at history, purges always end with some of the purgers getting purged. :)

      • Also make career and life decisions base on bull shit internet drama about an award no one really gives a shit about rather than what is best for you. Larry has made all his beliefs a part of his reputation and campaign. As long as you are good at writing you will be successful, I am evidence. Even though I think Larry is politically retarded I enjoy his books.

      • Alas, poor Stupid Snake. After posting nearly a hundred inane, ignorant, drunken comments in a single week, he finally committed the cardinal sin of boring me and has been banned. I just looked. In all the years I’ve had this blog I’ve only banned 11 IPs, and six of those are the same guy (Plow Share), three are Clamps/Yama/Andrew Marston, so getting banned from here is really saying something.

      • The only reason I didn’t look at him as pinata practice is mostly because his comments were so inane. If he really does work at Monsanto, that company is completely and totally boned.

        But, of course, he’s so much more intelligent than me because some college told him what to think while I’ve figured all of that out on my own.

      • I know this sounds kinda effed up, but dammit… he made me write a 1200 word reply to his stupidity… seems kinda fruitless now :(

        I guess the joy was in the journey, not in imagining him furiously trying to scribble down numbers to debunk math and then finally shrugging and saying, “Wrong, cause number don’t count!”

        Sorry, it was my first time combating trollishness with numbers and I kinda had a “happily ever after” montage in my head.

        I guess i’ll go home now, and listen to super sad french opera, and eat cheese and wine while mulling over love lost…

        Or i may make another meatloaf, not sure which yet :)

  143. Wow. This article is gonna leave a lot of marks…

    Too much to comment on, except one point; to the lady upstream who admired “unsafe” writers. Running through traffic is unsafe; it’s also pretty stupid. Me, I prefer people who write good stories.

  144. Here’s a question- is it too late to purchase a supporting membership in order to vote for the Hugo nominees already selected? Or has that ship sailed? I’m asking because after I explained the Orwellian brouhaha to a friend of mine and showed her this post, she wanted to get in on the hot manatee + puppy love action.

    • Book: No, it is not too late. Unlike the nominating phase, where you need to be a member of one of the three Worldcons eligible to nominate by the end of January of the year in which the awards happen, you can join the one Worldcon whose members can vote on the Hugo Awards for that year at any time before the close of voting and still be able to vote for that year’s Awards. (Remember, voting closes a few weeks pre-convention. There is no voting at the convention.)

      I’m sure that Loncon 3 will be happy to take your money. I’ve pointed out that the only real winner of the ideologues — both here and on the other end of the political horseshoe — is Loncon 3, who gets your money, which helps put on their Worldcon.

      — Kevin Standlee, speaking for himself and not for any Worldcon, for WSFS, or any other organization

      • Hi Kevin! Thank you for the info, it’s much appreciated. I take it that since you work for the WorldCon, you don’t mind receiving our money for the purpose of voting for our favorite book(s)?

        BTW, I think you’ll note that there are several people of differing ideologies commenting here who also happen to be a part of the the Grimnoire chronicles fan base.

        My friend is a registered democrat. But she’s also a fan of Mr. Correia’s (as well as the WOT series- she still hasn’t decided who to vote for. I’m trying very hard to remain impartial with her. ;) )

        In her case, she feels that the online attacks against Mr. Coreia and other people who have been forced to sit-down and shut-up has gone too far. I called it Orwellian- she disagrees since it’s not government censorship. She called it infantile thought shaming and mob enforced ignorance (again, her words).

        As for me, I’m disappointed that more left-wing folks aren’t troubled by this. That alone is tribalism at its worst. All peoples should be very troubled by an organization who tried these tactics against another group for the crime of not thinking “correctly.” Maybe I was naive, but I honestly expected better.

      • I take it that since you work for the WorldCon, you don’t mind receiving our money for the purpose of voting for our favorite book(s)?

        I want to make a few things completely clear:

        1. If by “work for the Worldcon,” you mean “are an employee,” not only am I not one, but nobody. Worldcons don’t have employees. Also, while Worldcon is an ongoing entity, each individual Worldcon is a completely legally independent entity. The legal entity running the 2014 Worldcon in London is not the legal entity running the 2015 Worldcon in Spokane.

        2. If you mean “are one of the organizers of the 2014 Worldcon,” the answer is still “no.” I am an attending member of Loncon 3, the 2014 Worldcon. I am not a member of the convention’s organizing committee or staff. I may end up volunteering for the convention in some way. Nothing I write here should be taken to be the official opinion of Loncon 3, the 2014 World Science Fiction Convention. I do not speak for Loncon 3.

        3. If you mean “are an employee of the World Science Fiction Society,” the answer continues to be “no.” WSFS is an unincorporated literary society. It’s not an incorporated legal entity. It doesn’t actually run Worldcons. The member of WSFS grant the right to hold a Worldcon to other groups (see above) through an open, transparent process about which I can elaborate if you want. However, I am the current Chairman of the only ongoing WSFS entity, that being the WSFS Mark Protection Committee, a group established for the purpose of managing the service marks of WSFS such as “Worldcon” and “Hugo Award.” (You cannot go set up your own “Hugo Awards,” for SF/F, for example; WSFS owns them and manages them on behalf of the members of Worldcon.) I’m not paid for this work. (In my Day Jobbe, I’m a computer programmer for a logistics-management company.) And furthermore, in this discussion, I do not speak officially for WSFS, the WSFS MPC, or anyone but myself.

        I’m sorry to go on and on about this, but I believe there are a lot of people here who have only a vague idea of how Worldcon and WSFS works, and furthermore, the actual organization of Worldcon and WSFS is so counter-intuitive to most people — who tend to assume that there is a Big Corporation Running Things — that I feel the need to emphasize that Worldcon is a completely volunteer-run organization operated by people who spend considerable amounts of their own time and money doing it, not because a Big Corporation pays them Big Bucks. (Frankly, you couldn’t afford my rates.)

        I have chaired a Worldcon (2002), and have been the presiding officer of the WSFS Business Meeting many times (I’ve lost track, but I once worked out that I’ve chaired it in more countries than any other person.) I’m a very active participant in the governance of WSFS. I will even help people craft proposals to change the rules in the proper form even though I intend to oppose such proposals. (That’s because I want the debate to be substantive discussion of the proposal instead of time-wasting technical arguments over unclear proposals.) I am a firm believer in the members of WSFS being able to govern themselves, but that means that they have to follow rules of debate and decorum, and that means everyone regardless of their substantive opinions.

      • Kevin,

        Thank you for the explanation. Reading through the comments thread, I’d formed the impression that two (or possibly more) acronyms were being conflated, but lacking any knowledge of the relationship between the SFWA and the WSFS, it was impossible to be sure. Your clarification here and upthread has been immensely helpful in that regard.

        Also, kudos on remaining calm, clear, and civil, characteristics which can sometimes run in short supply on the net. And let me clarify that I’m not accusing anybody else of a lack thereof, just saying that seeing points made reasonably in an environment that is perhaps a smidgen ‘skeptical’ ;> of them is quite refreshing. Nice to see someone disagree without being a troll about it.

      • Thank you, although I’m not unbiased, and I get really passionate about people attacking WSFS when it actually has a level of transparency of process far beyond most awards and organizations. Note that being easy isn’t the same as being transparent; some people may confuse the two. My annoyance with people who I perceive to be attacking the legitimacy of the organization can get me to get a bit riled up to say the least.

        Speaking of confusion, here for the benefit of anyone else who might have survived this long is a disambiguation of the two organizations you mention:

        SFWA: The Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America. A non-profit corporation established as a professional organization for SF&F writers. You need to qualify (one novel sale or (I think) three short fiction sales, all of which must be at professional rates), plus pay membership dues. SFWA members vote on the Nebula Awards, which are presented annually at the Nebula Awards Banquet. (This year’s will be in San Jose in a few weeks.)

        WSFS: The World Science Fiction Society. An unincorporated literary society that sanctions the annual World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon). Unlike SFWA, membership to WSFS is open to anyone who pays the membership dues. You become a member of WSFS by paying at least the cost of a Supporting membership in the current Worldcon, which gives you all of the rights of membership except the right to actually attend the Worldcon; for that you need to pay for an Attending membership. (In effect, the lower-priced membership is your actual membership dues to WSFS, and the difference between that an an attending membership is the “convention supplement,” as with many other organizations whose conventions are limited to members but who charge a supplement on top of the organization’s own membership dues to attend.) WSFS members nominate and vote on the Hugo Awards, which are presented at the Hugo Awards Ceremony held at each Worldcon.

        Membership in the two organizations is independent of each other. One need not be a SFWA member to join WSFS, nor be a WSFS member to join SFWA. Memberships are not exclusive. Many SFWA members are also WSFS members, and vice versa. SFWA also often hosts a suite at Worldcons, but that doesn’t mean that Worldcons endorse SFWA any more than Worldcons might endorse any other group that hosts a party at their convention. (Considering that some of the groups hosting hospitality suites at Worldcons are mutually antagonistic to each other, it’s wouldn’t really be possible for the hosting Worldcon to “endorse” them all.)

        I hope this clears things up. I’ve been attending Worldcons since 1984 including every single one since 1989 including those in Australia, Europe, and Japan, and they really are an important part of my life. That avatar is me holding a Hugo Award trophy just before the 2002 Hugo Awards ceremony in San Jose at the Worldcon I co-chaired.

      • Kevin, that does clear some things up. Thank you for the explanation. :)

        I’m actually a little curious about the convention organizers now- on a personal level. You might say my family is “in the business” of con organization. You’ve been with them for quite some time! Do you enjoy it? This year’s kurfluffle aside, of course. ;)

      • I’m actually a little curious about the convention organizers now- on a personal level. You might say my family is “in the business” of con organization. You’ve been with them for quite some time! Do you enjoy it?

        I guess I must, or else I’m one heck of a masochist. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have devoted about a decade of my life and spent >$50,000 of my own money bidding for and promoting a Worldcon. (The one I co-chaired in San Jose in 2002.) And one of the ways to enrage me is to accuse me of “raking it in under the table,” an accusation made by people who can’t imagine that anyone would ever do anything unless they were Getting Paid and that naturally everyone running Worldcons is on the take because how could it possibly cost so much to run the convention otherwise. (I go into serious attack dog mode when people do that.)

        My first SF convention was the 1984 Anaheim Worldcon. (For reference, I was born in 1965.) I took an all-night bus ride from the small town north of Sacramento where I lived down to Anaheim (roughly like riding the bus from, say, Charlotte NC to New York City; California is _big_) to attend the Worldcon, primarily because of the large _Elfquest_ shindig going on there. I didn’t know anyone, but simply standing in like to buy my membership, I found that the person standing next to me and I were mutual friends of the owner of the local comic book store where I hung out (and of which later I was assistant manager). I’d never attended an SF convention before and there were more people at the Anaheim Worldcon than any city or town in which I’d ever lived, all of whom shared my love of SF & F. I was enthralled. I had Found My People. I went to panels. I bought Too Much Stuff in the Dealers’ Room. I got to meet my idols. I watched the first-ever back-to-back-to-back screening of the _Star Wars_ films. I want to the Masquerade. I attended the Hugo Awards Ceremony. And I went to the WSFS Business Meeting (where my personal contribution was moving the adjournment of the first day’s meeting.)

        I’ve spent the rest of my life paying that favor forward so that others can also be part of that experience. You couldn’t pay me to do this, primarily because you couldn’t afford the rates you’d have to pay.

        And I think it’s because of my love of the community that I get so angry at people who casually assume that of course it’s corrupt because of course anyone would naturally take anything they can and nobody ever does anything for the love of doing it, and so forth. Anyone who thinks that alternatively makes me angry for their accusations and sad for the terrible emptiness of their souls if they really believe that nobody could ever be a true amateur, in the sense of “doing something for the love of it.”

      • That’s awesome. Thanks for the info, and all your hard work over the years.
        Wow, though… I remember reading ancient copies of Elf Quest when I was in elementary school! Where’s my cane and rocking chair?

      • “Thank you, although I’m not unbiased, and I get really passionate about people attacking WSFS when it actually has a level of transparency of process far beyond most awards and organizations. ”

        Yes, a bit of asperity did peep through a time or two. ;) Still, you make good points and you make them well.

        “My first SF convention was the 1984 Anaheim Worldcon. (For reference, I was born in 1965.) ”

        lol! Small world. I was born in ’66 (6/66, make of that what you will), and I went to that one, too. Happily, I lived rather closer. Unhappily, I made the mistake of eating at some Lebanese hole-in-the-wall the night before, so I was sick as a dog all through Saturday. I still went, because I was taking some out-of-town friends, but it was more grueling than fun.

        On a side note, since you seem to be pretty tuned in, any word when the reader/voter packets will be coming out? If I’m going to slog through 14 WoT books, I need to get started.

      • I have no more inside information on this year’s Hugo Voter Packet. (A lot of people expect me to know more than I do because of my involvement administering TheHugoAwards.org; however, the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee on which I sit does not administer the Hugo Awards; that’s done by the individual Worldcon committees.)

        Based on past experience, I would expect it to take at least a couple more weeks, and furthermore, I expect the content in it to change over time, as there will be works added to it after it originally comes out as rights-holders who initially did not release their work or did not reply ask to become part of the process.

    • “Hot Manatee and Puppy Love Action”
      New MHI riot-inciting T-shirt? Ha ha ha.

      • I might could come up with a design for that. //she says in a thick southern drawl//

  145. To put it this way, I still read authors like Orson Scott Card, even though his views on gay marriage, etc aren’t the same as my own. I enjoy his work. His work is entertaining.

    I guess I’m a terrible liberal by their definition (and yes, I am a liberal, oh the horrors). Oh, did I mention that I love guns, fully believe the 2nd Amendment should be expanded, and that many current gun laws are absolutely illegal under the Constitution? OH THE SHOCK!

    I’ve enjoyed the entire gamut from Heinlein to Rand, Sanderson, and others, and yet I feel no desire to sit around wasting my time bashing an author over their political or religious beliefs (even though it’s difficult not to Rand bash now and then just because she was a first class hypocrite). Oh no, I read Mein Kampf and Slaughterhouse-Five, whatever shall I do? Pray to the Goddesses of Social Justice to forgive me for my sins as an evil male American of Native descent?

    Just to take a recent event into note: Look at what they did to the (now former) CEO of the Mozilla Foundation. He supported Prop 8 in California as a private citizen (and more than likely based upon his personal religious beliefs), and got essentially hounded out of his position by the Social Marxists (and yes, they are Social Marxists, they don’t want actual Justice for anything). Never-you-mind that the man is a genius and created Javascript, let alone founded Mozilla, and had the technical qualifications to run that Foundation as the CEO. He had to be pushed out because he didn’t conform to their narrative, didn’t bow and scrape enough, didn’t apologize profusely.

    In conclusion, I will continue to read who I like, when I like, without having that choice removed from me by those seeking to force lowest-common-denominator style “equality” on everyone else over meritocracy..

    • Well said, sir! //claps//

    • “I am a liberal”–Ah, but the necessary distinction is that, given the content of your character as revealed in the content of your comment, you are not a typical, contemporary FAUX liberal but a GENUINE liberal. The two classes never overlap, in my experience. Genuine liberals seem to be a vanishing breed in our society, or maybe it’s just because the fake ones have the pulpit and shout so very loudly. (Frankly, my own views would be considered liberal by John Stuart Mill’s standards and conservative by Burke’s standards. *shrugs* I am sooooo confused. *heh*)

  146. […] what happened to cause all this, well I’ll let Mr.Correia explain his side of the story. It’s an interesting post and explains that side, which I completely agree with. I really […]

  147. Instalanche. Now I am a fan. Just bought your first book in Kindle format. Followed you on this blog and on Twitter.

  148. […] This is interesting:  An Explanation About the Hugo Awards Controversy […]

  149. What’s just STARTING to piss me off, is lefty fans have started a new “reasonable” attack. They claim Larry’s exposition above is “misleading, at best”, of course, giving no details on what they thought was misleading. A variant of Internet Arguing Checklist item 2, without the need to give any specifics, yet claim to be the calm, rational ones.

    Because we sound Angry or something. . .

    • 1: Skim until Offended
      2: Disqualify that Opinion
      3: Attack, Attack, Attack
      4: Disregard Inconvenient facts
      5: Make Shit Up
      6: Resort to Moral Equivalency
      7: Concern Trolling
      8: When all else fails, Racism!

      It’s not just 2, but 5 and 7 as well.

  150. Funny thing is that I knew of you before I bought a single book. I once purchased a hard-chromed STI TargetMaster in 9×19 on one of the THR group buys. Then I heard about MHI and started reading. The first book was good (great) enough for me to read the others.

    So I have done business with you and read your books, and someone has the nerve to tell me you are a bad person with no talent for writing. Thus, not deserving of a vote. I guess I will have to agree to disagree with them.

  151. You did exactly the appropriate thing – when Room 101 demands that you shut up, get louder. They get off on feeling powerful and believing their little tin god routine is butch and intimidating – bust that bubble. Buying one of your books, just cuz’. Well played.

  152. Has anyone watched the actual recording of the nominations from Worldcon. Heck even Larry got a golf clap from someone in the back of the room.
    But when Vox was announced hehehe WHAT!!!

  153. Have looked around and while there are plenty of blogs that accuse you of many things from ballot stuffing to being the mentor of Jim Jones. I have yet to find a blog that gives you any credit for helping to increase this years voting turn out by 43%. Did find a few that credited it to WoT nomination. Which I am sure helped the numbers.

  154. I am afraid that your conviction that it is all down to left/right wing politics is probably reading too much into this. Sadly there are idiots in all walks of society and they find excuses to highlight and criticise people for. Whilst some may be politically motivated I doubt it is to the extent that you feel here. I feel as if you are trying to turn it in to a political issue.

    I do not condone any such activity by the way, and feel that this sort of activity is encouraged by internet anonymity and demonstrative of cowardly bullying tactics. I totally agree that the judgment should be based upon the books itself.

  155. I had a liberal comment at my blog over the course of about seven years. One of my other readers created a list of his “12 Standard Responses”:

    #1 The “I can’t hear you” response. He behaves as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that he never read it. This seems to be his favorite.

    #2 The “What’s the point” response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won’t be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.

    #3 The “I’m not alone” response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.

    #4 The “How ’bout that anthrax, eh?” response. He simply tries to change the subject. This is also known as the “Hey, look! A pony!” response.

    #5 The “I’m drowning in stupidity” response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, “I answered your question.”

    #6 The “How ’bout a little fire, Scarecrow?” response. He deliberately misses the point, laying on one straw man after another.

    #7 The “Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ camera?” response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he’s already jumped to.

    #8 The “Humpty Dumpty” response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the “We don’t need no stinking dictionary!” response.

    #9 The “Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!” response. He simply asserts that the other side is what he doesn’t like his side being accused of. As with #2, one often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.

    #10 The “Brave Sir Robin” response. When the monsters get too close, he disappears for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn’t see the monsters.

    #11 The “You’re Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With” response. Found for the first time in this thread from December ’09

    #12 The “I’m a deliberate fuckwit!” response. When he discovers, yet again, that he cannot counter his opponent’s argument, he intentionally mischaracterizes his opponent’s argument, reasoning, meaning, and even the plain language of his statements, and then argues against his own mischaracterization as if it shows his opponent to be wrong. He does not care that this shows him to be fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to understand what his opponent actually wrote, but it gives him yet another opportunity to avoid admitting that he is wrong and/or that his opponent is correct. While this response often embodies one or more of his other Standard Responses, overall it is a distinct form that is easily recognized.

    This is what they as a group do when playing in OTHER people’s sandboxes.

  156. Here is an idea for Sad Puppies 3:

    Next year, you should post that you are nominating one of these inclusive, enlightened bloggers for best fan writer. You know, one of those gentle folks who were so quick to smear Brad Torgensen and Toni.

    Just to watch the target squirm and insist that they really are the right kind of racist / sexist, and to see their pack mates turn on them for the idealogical weakness that the International Lord of Hate was able to discern and endorse.

    • Hell, at this point I could probably blackmail popular liberal authors. “Give me ten thousand dollars or I will say that I really love your work.” :)

      • I’d almost recommend giving it a try, just for hysterics. :)

      • If it’s a $10K price tag to not ppraise some leftie author’s work, , what would the tag be for not giving them a big ol’ hug in front of a con audience?
        Larry, you may be the first man in history to turn the denial of mild public affection into a moneymaking scheme…

      • But Larry, they don’t have that kind of money. We all know that good little libs live in tents, wear hair shirts and give all their money to global warming studies and LGBT Safety Rooms. ;)

  157. “I’m not claiming that I’m apolitical or objective. I’m not. I have my own opinions and biases. So do you. So do they. So does everyone. Claiming otherwise is merely pretending that you are the Standard Human Being and that everyone but you is a deviation from that Standard.” – Kevin Standlee

    Mr. Standlee, I don’t disagree with that but to me that is not the issue here, no more so than a baseball umpire lays claim to such a status.

    For me the issue lies in the ability of a community like SFF to recognize where controversy lies and address it in a fair and equable manner. It’s obvious the heart of this issue lies within claims of sexual and racial identity advocacy and identity-shunning. Both the Jonathan Ross episode and the current one revolve around false binaries which claim and withhold morality: men vs. women, gay vs. straight, white vs. non-white. It is time for it to stop.

    It seems to me a 21st century literary community can come together and provide input on what constitutes a genderphobe, or gender-hater, “sexist,” “bigot,” “racist,” and “hate-speech” that favors no sex, sexual expression, or ethnicity.

    That doesn’t seem like a lot to ask, and multiple inputs on such matters isn’t one person claiming the status of “Standard Human Being.” It’s a simple matter of the Hugos, SFWA, and webzines adopting a definition of what comprises bigotry, asserting it is not “politics,” and voluntarily forbidding themselves from providing a platform for anyone who indulges in such rhetoric. If this can be done with sexual harassment, and forbidding obvious ethnic and gender slurs it can be done for hate-speech. It remains only to understand a slur has no ethnic or sexual boundaries that allows one side a free-fire zone and the other nothing.

    Right now it is obvious that such definitions are based on one’s race, sex, and sexual expression, and not neutral principle. That is not how things should work; it is certainly not the way law works. The quotes I listed above could’ve come from a Nuremberg rally in the 1930s, and yet the source of those quotes claim the status of “anti-bigots,” “anti-racists,” and “anti-sexists.” Until this is dealt with, expect two sides to talk past each other who don’t speak the same language, or use the same laws and principles.

    For a community supposedly so interested in “examining” things, there is little interest in examining what an ethnic or sexual demonization theory is or tracking such theories back to their sources. If one can address what claims of conspiracy by Jews and criminality against blacks are and who is spreading such filth, there is no reason to not do the same thing with “white privilege,” and “rape culture,” and look at who it is most invested in spreading that filth.

    It is not enough to tell people to “put away their oppression fantasies,” but come together as a community and establish the difference between politics and raw hatred. It is one thing to address bigotry, it is another to use it as camouflage to indulge in it. There is nothing political about hating blacks or whites. One need only determine when one is talking about oppression or indulging in it. Hint: 10 white people in a room is not a Klan rally, nor 10 men a “patriarchy,” nor “Treasure Island” or John Carter erasing women any more than a woman’s clothing boutique erases men.

    There is not a thing in the world stopping SFF’s institutions from addressing this other than the fact the favorite toy, sad obsession and whipping boy of SFF’s social justice warriors would be taken away from them.

    “I, of course, am an Anglophone American White Well Educated Male, and am perfectly aware that I’m playing the game on the easiest difficulty setting. It’s easy for me to say, ‘Would everyone please play by the same rules’ when many people think the ‘same rules”‘ have been rigged against them all along.” – Kevin Standlee

    It’s 2014, and this isn’t British East India Company Regency Calcutta.

    “The right-wingers are just as bad as the ultra-liberals here.” – Kevin Standlee

    The quotes one can pluck from SFF’s institutions don’t bear that out or anything close to that. I invite you to prove me wrong by listing quotes from Twitter feeds and blogs by webzine editors, the presidents of SFF literary organizations, and Nebula and Hugo nominees that weekly demonize non-whites, gays, and women together with the clever demonization theories like “white privilege” and “rape culture” that go along with them.

    After that, please list all quotes that go “Yaaay! Eurofuturism,” call for all-male Kickstarter SFF anthologies, have writers workshops for whites-only, “safer-spaces” for whites-only, white SFF symposiums, congratulate a bloc of nominees for being majority white or male, recommend literature because it is by whites or males, assemble lists of writers and editors that are whites, refer to pie-charts lamenting too many women and PoC, tell non-whites how to write white characters, refer to the Society for White Science Fiction, call for an SFF literary award for whites, straights, or men, etc.

    You and a team of researchers working ’round the clock would fail as does your claim of both sides being at fault.

    When people are high-fiving each other cuz the Campbells are “at least 80% non-white-males,” that should be a wake-up call that the KKK has a variety of looks.

    I am not suggesting “enforcing” anything – merely a statement of purpose and philosophy that double standards are the essence of bigotry and discrimination. Institutions lead, and young people follow. If you provide a platform for unbridled hatred and call it “justice,” that is what you will end up with. That is what we have now. The Hugos does not exist in isolation.

    Anyone can say “both sides.” That is the essence of criminal court cases. One must provide evidence and make a case, otherwise all criminal cases would end in a tie.

    If the Hugos can’t even make it clear hate-speech isn’t something only white straight men do, what CAN you do? The easy answer is: nothing… fade to irrelevance.

    • I can’t rebut your statement because you’ve set it us IMO as “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

      In your world, the Hugo Awards are irrelevant because they don’t give awards to the things you personally favor. Fine; you are perfectly free to go set up your own convention and your own society and your own awards that will Do Things Right. Nobody’s stopping you from doing it. The only thing you can’t do is call them “Worldcon,” “WSFS,” and “Hugo Award” because those are the registered service marks of WSFS. Otherwise, knock yourself out. After all, it’s clear that as far as you’re concerned, you’re self-evidently right and naturally everyone will obviously know that you’ve discovered the One True Way.

      Yes, of course I’m being sarcastic.

      Let’s try this another way: Those of use who have been participating in the process all along have made the rules we want our way. You want to change those rules, you have the same number of votes as I do. But no, what you really want is for someone else to do the work for you, because democracy is such hard work. I have zero respect for that attitude from you or from anyone else, and that’s because when it comes to putting in the work in the trenches, I’ve been there.

      You want things done differently? Write the rule changes and convince a couple of WSFS Business Meetings to vote your way. That’s how the system works. You think it’s unfair? Go start your own Done The Right Way Awards and see if you can convince people of the rightness of your cause. It’s a free market of ideas, after all.

      • Did I miss something? Who’s asking to change the rules of the Hugos? Larry worked within the rules – and proved the people running the Hugos are honest, which is a good thing, right? This means it’s not the rules or the people in charge who are the problem.

        He’s also proved that the Hugo is a fan popularity award – Duh – and a popularity award only reflects the people who get involved. If only a small segment get involved, then the award reflects that small segment. But that’s not the fault of anyone running WorldCon, that fault lies with the fan community. (The one crit I have with WorldCon is that it has become much less fan friendly than in years past – LoneStarCon will be my last WorldCon unless things change. Whether that’s a deliberate strategy, or just competition from newer conventions like DragonCon or ComicCon, I can’t say. But the result is that fewer people will be involved with the Hugos, which it leaves it open for cliques. That would not be a good thing for the Hugo award, IMO.)

        But the real problems here go way beyond WorldCon. It’s about the culture in SFWA and the SFF community – which reflects the same problems in traditional publishing, and the world at large.

      • But the result is that fewer people will be involved with the Hugos

        The number of nominating ballots cast this year was a new all-time record (more nominating ballots cast this year than final ballots cast last year), and Loncon 3 looks to probably break attendance records for non-US Worldcons as well. Yes, it’s not a 125,000-person scrum in San Diego, but the growth of interest and participation in the Hugo Awards seems inconsistent with your statement that “fewer people will be involved.”

      • Your desire to try to straddle the neutral middle and point fingers in both directions seems to be obscuring some salient points.

        How much of the uptick is a result of participation by passionate people who are tired of being villanized for waking up in the morning? How much of that interest will remain if no one takes a principled stand against the quelling behavior of those shouting that votes should be cast based solely on the perceived traits of the authors and creators? Those same loud voices proudly proclaiming they have not and will not read the works in question, or examine the work of the other nominees on the slate, but they will vote to cast them aside based on assumed philosophical stances. How will that impact the prestige of the con or the award?

        It’s not necessary to share any particular ideology to examine the behaviors of the people caught up in this brouha-ha, and it’s not necessary to take anyone’s word for it. Simply look at the record of all parties and decide if this is the way you think things should go. And it’s not necessary to believe any one person has the power to change it to take a stand. Strip out all the silly name-calling and mockery flung about by both sides, and examine the intent of the involved parties and decide if the process reflects the hopes you have for this con and this award.

        I won’t be participating in any meetings, or drafting any proposals, and while you may decry that as not being willing to do the hard work of democracy, the truth is I’m not invested in the outcome. The vocal representation of the award and the con has been seized by a group that’s made it clear I’m not welcome, so I just don’t care if the award, the con, or this slice of fandom succeeds or fades.

        But you, sir, do have a strong investment. And you need to quit trying to dance to the tune of neutrality, ignore the purported ideologies involved and judge based on actions. Decide how you, personally, as an invested individual would like to see things proceed and take a stand.

      • Decide how you, personally, as an invested individual would like to see things proceed and take a stand.

        I already have: WSFS belongs to its members. It’s up to them to behave as each of them sees fit. It’s not my place to tell them how or how not to vote. The way I preserve my own freedom of speech and action is to not restrict theirs. Not theirs, and not yours. But in fact, since you pointedly say you don’t care about the outcome, I don’t care about your opinion that much. If you don’t participate in the process, you’re irrelevant. Tell me why I should think otherwise.

        Anyone who thinks that every voter was, in some far off Golden Age, a paragon of literary virtue who read every work of SF/F published in the previous year with the author’s names scrubbed off and who all subscribed to the Glorious Cult of Objective SFnal Perfection is delusional. I’ve said it before and will keep saying it: there are no objective standards when measuring something that is implicitly subjective. The way popular-vote awards like the Hugos work is that everyone votes for whatever they think best, for whatever reason they individually think best.

        As it happens, WSFS’s nominating system tends to favor works with concentrated and enthusiastic fan bases, but the final-ballot Instant Runoff Voting system tends to select against polarizing works. IRV doesn’t necessarily return the candidate who has the single largest voting bloc, but the candidate who is least-disliked by the largest number of people. Extreme candidates of any sort are easy to nominate, but difficult to elect in such a system. I consider that a feature, not a bug.

        (I wish we used IRV in our mundane political elections for the same reason. I was very disappointed when the British public rejected the referendum on IRV a few years ago.)

      • You certainly take things in odd directions. Where does freedom of speech come in to play? Have I (or someone else around here I missed) demanded anyone’s speech be restricted? Is there something in my comment that implies people should not be free to speak?

        But, being free to speak your mind does not equate to being free from criticism of your speech. I don’t think you’ll hear such an argument from me.

        Anyone who thinks that every voter was, in some far off Golden Age, a paragon of literary virtue…

        I harbor no such illusions. But if your only response to nature of the attacks against Mr. Correia and others is “[T]here are no objective standards…” you confirm the value of the award in the minds of many readers. In short, there is none. You confirm that there is no interest in investing this award with any more cachet than is derived from bullys declaring what is ‘good.’ You can continue to harp on how popular votes work, and ignore the question of whether or not legitimacy of the award depends on the expressed behavior of the voting pool and the sponsoring body, if you like. But it’s not going to win friends for the award, or the con.

        I realize that in a popular vote, people are able to cast as they see fit, without any reference beyond their own conscience. But, if the supporters/organizers/participants of the process don’t hold that the award is at least in theory about something more than fannish internecine battles, why would anyone outside of the cliques care?

        There’s no reason you should care about my opinion very much. But you seem to miss the point that my lack of caring is not because I don’t have interest in the legitimacy or value of the award or the con. It’s because you and others don’t seem very interested in defending that legitimacy, and so my investing concern in something so little regarded by it’s own proponents doesn’t seem worthwhile.

        In short, there are people loudly, repeatedly and antagonistically declaring that they will use the platform of the Hugo award to declare their disdain for an entire group of people based solely on ideology, gender and melanin concentration. They are casting aspersions the validity of which can be readily examined. They are laying the Hugo in the shadow of their behavior. And your only response is to say they’re free to vote as they see fit? No defense that the Hugo stands for anything or reflects anything, or even that your personal investment in the con and the process has been devoted to anything other than providing this platform for anyone to abuse?

        I suppose you have taken a stand, on the sidelines. And yet you’re here lecturing the participants of this blog about their behavior? And, in at least one instance I read, implying they willfully lie? It leads me to question your integrity, if not your impartiality.

      • As far as bullying goes, There’s enough of it going on by everyone. But some people are so convinced that they are right that of course anyone else is “bullying.” There’s plenty of it to go around, and nobody’s hands are clean.

        In short, there are people loudly, repeatedly and antagonistically declaring that they will use the platform of the Hugo award to declare their disdain for an entire group of people based solely on ideology, gender and melanin concentration. They are casting aspersions the validity of which can be readily examined.

        Yep, and IMO some of their aspersions are confirmed. After all, the words of the people involved are quotes that are still online.

        They are laying the Hugo in the shadow of their behavior.

        Yep. But because you’re a defender of the site of Truth and Justice, you don’t realize how bad everyone looks. I’m annoyed at everyone, left or right. You’re blind to your own biases because you Know You’re Right, I think.

        And your only response is to say they’re free to vote as they see fit? No defense that the Hugo stands for anything or reflects anything, or even that your personal investment in the con and the process has been devoted to anything other than providing this platform for anyone to abuse?

        And there have been people here advocating voting for certain candidates for ideological reason and to “make their little heads splody,” which is IMO just as objectionable. But it’s their right.

        What would you propose? That a Strong Man prevent people from voting for the Wrong Reasons? Who decides? Who enforces this? You? Me? I certainly don’t trust you to decide who sholud be allowed to vote, and you shouldn’t trust me.

      • I’m a defender of the side of Truth and Justice, am I? And I don’t realize how bad everyone looks? This is based on…? I mean, it’s something other than your own assumptions, right? Ah, I get it, it’s because I’m blind to my own biases because I Know I’m Right. Thanks.

        You’re awfully interested in sorting me into your preconceived categories, but what evidence have I presented here to justify your selection process? Terribly quick at casting aspersions of your own. I don’t mind if you want to criticize and disagree with me, that’s natural. But how about basing it on what I’ve actually said, or even implied, and not on your assumptions about my philosophies?

        “[S]ome of their aspersions are confirmed.” What of the others? Unimportant?

        There have been people here, and elsewhere advocating all sorts of things. These stand as excuse for other things? No need for principle or defense, there’s rudeness all around?

        I don’t propose any strong men, and the argument about who decides and who enforces is a distraction. As is your trust concern. You’ve used that strong man bit a few times now, and yet, no one here (at least that I’ve seen) has ever proposed a strong man, or top down control of voting, or enforcement. They’re ghosts, figments of your own concern. All I propose is that anybody who gives a damn stand and up and declare what they, individually and of themselves, believe or hope the award to be about. Mr. Correia, and many like him (myself among them) would like it to be about the merit of the work. We’re not so naive as to believe that everyone that casts a vote will have vetted all the work and sought an ‘objective’ evaluation. But, I, at least, believe that most people are honest and true, and will aim for the standard placed before them. If they believe the award is intended to be a reflection of a popular vote about the quality of the work they will aim for that standard in casting their votes. If they believe it’s nothing more than a clearinghouse for various ideological and philosophical cliques, they’ll vote accordingly.

        From appearances, you believe the award should be about…nothing. There is no standard, or purpose. It’s about whatever people decide it’s about. And yet, you’re annoyed with both sides. Why shouldn’t it be about ‘splody heads and putting Larry and his whole slate in their place and validating the opinions of whoever grabs enough ears and providing a platform for whichever side drowns the other out? You don’t defend it as anything. So why be annoyed?

      • But you seem to miss the point that my lack of caring is not because I don’t have interest in the legitimacy or value of the award or the con. It’s because you and others don’t seem very interested in defending that legitimacy.

        I don’t want a “legitimacy” that stems from prohibiting people from voting because of their political beliefs. I get the impression that you think that would be a good thing, as long as it was the people whose opinions you dislike. Possibly this isn’t what you intend, but that’s how it reads to me.

      • You’re reading into it, sir. Sorry, but that’s what’s happening. You have nothing on which to base the criteria of “people who’s opinions I dislike” so how would you infer that I’d be okay with preventing them, or anyone else from voting? Where have I said anything about preventing anyone from voting?

      • Wow Kas. You really missed the point there. Maybe it’s because you only read one sentence apparently.

      • “The number of nominating ballots cast this year was a new all-time record …”

        Ah, but according to the old guard, it’s all the wrong people swelling the ranks, thanks to Larry.

        I actually hope you’re right. The bigger and broader the spectrum, the better. Echo chambers aren’t good for anyone. But, like Larry, I’m a CPA and we’re naturally skeptical, and I’ve seen other organizations destroyed before when a certain type of person takes over. I would hate to see it happen to WorldCon. But if it does, it will not be because of you.

      • Ah, but according to the old guard, it’s all the wrong people swelling the ranks, thanks to Larry.

        I am one of the Old Guard, and I Don’t Care, as long as each of them bought and voted their own memberships.

        (Aside: Don’t read that excessively tightly. I buy my wife’s membership; but she votes her own way.)

        I think it more likely that you’ll see people who have been members for a long time but who have not been voting because they’re lazy are going to be mobilized to actually vote their memberships. Heck, trying to get the existing membership to vote has been more or less the medium-term strategy of those of us trying to raise the Hugo Award’s profile. Sort of a “get your own house in order” approach: if only 20% of the existing members were voting, why should we even worry about anyone else?

        Do remember that the last time there was a perception that people who had no long-term investment in Worldcon had “gamed the system,” the nominee in question didn’t fare that well on the final ballot. Similarly, it’s not that uncommon for changes to the structure to get through one business meeting and then be soundly defeated the following year by people who attend many Worldcons but rarely go to the Business Meeting for a variety of reasons. They watch for what’s on the agenda and show up to vote things down that they consider too radical or whatever.

        Ironically, the members of Worldcon, whether “liberal” or “conservative” in a mundane and American political sense, have had a tendency to be very “conservative” when it comes to structural changes in the organization. The very structure of WSFS makes it harder to change course than a supertanker. That’s both good and bad. It’s frustrating when you think rapid change is needed, and reassuring when you see a quick influx of people whose agenda appears to be “quick, change everything because I said so, not because I’ve studied the issues and know why you do the things you do.”

        I actually hope you’re right. The bigger and broader the spectrum, the better. Echo chambers aren’t good for anyone.

        Agreed.

        But, like Larry, I’m a CPA and we’re naturally skeptical, and I’ve seen other organizations destroyed before when a certain type of person takes over.

        Your ideological enemies consider you that “certain type of people,” I think.

        I would hate to see it happen to WorldCon. But if it does, it will not be because of you.

        Thank you.

      • “the old guard”

        Sorry, poor wording on my part, I mean the current clique.

        “Your ideological enemies consider you that “certain type of people,” I think.”

        It has nothing to do with ideology. It’s about wanting power and control over others.

      • Kevin Standlee, I believe you 100%. Never mind the bashers; I’m taking you at your word that the WSFS will not change the rules to lock someone out, and I have every reason to believe that you’re being honest.

        As far as I can tell, the WSFS itself has not denounced anyone on the slate.

  158. […] The Hugos are the big prestigious award for science fiction and fantasy. One of my books was a finalist for best novel. A bunch of other works that I recommended showed up in other categories. Because I’m an outspoken right winger, hilarity ensued. Many of you have never heard of me before, but the internet was quick to explain to you what a horrible person I am. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts. The character assassination has started as well, and my detractors posted and tweeted and told anyone who would listen about how I was a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a rape apologist, an angry white man, a religious fanatic, and how I wanted to drag homosexuals to death behind my pickup truck. The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn’t talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety. I wish I was exaggerating. […]

  159. Actually my comment was an appeal to reason and larger group participation where I don’t set the rules, but where we all get together and make some general ground rules where if a person writes “Didn’t need the user icon to know you’re white and male,” they don’t get to pretend they’re “anti-racist” and “anti-sexist” or political. If you want to bury your head in the sand and appeal to committee rules and pretend this is all not actually happening then knock yourself out.

    It was not a suggestion that I want someone to do the work for me, but an example that I have and am doing that work and that those who won’t play by rules all can benefit from will be left behind. I am not participating in a rigged game and the only people I know of who want to do that is those who benefit from that.

    If you want to your organization put at the disposal of people who celebrate false and supremacist narratives like “We Have Always Fought,” and who next year intend to nominate a site of racial puffery like MedievalPoC, and who enjoy racial revenge fantasy anthologies, and all of that is framed in a way where the devil is by an amazing coincidence and Las Vegas-defying odds always white, straight and male, I guarantee you I won’t be coming along. The reason I won’t be coming along is because that is no longer a celebration of a literary movement but a celebration of the failings of tens of millions of human beings from Warsaw to Minneapolis stupid enough to be white, straight, and male. You have a dozen nominees this year who stink of such rhetoric.

    It’s one thing to have rules and another to create an environment where people who are sick in their hearts and minds will and have turned your beloved Hugos into nothing more than a race and gender attack platform that has decided, in principle, it has too many Jews and pretends they’re “conservatives.” By extending out that silly logic that would mean “liberals” are racists.

    We’ve already fought WW II and the Civil Rights movement and I’m not doing it again. So I’m just leaving. The sad irony is that the literary movement that once produced a vision like Orwell’s has succumbed to an Orwellian notion that “segregation is diversity.”

    The Hugo Winner volumes 1 through 4 speak… volumes. What you have in its place is NOW, the U.N., the NAACP and GLAAD.

    Good luck with that, and pretending it’s all about “the rules,” and that the Hugos exists in some kind of splendid isolation. I imagine all kinds of organizations have “rules”; it’s a question of what those organizations aspire to, not by-laws.

    I am going my own way and I will not be supporting the “literature” of people who are a de facto KKK. And stop pretending this is “liberal” vs. “conservative.” You have read enough comments here and elsewhere by self-defined liberals and people like David Brin, Janis Ian, Neil Gaiman, David Gerrold, Liz Williams, to know that is not true. In what world is sexual and racial supremacy and group defamation pronounced “liberal?” Are you claiming the cleansing of Heidelberg University was a “liberal” movement?

    When you support editors who say straight out they won’t read work, that is Bradbury’s firemen, not an editor. Best of all is this Orwellian presentation of a poem that betrays not a hint of irony or self-awareness.

    http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015838.html#2228919

    And stop using the word “everyone.” That is not evidence or a footnote I can look up. As best I can tell using actual quotes from the SFF community, your idea of “everyone” is 5 against 100. 5 is a fringe – an anomaly. 100 is an institution, orthodoxy. There is not, as you say, “plenty of it to go around.” Again, you’re free to produce quotes that would go beyond “VD and proponents,” or “Vox Day and company.” Last I heard that’s one person.

    Probably symbolic of all this is you’ve lost a Neil Gaiman and gained back a Farah Mendlesohn. What does Gaiman produce and what does Mendlesohn produce? One produces literature, the other pie-charted identity acrimony. That’s the whole nine yards in a nutshell.

    And I don’t want to prohibit anyone from voting. I want you to create an atmosphere. Failing that, I have reflected that atmosphere for you and will create my own. My atmosphere demonizes no one, rags no groups based on their birth. The result will be literature that reflects the successes and failures of all, not some, not maudlin postcolonial racial revenge fantasies and QUILTBAG ninja narratives by politicized people who wouldn’t assault a draft board in order to fix that lack of diversity unless I wrote a rule for them mandating combat.

    • Yes. When you’ve lost Neil Gaiman, you’ve lost the war.

      When ~50% of the best-selling F&SF titles on Amazon are self-published, you’ve definitely lost the war (it’s worse if you take out George R. R. Martin…much worse).

      I expect the Nielsen Haydens and their ilk to Go Away within the next five years. There will be room for editors in the new world. Likewise artists, book designers and other creative professionals. The need for publishers is questionable, but maybe there will still be a few. There will be no room whatsoever for political commissars.

      It must suck to spend so much of your life on a Long March Through the Institutions only to discover upon arrival that there’s no “there” there.

      Let’s hope their pensions are fully vested.

    • Oh, good God. I just read that poem.

      Yep, we’re all Nazis. Nazis were well-known for their support of small government and personal liberty. Nazis also were well-known for allowing opponents to freely express their opinions, as opposed to, say, deleting them outright, screwing with the font size, or removing their vowels (how old are these people, anyway? Twelve? The person who compared them to a clique of Mean Girls in junior high was spot on).

      Here’s a hint, Tor-folk: If you see Nazis as being on your right, that means that you’re a Stalinist.

  160. Mr. Corriea, I salute you sir! I love how bold you are in launching this one man raid to rattle the collective cages of all the super sensitive types and to prove a point. This is almost super-villain level plotting here and it is beautiful.

    I hope that other authors who happen to have different political views will become more confident in expressing their positions. It’s especially annoying when the left sets up a literary blockade in hopes of silencing all opposition. But wow is it amusing to see the absolutely amazing over the top reactions of rage you get without even batting an eye. Reading their anguish is far more entertaining than most of what I see on TV today!

    I can’t wait to see what you come up with next. :)

  161. Out of macabre curiosity I googled Hugo nominations larry correia. The first article I got to said “I’ll link to (Larry) and (nox) posts using (something I forget), for my and your protection”.

    I looked up the link thing, it’s a link tool that prevents google and other search engines from acknowledging the links. Preventing your blog post from being ranked. For her (expletive) protection!? For my (expletive) protection!? It doesn’t protect anyone, it just prevents he spider bots from indexing it. She is just an angry person who wants her log which mentions your name, along with words like racist, and angry to get indexed, yet not you.

    She is actively gaming the spider bots to link your name with negative adjectives. She is then either lying to her readers, or deluded enough to think that linking to your blog is actively harmful to people. She is throwing out the subliminal message that your dangerous.

    All this hate, all this manipulation, and lying or delusion on her part, and you’re the subversive dangerous one Larry…

    SMH, I’ll google more Hugo bs when I need a laugh, can’t sleep, and don’t mind the self induced subdural hematoma from all my head shaking.

    • It isn’t about me not getting as many hits, it is about protecting her readers from being exposed to dangerous badthink. (and really, it isn’t the writers on my side who derive self esteem from blag stats) I got linked by Instapundit. 10x the number of people attending WorldCon read my post that day, so much for her theory. :)

      • Your numbers, they burn… Also, had a good chat on this topic @ BFC during Raven, this weekend.

        Even when I don’t agree with your comments I find you far more credible and interesting since you don’t censor comments or (AFAICT) ban ppl. Luhrs, Hines, Scalzi et al do. Who is hiding or suppressing what, exactly?

      • In all the years I’ve had this blog, with thousands of commenters, I’ve banned a total of 11 IPs. Of them, 6 are the same crazy guy (Plowshare). 3 are Clamps/Yama/Andrew Marston. I can’t remember the other, and banned Slippery Snake this week. (he posted 51 LONG comments in less than a week, continually droning on and on about stuff he had no clue. He was annoying and ignorant) Basically, unless a troll bores the hell out of me I don’t ban anybody. I don’t edit or “massage” comments. I deleted one comment during this whole thing, and that was to protect a friend who wrote something that might be construed as libel and I was trying to protect him. And even then I sent him an email apologizing, because I really HATE to change anybody’s words.

  162. Out of macabre curiosity I googled Hugo nominations larry correia. The first article I got to said “I’ll link to (Larry) and (nox) posts using (something I forget), for my and your protection”.

    I looked up the link thing, it’s a link tool that prevents google and other search engines from acknowledging the links. Preventing your blog post from being ranked. For her (expletive) protection!? For my (expletive) protection!? It doesn’t protect anyone, it just prevents he spider bots from indexing it. She is just an angry person who wants her log which mentions your name, along with words like racist, and angry to get indexed, yet not you.

    She is actively gaming the spider bots to link your name with negative adjectives. She is then either lying to her readers, or deluded enough to think that linking to your blog is actively harmful to people. She is throwing out the subliminal message that your dangerous.

    All this hate, all this manipulation, and lying or delusion on her part, and you’re the subversive dangerous one Larry…

    SMH, I’ll google more Hugo bs when I need a laugh, can’t sleep, and don’t mind the self induced subdural hematoma from all my head shaking.

    • Donotlink is probably a reaction to people like Vitaly Borker, who intentionally intimidated people and created bad publicity in order to increase his Google search ranking.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitaly_Borker

      When people say they are protecting themselves by using donotlink, they aren’t talking about search rankings.

      When you are on website A, and click on a link to website B, your browser includes an REFERER header which contains the address of website A.

      By using donotlink as an intermediary, Larry does not see in his logs that someone followed a link from their website. (He might see donotlink, but I don’t know for sure, as I haven’t played with it.)

      They want to link to his website and talk about him, but they don’t want him to know they are doing it (and send his legion of hate-trolls after them). Great plan… except for, y’know… Larry knows how to Google himself.

      • The stats panel shows Do Not Link. Let’s see… Wow. In that case, her traffic either totally sucks or her readership can’t be bothered to actually read the other side. :)

      • In that case, her traffic either totally sucks or her readership can’t be bothered to actually read the other side.

        Embrace the power of “and”, Larry.

  163. Somewhat OT: Is Wendell related to Hugh Manatee???

  164. I’m leftwing, I love your work. Monsterhunters is one of my favourite series. I deplore what is happening to you, maybe we won’t ever agree on political issues but as long as your books entertain and maybe even make me think I’ll buy them and tell my friends that I like your books. Censorship in what ever way it happens is never a good thing.

  165. When you were up for a Campbell, I didn’t vote for your work because I tried reading it and I couldn’t stand it. Seriously, I couldn’t bring myself to finish a single chapter. I skipped around to see if it got better later, and it didn’t. So I left you off the ballot, below ‘no award’. That was my honest opinion. It had nothing to do with your politics (to which I’m so opposed that if you and I were magnets, we’d be stuck together for life), or with your personality, or with your blog, and everything to do with the quality of your writing.

    I’ve voted for Brandon Sanderson, for Howard Tayler, for Dan Wells, but the best thing I can say about your writing is that it’s not as tedious as that of Brad Torgersen.

    I fully accept that your effect on the slate of nominations was wholly legitimate; one can buy one’s way onto the longlist, but not the shortlist. You made some recommendations and the people who read your blog agreed with you, as is entirely their right; some of my nominations were based on blog posts too (“oh, that sounds super interesting”). Beale is not my favorite person, but I plan to give his submission a fair assessment just like every other nominee.

    There are authors who I’ve met, and who are *wonderful* people, and who have been nominated for Hugos, and I found their stories to be so awful that I left them off the ballot in favor of “no award”. And there are authors who I’ve met, and who are *wonderful* people, and who have been nominated for Hugos, and I found their stories to be so good that I ranked their stories #1. And sometimes these are the same people in different years. And I’m as leftist and progressivist as any of the people your regular commenters mock.

    But hey… isn’t science fiction cool?

    • That’s great. You can hate my writing and vote honestly. Luckily lots of people disagree with you and provide me with money. :) But the important thing is that you read, or at least give an honest attempt to read, the works and judge them according to the work. I think that’s fantastic.

  166. I don’t know if Larry actually reads all these hundreds of comments, but I just wanted to respond to some interesting points he makes.

    Some things I agree with whole-heartedly (for example the actual work being more important than any political leanings of the author etc.), others less so.

    You mention Socialists and Communists, but I don’t think there is a great number of actual Socialists or Communists in science fiction fandom or authordom. China Miéville and Iain M. Banks, perhaps, but seriously who else? I think the terms are stretched to absurd proportions here to cover people with some vague social-liberal agendas that it makes very little sense (other than name-calling). Calling major publishing companies in the most market-oriented and capitalist Western society left-wing is another leap of logic I can’t follow. (In short, Socialists want to get their hands on the corporations’ money and spread it around one way or another.)

    I do believe that many people don’t share the conservative pro-gun, pro-religion, pro-heterosexual marriage sort of world view any more and that Larry gets hated in some circles. It’s sad that stuff like that happens. It was nice to hear that you aren’t opposed to gays, in fact. It was not something I was expecting after having read about this incident in some other blogs on this Hugo-gate. :D

    As far as Vox Day is considered, I just don’t see why anybody would want to try clearing the allegations about his racism and misogyny. The guy has called a woman of color half-savage because of her race and blogged against women’s suffrage. It’s pretty damn clear what he thinks about these issues. Why attempt white-washing him like this?

    • I do read all the comments. It gets challenging at times, but this is nothing compared to my gun control article. I think that one finally topped out at 1,800 comments.

      I used communist as an example because that would seem to be a rather extreme personal belief, yet there is no issue when a communist gets nominated. The label I’d use for most of the outragers would be liberal/progressive, but the No Labels crowd always comes and yells at me when I do that. :)

      I’m not trying to white wash Vox. I disagree with him a lot. I’m certainly not going to defend somebody else’s beliefs. I figure if anybody has a problem they can go argue with him, and he’s more than willing to debate and argue his positions (the one thing we do have in common is that most of the people who show up to debate, don’t actually debate as much as fling poo). I explained why I picked him already. You’re either in favor of free speech or you’re not.

      • You know, I’d never even *heard* of Vox Day (or his alleged “innocent victim N.K. Jemisin) before this whole thing blew up. Now, well, I’m just wondering how much more web traffic and sales Vox is generating because of all the hysterical shrieks from the progs, wondering what all the fuss is about.

        Having checked him out myself, I’m not sure there’s any “defending” or “whitewashing” Vox, if only because he seems to revel in being an argumentative asshole for the pure fun of it.

        But if that’s now the new standard for being considered suitable for membership in SFWA, then there isn’t going to be a whole lot of SF/F writers left by the time the purges are finished. Say goodbye to George R.R. Martin and Harlan Ellison, for starters. And Pat Rothfuss, and Neil Gaiman, and, well, just go on down the list. While you’re at it, add the nutty Tor editors like Liz Bourke and the Nielsen-Haydens to the list, who have proven themselves to have a worldview every bit as mean spirited, assholish and “segregationist” as Vox Day allegedly is.

        There was a comment on another blog about this whole episode – sorry, I’ve forgotten the link – where somebody wondered what the point of all this lefty outrage was, simply because “Vox Day feeds on the outrage and Correia giggles at it.”

      • S.A. Hoyt’s blog, I believe.

      • Wes,

        I think we have similar thoughts on the matter of Vox Day’s popularity.

        I tried to figure out who Vox Day was when John Scalzi started talking about how awful he was in the “RSHD” thread. Everyone at Whatever refused to say his name… which I thought was comical. Who is this evil guy? Candyman? It was as if they were little kids worried about saying “Bloody Mary” into a mirror. Eventually Larry mentioned him on this blog about an unrelated issue, and when I went over to check him out I quickly realized this was the guy the Whatever folks were so afraid of and I wanted to see how bad he was… because I’m a human being and we like to know how awful the worst of our kind really are.

        So I went ahead and read several posts, expecting to see him spout off the Stormfront/Nazi level garbage I had heard he was writing. Turns out he wasn’t nearly as bad as they made him out to be. Extreme opinions? Probably some of them, but he wasn’t committing or advocating any actual crimes so I didn’t care if some his opinions offended me. At least he had the courage to post his genuine thoughts. Then I read the comments (which I was reliably told would cause me to fall into a vegetative state) and discovered they was also not nearly as bad as they made it out to be. Definitely a dog eat dog environment, but there was some real interesting science, philosophy, and history buried in there.

        At that point I was then informed I should never read his books because *that* was where the pure evil really was. And because at this point it was easy to tell who the idiots were I read some and found their comments to be about as accurate as their comments on Orson Scott Card’s writing.

        So I’m not sure what they were doing in calling attention to a superior storyteller who they also happened to hate. His popularity was growing before they decided to brand him as the Great Unnamed Evil, but a ton of people like me now read his books (and/or his blogs) because they pointed him out to us.

      • Well, Andrew, I haven’t yet read any of Vox’s fiction, but I’ve added his blog to my daily bookmarks along with Larry’s.

        I figure Vox will say something outrageous that’ll piss me off at least once a day, but – unlike the majority of his critics – he’s at least honest about it.