Monster Hunter Nation

A letter to the SMOFs, moderates, and fence sitters from the author who started Sad Puppies

On Saturday they announced the finalists for the Hugo Awards. As you are aware by now, Sad Puppies suggested candidates absolutely dominated. I tried to mostly avoid the internet this weekend because it was a holiday better spent with family than hate mail.

This blog post is directed at the newcomers, the fence sitters, the undecided, and the unlucky SMOFs who’ve been caught in the crossfire. There is no need to address my detractors, because they have already repeatedly demonstrated that they’ll just ignore what I actually say and do, and fabricate their own wild and crazy narrative about what I secretly meant to say.

This is going to be get long, but there are a lot of things being tossed around that I need to respond to.

For those of you just joining us, Sad Puppies 3 was a campaign to get talented, worthy, deserving authors who would normally never have a chance nominated for the supposedly prestigious Hugo awards.

I started this campaign a few years ago because I believed that the awards were politically biased, and dominated by a few insider cliques. Authors who didn’t belong to these groups or failed to appease them politically were shunned. When I said this in public, I was called a liar, and told that the Hugos represented all of fandom and that the awards were strictly about quality. I said that if authors with “unapproved” politics were to get nominations, the quality of the work would be irrelevant, and the insider cliques would do everything in their power to sabotage that person. Again, I was called a liar, so I set out to prove my point.

This blog post has details and links to most of the background, history, and fallout from last time: http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/24/an-explanation-about-the-hugo-awards-controversy/

Basically, I did what the other side had been doing for years, only in public and with the wrong kind of fans, and everything unfolded just like I predicted it would. Especially vehement was the contingent of fandom that I took to calling Social Justice Warriors.  This may offend the No Labels crowd, but oh well, it is what it is. The name has stuck in our culture.

Having proven my point far better than I’d ever hoped, I was going to walk away, but Brad Torgersen is a very idealistic author and fan, and he was inspired to continue the program for another year. All of his explanations are available at this link: http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/01/21/sad-puppies-3-only-a-few-days-to-register-to-vote/

Sad Puppies 1 consisted of me and a handful of blog posts. Sad Puppies 2, more people joined in, we had some fun with it (check the link, we’ve got badly drawn cartoons, videos, and a spokesmanatee), and we made a dent. A handful of nominations damned near caused the apocalypse. Then Sad Puppies 3 was wildly successful beyond all of our expectations.

Now I want to address some of the many concerns I’ve seen voiced over the last few days. I will try to be as honest and direct as possible.

-SP says that they’re fighting back against biased politics by having biased politics.

Yes and no. SP1 was very politically biased because it was just me. SP2 did have a preponderance of nominees on the right side of the political spectrum, again, because that slate was basically my suggested list of stuff that I personally enjoyed. However, ultimately that didn’t matter because the liberals we got noms for were just as attacked and vilified as the rest of us.

SP3 is actually extremely politically diverse. That’s because this time our slate of suggestions was put together by a bigger group of authors and fans, and since Brad was running the show and trying to be all about getting recognition for quality, deserving authors, their personal beliefs were of no concern. Don’t take my word for it. Go through our list of nominees for yourself. You’ll find that we have liberals, conservatives, moderates, and question marks who’ve kept their politics to themselves.

What these authors have in common is that they are good, entertaining, and wouldn’t normally have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a nomination because they aren’t inclined to kiss the right butts. If you look at our best novel nominees, none of them are conservatives.  I was the only one on there who could possibly be described as right wing, and I refused my nomination.

For the record, Brad Torgersen is a moderate. By Utah standards he is a flaming liberal.

As you go through the other categories, you’ll find that we put up many authors and editors who are my polar political opposites, and I’d guess that a majority of them are actually moderate to left on the spectrum.

That’s because Sad Puppies suggestions was about the quality of the work. Not the author’s politics. Anybody who says the SP nominees are a bunch of right wingers is either misinformed, willfully ignorant, or a liar.

-Sad Puppies wants to destroy the Hugos

Not at all. The Hugos were already broken. My people are just the inevitable backlash that happens in any system when the pendulum swings too far in one direction.

For years people have paid lip service to bringing new people into the Hugos. Whenever people complained about the biased, cliquish state of the awards, they were dismissed and told that if they wanted to change things, they should get more people involved in the process.

Okay. Done. Next?

Note, a lot of the anger this week is about how my people are wrongfan having wrongfun, and thus are bad and should be dismissed, blocked somehow, or excluded. That kind of talk only proves my original point that started this all, and really, it is that sort of asinine, outlandish accusations that caused more of the previously apathetic fans to shell out their $40 to get involved too.

I fully admit, and am on record about starting this out of spite. However, it has grown far beyond just one man’s opinions. Brad is fighting to make the awards relevant to more of fandom.

Okay, many of us agree the Hugos were broken, but Sad Puppies isn’t the way to fix it

That is a valid opinion, and I’ve seen it pop up a lot over the last few days. I really want to address this, because I can’t stress enough that if that’s what you believe, we’re not your enemy.

For years authors have complained about the biased state of the Hugos, the politicking, and the games you needed to play in order to be considered. Most of the grumbling was in private, behind closed doors, and there wasn’t a green room at any con in the country where you couldn’t find authors complaining about the sorry state of things.

But nobody did anything.

Then some cliques started manipulating this small, easily manipulated system. When 40 or 80 nominations was all it took to sway the most prestigious award in the industry, a few whisper campaigns and calling in favors was all it took to secure a spot. Again, many honest WorldCon fans were offended by this behavior.

But nobody did anything.

As time went on, it got increasingly absurd and political. Some once beloved and award winning authors were shunned for their politics, never to be seen at the Hugos again. Editors and companies related to those shunned authors discovered that they too were shunned by relation, regardless of their politics. Campaigns became more public, with “award pimpage” becoming the norm. And the long time SMOFs who took pride in this award were offended.

But nobody did anything.

To my half of fandom, we’d pretty much written the awards off. They’d become a joke. Award winning became a synonym for boring and preachy. The insider cliques just declared that my part of fandom was stupid and didn’t matter anyway, while those who honestly cherished the awards didn’t like seeing their Hugo lose its luster in the eyes of the masses.

But still nobody did anything, and it got worse and worse.

Then several years ago some upstart, minor jackass hack pulp writer (who’d owned a machinegun store and did gun rights lobbying for the Republican party so couldn’t exactly hide his politics) managed to squeak in a Campbell nomination. I got to see how the sausage was made up close and I was stunned by how asinine the process really was.

So I did something.

Now I’m the bad guy. I’m cool with that. Eventually somebody was going to have to do it.

Here’s the thing. This massive upheaval wouldn’t have ever happened if the moderates had done something years ago, but they didn’t. I can’t really say I blame them though. If they took a stand against the perpetually outraged crowd, they risked their career and their reputation. We’re talking about the same angry, entitled twitter mobs that ran off a famous comedian because he might tell a fat joke in the future. Those mobs are quick to outrage, slow to reason, and will turn on their allies, because attacking is what they are programmed to do. And the moderates—those who will admit it—are terrified of ending up on the wrong end of a witch hunt.

Now it is okay to rail against my people for doing what the other side has done in the past, because we’re not going to sabotage anyone’s career or slander you. We actually believe in the concept of free speech and free expression.

We’re getting condemned for bringing politics into the awards, but we all know politics have been in the awards for a long time. We just did it openly.

I never expected us to sweep the awards. Frankly, I was shocked by the results. I didn’t realize just how many regular fans had been turned off for so long.

Now the moderates are telling us we did it wrong, or telling us what we should have done better, but the thing is at least we did something. There’s not exactly an instruction manual for this sort of thing you know.

-All the Sad Puppies people are lying. It isn’t about getting good books recognized, it is about TOPIC X.

Now this is a really hard one to argue against, because X is whatever they want it to be, and it changes constantly. I’ve seen how we’re all angry white straight males (which is why we’ve got like a dozen women in there, the person taking it over is female, I don’t care about anybody’s race, and I have no idea who our nominees have sex with). Yesterday X was about how my fans are motivated by homophobia. The day before X was racism. I’m sure tomorrow we’ll hate the disabled. Who knows? I can’t keep up.

That is all nonsense, but they keep on making new crap up, and the gullible keep swallowing the narrative and regurgitating it all over the internet.

Here is an interesting one for you moderates, SMOFs, and fence sitters to ponder on. Why is it that our own words and actions aren’t to be believed, but anything the other side says about us, no matter how outlandish, is to be accepted?

Over the years I’ve done Sad Puppies, do you know how many fannish blogs, fanzines, and podcasts interviewed me, the guy who started the campaign, about the goals of Sad Puppies?

None.

I can’t think of single one. You’d think with the most controversial thing to happen to the Hugos in forever, somebody would actually want to sit down and interview us and get our side of the story, but nada, zip. Sure, lots of people wrote about it, but it was pretty obvious these fannish journalists didn’t read what I actually wrote, and instead they critiqued Straw Larry, or they quoted other bloggers quoting Straw Larry.

Finally, last month Brad and I were finally asked to do a podcast interview. They tried to be unbiased. They asked us hard questions.

It was fantastic.  http://www.adventuresinscifipublishing.com/2015/03/aisfp-289-larry-correia-brad-r-torgersen-sad-puppies/

So I’ve been a little less than patient with some fannish journalists. It has been really interesting to see a few of them who originally hated my guts, watch the foot stompy outrage crowd doing exactly what I said they would, and having those journalists realize that maybe I was telling the truth after all.

On this note, I’d like to extend an olive branch to Mike Glyer at File 770. We’ve gone around a few times, but I’ve got to hand it to him. Recently he’s been fully quoting my side and letting our arguments stand without interpretation. Well done, sir.

-Sad Puppies is mean

We’ve been getting a lot of moderates and SMOF friends reaching out, concerned, because the straw versions of us are very hateful, and it is so very sad that there are sides in fandom, and they are fighting.

That’s nice. Now let me flip this back around. Where were you guys when my people were being libeled, slandered, attacked, and insulted? Did you reach out to the perpetually outraged crowd and urge them to be nice and tell them there shouldn’t be any fighting in fandom, or do you just do that to the side you know won’t sic an angry mob on you?

Do you know the biggest single reason SP3 got more fans involved than SP2? My guess is that it was after the other side moved the goal posts, and danced in the streets about our “humiliating defeat”, and called all those outsiders first time voters stupid homophobic racist sexists and other super gracious acts, and Hugo award winning former SFWA presidents take to Twitter to have all caps rants about how my people are motivated by hate and racism, you shouldn’t be shocked when my people are increasingly motivated.

Just think, if you guys urging peace, love, and harmony now would have reigned in the attack dogs years ago, Sad Puppies would never have existed.

Sad Puppies BLOCK VOTING is different because it was designed to lock out all other contenders

Nope. And here is a very simple way to tell that simply isn’t true.

Based upon our past performance, how in the world could we know we’d get this much more turn out?

Also, if you look at the suggested slate posts, you’ll note that in some categories we had 5, because we had 5 works that we really liked, and there are 5 slots. In other categories we had less because we didn’t think of 5 in time. We ran with what we thought of. It wasn’t exactly a nefarious master plan.

The year before we’d only gotten half of our novels on. In SP2, I put up 2 works for best novel. Mine (which made it) and Sarah Hoyt’s A Few Good Men (which sadly didn’t make it). Why wouldn’t we put up more this time?

(Funny note on A Few Good Men, as morons were saying Sad Puppies 2 was motivated by homophobia, trying to kick gays out of fiction, the protagonist and hero of that one is a gay man, but I voted for it because it was a fantastic book)

Now the moderates are telling us that if we’d suggested fewer/more works, then magically this would all be okay and they wouldn’t be so angry at us. Oh bullshit. Come on. We all know that whatever we do, whether there is one nomination or a hundred, the perpetually outraged would still be outraged.

I do love however how everybody who was completely silent while the SJW mob was running rampant and unopposed, are now full of all sorts of condemnation against my people, and full of helpful strategic advice about what we should do next time. So, when we were in a position of weakness, they maligned us. Now that we’re in a position of strength, they malign us, but your advice is to go back to a position of weakness…

Yes, that is super helpful. Thanks a lot.

Here’s the thing, this isn’t just me and a couple of my friends having fun with this anymore. It is bigger than that. There are a bunch of us involved now. For next year, we’ll take a look at how this shakes out and proceed from there. Kate Paulk is in charge next year and will be organizing what we do.

We don’t want to replace one kingmaker with another. We don’t want to replace one dominate clique with another. I don’t want the Nielsen Hayden’s throne of skulls. It doesn’t look very comfy to sit in.

Let me reiterate. We don’t want to exclude anybody. We want to include everybody.  We’ll look at what happens and adjust fire from there. We are willing to listen to suggestions, debate, and talk with you, because we truly don’t want to destroy the awards or lord over them like some petty tyrants. But getting screamed at, insulted, and lectured at is just going to annoy us, so you can skip that part.

-The Hugos belong to a select few

My, how the tune has changed in just a few years. I loved when Teresa Nielsen Hayden proclaimed that, because when I said the same thing several years ago, I was a lair.

Think about this carefully moderates and SMOFs, the Hugos are either:

  1. The most prestigious award in genre fiction that represents the best of all of fandom
  2. An award for the favorites for one small group of people at one small convention.

You can’t have both.

-Sad Puppies insults SMOFs

Now this gets tricky, because we get into the definitions of words that have insider meanings.

SMOF means Secret Masters of Fandom. It can be used in a few different ways. To people whose social lives revolve around conventions, it means the people who run stuff there. The word started as a joke.

To many of my people, SMOF was seen as a pejorative, used for the snooty, snobbish types who liked to tell those fans that they aren’t real fans, or that they are the wrong kinds of fans, or that they were having wrongfun.

However, many good, decent, honorable people self-identify as SMOFs. I count many of these people as friends, and many of them are cheering Sad Puppies on.

This is why Brad Torgersen, being diplomatic, made up the word CHORF to describe the snoots. https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/chorf-its-a-word-now/ which I must admit, made me laugh.

We’ve got nothing against fans. We’re fans too.

-Larry Correia is a big mean jerk

No denying that.  As Sarah Hoyt said the other day, nobody raised in a Portuguese household has ever been accused of subtlety. I’m loud, opinionated, and bombastic. Part of that is because I didn’t get to Live Life on the Easiest Difficulty Setting, and where I come from if you look like food you will be eaten.

So yes, I can be rude, impatient, and I’m quick to anger. It is a character flaw. I never claimed to be perfect, but I’m the one who showed up.

I used to be more patient. For those of you who are authors, artists, or creators, I want you to think back to the meanest, most vile, fundamentally dishonest, cruel thing anyone has ever said about you or your work. How did that make you feel? Now I want you to imagine getting that twenty times a day for your entire career. How long do you think your thin veneer of civility would last?

The SJWs are bullies. They can’t tolerate anybody being outspoken against their ideas. So when you are the nail that sticks up, they will try to hammer you down. They will spread lies about you, hoping that everyone else will shun you. This gets tiresome after a few years, especially when they start to make up “scare quotes” from you in international newspapers.

I’ve had a bunch of honestly concerned people tell me recently that they think I’m being too mean, or that I’m so used to responding to malicious attackers that I sometimes lump in innocent bystanders in with those malicious attackers (a moderate friend referred to it as my “shotgun approach” which is a good comparison).

You get attacked enough and eventually your ability to differentiate targets starts to suffer. For those caught up in that, I apologize.

To those who still willfully want to attack me, come get some. 🙂

Vox Day! VOX DAAAAaaaay!

Vox Day wasn’t on the Sad Puppies suggest slate. Sorry. Can’t blame that one on us.

Well, I suppose you can, in that I demonstrated how small this most prestigious award actually is last year. Vox Day’s alternate Rabid Puppies slate was him going directly to his fan base. Looking at the numbers, and he on his own was about as successful as I was last year for SP2.

Now here is an interesting thought for you moderates out there who despise Vox Day. Above I talked about the angry reaction to SP2… Honestly, last year Fandom (capital F) insulted hundreds of outsider fans’ taste and intelligence, called them names, and basically treated them like trash (while the majority kept their mouths shut at best, or gave tacit approval at worst) and now you’re shocked when Vox Day has appealed directly to those people you mocked to vote in a manner that especially pisses you off?

Well, duh.

-Sad Puppies invited in Breitbart.

That’s cool. The SJWs brought in the Guardian, Io9, and Tor.com, so now we’re even.

Actually Breitbart approached me and asked for an interview. Last year the SP2 controversy got a small mention in the USA Today. The guys who talked to me from Breitbart have been doing reports on SJW crusaders across many industries, and this is news, so this isn’t exactly shocking.

GamerGate is behind Sad Puppies!

Okay, now this one is just stupid. It comes from Teresa Nielsen Hayden, head of the SMOFfen SS.

Because many SJWs check under their bed for the Gamergate boogieman before going to sleep, obviously GamerGate is responsible for the Sad Puppies sweep. Apparently she discovered that one of my longtime fans, Daddy Warpig, is a GamerGate blogger, and has tweeted about SP3, and she exposed this shocking revelation!

Wow… Yeah, good work there, Sherlock. You could have just saved time and asked me, since I also favorited those and retweeted them. I’ve also been on his podcast. But if you want to really damn me, let me save you some detective work. I’m also friends with actor Adam Baldwin, the guy who coined the word GamerGate. I’ve also blogged about GamerGate, but more in relation to Sarkesian calling for a boycott of my home state because she didn’t understand our constitution or laws wouldn’t allow for violating our citizen’s civil rights because of fake threats against her. http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/10/21/fisking-the-deseret-news-anti-ccw-article/

But GamerGate isn’t behind Sad Puppies.

  1. SP predates GG by a couple of years.
  2. SP is tiny compared to GG, and the vast majority of GG paid no attention to SP,
  3. Until the Breitbart article came out, but if you loot at the dates of the article http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/05/breitbart-reports-on-sad-puppies/ it came out too late for any new people to register in time to nominate for Sasquan.
  4. We do share some common members, but enemy of my enemy is my friend, and both movements can’t stand Social Justice bullies telling people they are having wrongfun.
  5. There were like 2,000 total nominations. If it had been a GamerGate plot there would have been 20,000 nominations, and they would spammed it across the internet and had a great laugh about it.

Oh, quick note moderates and SMOFs, if you don’t want GamerGate to get involved in the Hugos, don’t blame me. Tell your Social Justice idiots to shut up on Twitter!  TNH is the one invoking and provoking them, not me.

Brianna Wu—who is despised by hundreds of thousands of gamers as an opportunistic vulture—took to Twitter after the nominations were announced, blaming GamerGate for ruining the Hugos, and then she tweeted about how the awards were precious and sacred to her because her husband has 4 Hugos.  That is like waving the red cape in front of the bull.

-We’re going to vote No Award against every single thing suggested by the Sad Puppies slate!

Yes, voting based on politics with no consideration for the quality of the actual work will sure show Larry Correia what’s up.

The fact that the CHORFs were already demanding rule changes, No Awarding everybody, and blocking the wrong kind of fans before the nominations were even announced should be pretty telling. Funny. That is exactly what I said they would do years ago. The insider clique cares far more about maintaining their insular little kingdom than they do about the awards.

Here’s the thing, if you No Award everybody on the slate with no consideration to the authors or their work, you’ll just be proving me right.

And seriously, you’re telling me Jim Butcher, the god father of an entire genre, isn’t worthy? Marko Kloos indy published sci-fi book has sold literally over ten times as many copies as last year’s winner Ancillary Justice, and people love it, but it isn’t worthy? You’re telling me that Kevin J. Anderson, industry pro, 23 million books in print, three decades of working in fandom and helping other authors, isn’t worthy?

Bullshit. And none of those authors share my politics.

Toni Weisskopf has spent her entire life in fandom. She grew up at cons and lived in Rocket City. She had relatives on the Manhattan Project and ate dinner at Warner Von Braun’s house. I don’t know how many hundreds of conventions Toni has gone to, as everything from volunteer to GoH. She’s edited hundreds of authors, took over and successfully run a publishing house, and it is telling that she was ignored until Sad Puppies came along. She’s not worthy?

Edmund Schubert has been running Intergalactic Medicine Show for years, producing tons of great short fiction, and you’re telling me he’s unworthy? Why? His boss (who he disagrees with) doesn’t like gay marriage? Jim Minz started as David Hartwell’s assistant at Tor, and is beloved by everybody in publishing and has spent his whole life in fandom, and he’s unworthy?

All of these short fiction authors, some of whom have been writing for places like Analog for decades, they’re unworthy? Campbell nominees who are brand new, producing all sorts of great work, and you’ll shit all over their prospective careers and No Award their future because Brad recommend them?

They’re unworthy because of association, but you didn’t say a damned thing when the SJWs tried to give a Campbell to Requires Hate?

That is hypocrisy.

We want people to read the works and judge them for themselves. We were accused of trying to get people to nominate without reading, but we put that one to bed when we Book Bombed all the short fiction in the weeks leading up to the nomination’s, selling thousands and thousands of stories, and bumping all of our nominees up to the tops of their Amazon categories sales rankings, and making the SP nominated works the most widely read things on the ballot in years.

But yeah, No Award a bunch of obviously worthy creators over politics and brag about it on the internet in advance. If I truly wanted to destroy the Hugos credibility to all but one tiny, insular little group of fans, that’s exactly what I’d do.

Well, the whole world is watching now. What are you going to tell them the award is really about?

 

EDIT: To add, read this article for Entertainment Weekly http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/06/hugo-award-nominations-fall-victim-misogynistic-and-racist-voting?hootPostID=221657cca998c926458486c3f53fbe17

So, SMOFs and Moderates, read that article. Hell, just read the headline… If you’ve paid any attention or have even an iota of honesty in your soul you know that article in a national publication is total bullshit.

Now do you understand why it is so very tempting for my side to just say to hell with it and hoist the black flag?

EDIT 2, they’ve already changed the article because the EW lawyers freaked out. That should tell you something. I’ve got the original cached.

Since they changed it, here is the original. See moderates? This is what happens when you cross the Social Justice crowd. The truth become irrelevant and they spread whatever they can about you to get you shunned and destroyed.

Hugo Award nominations fall victim to misogynistic, racist voting campaign
BY ISABELLA BIEDENHARN • @ISABELLA324

The Hugo Awards have fallen victim to a campaign in which misogynist groups lobbied to nominate only white males for the science fiction book awards. These groups, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies (both of which are affiliated with last year’s GamerGate scandal), urged sci-fi fans to become members of the Hugo Awards’ voting body, World Science Fiction Convention, in order to cast votes against female writers and writers of color. Membership only costs $40, and allows members to vote for the 2016 nominations as well as the 2015 nominations, which were just released.
Sad Puppies broadcast their selection on Feb. 1, writing: “If you agree with our slate below—and we suspect you might—this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard.” Brad Torgerson, who runs Sad Puppies along with Larry Correia, complains that the Hugo Awards have lately skewed toward “literary” works, as opposed to “entertainment.”
Torgerson also writes that he disagrees with Hugos being awarded for affirmative action-like purposes, as many women and writers of color went home with awards in 2014: ”Likewise, we’ve seen the Hugo voting skew ideological, as Worldcon and fandom alike have tended to use the Hugos as an affirmative action award: giving Hugos because a writer or artist is (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) or because a given work features (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) characters.”
The other lobbying group, Rabid Puppies, is run by Theodore Beale (who goes by the name Vox Day). As The Telegraph reports, “Members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America have called for Beale’s exclusion from the group after he has writtenagainst women’s suffrage and posted racist views towards black writer NK Jemisin.”
Fortunately, some sane voters allowed well-deserving writers to pull through. Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Sword and Listen was nominated for Dramatic Presentation, and Annie Bellet’s Goodnight Stars was nominated, despite having a non-white, female protagonist.
Plenty of members of the science fiction community have voiced their disgust with both sects of “Puppies.” Writer Philip Sandifer wrote on his blog Sunday, “The Hugo Awards have just been successfully hijacked by neofascists.” Sandifer’s post, which is worth reading in full, addresses what this disaster means for the sci-fi world:
To be frank, it means that traditional sci-fi/fantasy fandom does not have any legitimacy right now. Period. A community that can be this effectively controlled by someone who thinks black people are subhuman and who has called for acid attacks on feminists is not one whose awards have any sort of cultural validity. That sort of thing doesn’t happen to functional communities. And the fact that it has just happened to the oldest and most venerable award in the sci-fi/fantasy community makes it unambiguously clear that traditional sci-fi/fantasy fandom is not fit for purpose.
As writer Joe Abercrombie put it:
The Hugo Awards winners will be announced on Aug. 22 in Washington.

##
And this is how she addressed me after being called on these obvious blatant lies on Twitter.

isabella biedenharn ‏@isabella324 1h1 hour ago
@monsterhunter45 Hi Larry, we’re happy to update to include your side. Please send me your comment when you have time
4 retweets5 favorites
Reply
Retweet4
Favorite5
More

Addendum to Yesterday's Letter
Sad Puppies Update: The Nominees Announced and Why I Refused My Nomination

Leave a Reply

864 Comments on "A letter to the SMOFs, moderates, and fence sitters from the author who started Sad Puppies"

Notify of
avatar

Brian Niemeier
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

“Well, the whole world is watching now. What are you going to tell them the award is really about?”

If they’d only done that to begin with, none of this would’ve been necessary.

James
Guest
James
1 year 2 months ago

I want to follow Staw Larry on Twitter.

TallDave
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Oh, the hilarity.

I love this, still kills me I was a day late to the party.

Shadowdancer
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

If I am not mistaken you can still vote. =D

Then nominate next year.

TallDave
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Thanks so much! It would appear you are correct.

http://www.thehugoawards.org/i-want-to-vote/

Love seeing Wright nominated so many times, only discovered his work recently through SP.

Shadowdancer
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

You’re welcome! I got my membership today and am waiting for my name to show up on the membership list.

Excited to vote in the genres I’ve loved and grown up with.

Carbonel
Guest
Carbonel
1 year 2 months ago

I pretty much voted a straight JCW slate for short fic. I don’t read everything in the field: just Analog, Sci-Phi & a few (mostly YA) anthologies, but he just blew me away this year.

Joseph Capdepon II
Guest
Joseph Capdepon II
1 year 2 months ago

You can still vote for the Hugo though. Get a supporting membership, read the nominated works and vote!

Mary
Guest
Mary
1 year 2 months ago

And what’s more, you will get free copies of many of the works, so you can read them and judge.

Guess
Guest
Guess
1 year 2 months ago

Looks like one of the authors that SP nominated is a socialist and she is getting harassed by people for having this endorsement. I had never heard of her. However, it looks like her most popular series is Urban Fantasy. This group has a large Urban Fantasy fan base. How about book bombing her to help her out? Its a way of showing people on the opposite side that this group can appreciate quality writing and its not about your political views?

https://overactive.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/hugo-nomination-and-thoughts/#comments

https://twitter.com/anniebellet

Book
Guest
Book
1 year 2 months ago

Ugh. I think a book-bomb is an excellent idea. Although I plan on buying a membership and will hopefully get a copy of her book anyway. Still, good work is good work- and deserves to be acknowledged.

Adam Maas
Guest
Adam Maas
1 year 2 months ago

Annie Bellet is also an Indie publishing star (seriously, check out her 20 Sided Sorceress series, it’s awesome. Next book is out tomorrow). So she’s not sucking up to the right people despite having the ‘right’ politics.

T.L. Knighton
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Interesting.

Any indie who is “doing it right”, so to speak, deserves better.

Christopher M. Chupik
Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 2 months ago

I hope she isn’t shamed into withdrawing. On top of that libelous EW article, I’ve had just about enough of these little tin fascists.

Brad R. Torgersen
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Annie is hanging tough. In her own words, she’s finding out who her friends are. She won’t be cowed into abandoning her nomination. She earned it, SP3 aside. Anyone who attacks her is an idiot and a fool. Seriously.

Doug Northcote
Guest
Doug Northcote
1 year 2 months ago

Huh, guess I should buy one of her books. Just got book one of the series you recommended.

Looks to be good stuff, and man I so love the indie publisher thing on Amazon. So many good books I’d never seen/heard of. Love how it expands the library.

Stephen St. Onge
Guest
Stephen St. Onge
1 year 2 months ago

Well, I just picked up a couple of her novels, so we’ll see how they go.

David H
Guest
David H
1 year 2 months ago

Well, she just got another sale, and some well-wishing.

Pouncer
Guest
Pouncer
1 year 2 months ago

James Nicoll, world-famed for the best and most succinct analysis of the state of the English Language ever published, announces a new policy due to Toni Weisskopf’s essay at Hoyt’s:

http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/5297418.html

I like Nicoll’s reviews and am saddened that he now chooses to exclude a massive segment of the genre from his sphere of influence.

His choice.

TallDave
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Never heard of him, but I did find it odd he does paid reviews. That’s generally considered a conflict of interest, because even if the author has no direct control over the review, it’s still amounts to paid advertising, and obviously an incentive exists to attract customers.

At any rate I’m not reading advertisements or reviews by someone whose reading comprehension is poor enough to call the SP slate “doctrinaire lockstep.”

T.L. Knighton
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

It is, unfortunately, becoming far more normal for reviews to be paid for.

However, I figure if I have to pay someone to read my book, I probably wrote something shitty anyways.

Bruce
Guest
Bruce
1 year 2 months ago

Aww, man. I was counting on that check!

Nathan
Guest
Nathan
1 year 2 months ago

…and PNH poked GamerGate?! Taunting them that they couldn’t organize anything?

Do they really want a hundred James May’s crawling all over their stuff?

J. C. Salomon
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

“Hastur, Hastur, Hast—arrrgh!”

Doug Northcote
Guest
Doug Northcote
1 year 2 months ago

J.C. Solomon that got a real LOL outta me.

Haha!!

Geek cred to you sir!

Its an old reference to D&D, and there was a chance if you said his name, he’d show up and eat you. Or his unpleasant minions would. Either way, all bad.

And “Hack” as we called him is brother of Cthulhu (admit I looked that up, been that long since reading Deites and Demigods). Its a very unpleasant end at that point.

BikerDad
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

No, I think that given the tremendous volume of material being published, paying for a review is a legitimate approach. Reviewers have a fixed amount of time in the day, an amount that is clearly insufficient to review even a small fraction of what’s available. This isn’t to say that paid reviews can’t be abused, but as long as the payment is disclosed, the review reader is able to assess it’s objectivity. Any reviewer who consistently overrates their subjects is going to lose credibility, and thus lose eyeballs, and poof, no more paid reviews.

TallDave
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

I understand there’s a large volume of material and reviewers prefer to be paid for their time (as do we all), but that doesn’t negate the conflict of interest. People generally respond to financial incentives, and if he gave a lot of bad reviews that didn’t drive book sales authors would have less incentive to employ him as a marketing tool.

Anyways, nothing wrong with marketing, and I don’t begrudge the guy a living, I just find his sanctimony to be built on sandy ground.

Carbonel
Guest
Carbonel
1 year 2 months ago
There’s an unspoken thing with book reviewers (yes, I am one, but don’t worry unless you write for the kids/YA market) wherein we think: o god do I have to read/finish this book–?! Frankly, that’s no bad thing; better to skip a book, if you suspect you can’t treat it fairly. There’s a book I’m passing on because I read an author interview before I read the book itself that was astonishingly bigoted: and the characterization in the story is just weak enough, and it’s got that typical first novel slow middle… Am I irritated by the the book itself,… Read more »
J. C. Salomon
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Apparently these are often fan-commissioned reviews.

TallDave
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Interesting, but similar incentive problem.

Max Florschutz
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
Back when my first book came out, I was looking for ways to get reviews, only to decide I’d rather keep my ethics than get in on so many of those scams. There were “review” blogs out there that would take your money, plus a free copy of the book, for a “chance” at a review. No actual promise of one. The more you “donated” past the base fee, of course, the greater chance you had of being reviewed. They admitted as much. I found another site that had “tiers” of reviews. Want a mention in passing? X dollars. A… Read more »
James
Guest
James
1 year 2 months ago

I would write reviews for free books all day long. Unless the book really sucked, like so many self published garbage.

Christopher M. Chupik
Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 2 months ago

Oh no! Deprived of the SJW critical endorsement, Baen will be forced to rely on their massive, outspoken loyal fanbase instead.

Nathan
Guest
Nathan
1 year 2 months ago

Oh… a patreon. Pass.

Thomas Monaghan
Guest
Thomas Monaghan
1 year 2 months ago

Nice guy he also posted online that Jim Baen shouldn’t get the Long Form Editor Hugo posthumously. Jim lost the Hugo on the last tabulation by 2 votes.

pavetack
Guest
pavetack
1 year 2 months ago

I love that the comments describe Tom Kratman as “not merely a Holocaust apologist”.

That’d be the same Kratman who describes himself as “a Catholic, and mostly Irish. There’s a chunk of Scot in there, along with an eclectic mix of Ashkenazi Jew, Gypsy, Russian, Magyar, Pole, German, Austrian, and God alone knows what else.”

Now, the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but I’d love to see a cite.

windsong
Guest
windsong
1 year 2 months ago

I’ve been watching Sad Puppies over the years, and just wanted to say thank you, Larry.

I’ve been dismayed over the outright hate and lying that has been going on when a simple google search would have sufficed to clear up any confusion. As you said, you’ve been very forthright about your position.

Thank you for standing up for good stories, and for shedding light on the hypocrisies, lies, and general uncivil behavior that has gone on far too long.

Dawn Watson
Guest
Dawn Watson
1 year 2 months ago
Don’t forget the intolerance. What saddens me about all this is that Larry, et al., have to continually defend themselves against such base ignorance and hatred; yet the worst offenders don’t see themselves in that light. As you said, hypocrisy. I refuse to engage them directly (it’s pointless; they’re never going to grow up), though I’m outspoken enough among friends and family. Instead, I made a conscious and deliberate decision to combat the problem from the inside in my own genres (Fantasy and SciFi Romance under not-very-well-hidden pen names) where many masquerade their hatred of freedom and self-expression behind the… Read more »
windsong
Guest
windsong
1 year 2 months ago

That bothers me too. Especially when it’s not that hard to go back and read what he actually said.

*high five to new authors*

I’m trying to get to the point that it doesn’t bother me if I alienate some readers due to being honest. I would rather have fans to enjoy my stories and are the sort that can separate the author from his/her books–and who both have and can enjoy varied and different opinions–rather than those that demand I march in lockstep to what they believe is the One True Way or else.

Dawn Watson
Guest
Dawn Watson
1 year 2 months ago
I’m at that age where I’m tired of biting my tongue. It was getting kinda sore. Also, I’m not a lockstep kinda gal. I’ve always been out of step with the people around me, always. Don’t see any reason to change that now. I’m waiting for the backlash, though, and not from the average reader. Truthfully, most are willing to overlook a character’s politics if the story is good and the message isn’t preachy. But there are a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers that will take one look at the stories I’m publishing and scream loudly about what an anti-[insert cause… Read more »
windsong
Guest
windsong
1 year 2 months ago
Me too. 🙂 That’s why I’ve started speaking up now, and plan to in the future. That’s the thing that I’m angriest with. People shouldn’t have to be afraid for speaking their opinion out loud. Silencing an opinion doesn’t magically make it go away. Shunning people who don’t have the “right” opinions isn’t going to make those people go away. What it does is convince those who are trying to do the right thing that we need to stand our ground and say “Enough is enough.” *writing cookies* To good stories! Hear, hear! Thank you. 🙂 I spoke up because… Read more »
Dawn Watson
Guest
Dawn Watson
1 year 2 months ago

It’s not the first thing that OP has deliberately mangled. But yeah, I get why you’re speaking out. In fact, I agree with you on all points. Especially the cookies. 😉

re: Sisyphus/Prometheus. *snicker*

windsong
Guest
windsong
1 year 2 months ago

The only thing better than cookies is dragons. O:) *am thankful my muse is easily bribed*

Dawn Watson
Guest
Dawn Watson
1 year 2 months ago

Dragon-shaped cookies for the muse.

Sorry. I couldn’t resist. 😉

windsong
Guest
windsong
1 year 2 months ago

!

You have no idea how awesome that sounds. Just the thought of those delectable treats has sent my muse spinning furiously all sorts of wonderful ideas. Right. Before. Bed. Time. O.O

Miguel
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

If Twitter is any indicator, SJW is not well regarded by anybody. And the Gamer Gaters are going “HUH? WTF, We’ve been playing, who has time to read about trisexual nymphs?”

Gamergater
Guest
Gamergater
1 year 2 months ago
Gamergater here. You know, I would make more time for reading if it weren’t for the likes of Scalzi putting me right off the hobby sometimes. Or way back when I found a proto SJW calling Piers Anthony a pedophile. I was reading long about gender swaps long before SJWs made it their religion in the likes of John Varley. Regarding the comments from Dawn about people being willing to read a story with politics they don’t agree with I can attest to that since as an atheist lefty type I read a good bit of Dean Koontz and Orson… Read more »
Doug Northcote
Guest
Doug Northcote
1 year 2 months ago

So say we all!

Long time gamer here too.

Hm, got a “comment too short” so the rest of what I would say is: “Well said!”

Dusty Ayres
Guest
Dusty Ayres
8 months 9 days ago

Sorry for the late response, but…there are left-wing Gamergaters? I’m amazed, since all of the media’s been painting them as right-wing morons who, live in their parent’s basements and are fat with Asperger’s. Thanks for confirming this; I’m a left-wing gamer myself, but of the pragmatically progressive type (and I hang out at this blog with like-minded people.)

trackback

[…] And speaking of which, you really should read this excellent open letter from Larry to the moderates….  Links in there to a lot of needed background and history.  Bravo sir! […]

trackback

[…] You really should read this excellent open letter from Larry to the moderates, fence sitters, and ot….  Links in there to a lot of needed background and history.  Bravo […]

David
Guest
David
1 year 2 months ago

Just a minor proofreading comment. In the “The Hugos belong to a select few” section, I suspect that Hayden called you a liar.

You are a big guy, to be sure, but I doubt anyone would consider you a lair.

Eamon J. Cole
Guest
Eamon J. Cole
1 year 2 months ago

It’s the hobo beard. Lotta lair could be built in that beard.

And it’s at a great height, good defensive position…

Eamon J. Cole
Guest
Eamon J. Cole
1 year 2 months ago

Sigh. I wanted to checky the little box so I could follow the comments…

rcade
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
As a Hugo voter for several years, I regard the slates as tampering because they filled the ballot with the choices of only two people: Brad Torgersen and Vox Day (Theo). As a nominator I picked works I liked and have been confident in my belief that the bulk of nominating and voting is done by other people doing the same. But the pool of people eligible to vote for Hugos is small (850 people nominated a best novella last year), so it doesn’t take much for a small group voting as a bloc to determine all of the nominees.… Read more »
Chris Scena
Guest
Chris Scena
1 year 2 months ago

rcade, take your sanctimonious crap and shove it back up your ass. People like you are what got people like me voting in the first place. All your hand-wringing, false-modesty, whining, belligerence and flat out lying pissed me (and judging by the comments and this and many other blogs) and plenty of others off.

You don’t own being a fan. You don’t get to tell people how and how not to feel about anything.

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 2 months ago

Your tears are precious to me. Keep them coming.

Malcolm the Cynic
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Do you know how Brad picked the slate?

He opened his comments section and took reader suggestions.

rcade
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
So what? He used bloc voting to enable 100-200 Hugo nominators to drown out the choices of everyone else. This even hurt the fans who made suggestions to him: If a work they liked wasn’t in his top 5, it had almost no chance of being nominated. A bloc voting campaign putting the choices of two people all over the ballot is not made more acceptable by the fact they took some public input. It’s still a subversion of the process that gives those of us who do what Correia said he wanted — vote for great SF/F books without… Read more »
Rowan
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

The greatest flaw in your argument is to think that everyone supporting the goals of SP votes, thinks and acts in lockstep. The slate is just a set or recommendations. if voters agree, they will put them up there, if not, they’ll go their own way. No one tells me how to vote when it comes down to the actual ‘picking time’ and from reading the others here, well, good luck getting them to either. I have a herd of cats, and I’d rather get them going in the same direction.

Rowan
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Hey, don’t tell me how easily persuaded and manipulated I’m not! 🙂

Back from Space
Guest
Back from Space
1 year 2 months ago

rcade and the rest of the SJW nutjobs are projecting. They assume that because they’re a hivemind, that everyone else is a hivemind, only with wrongthink.

Understanding *real* diversity — diversity of thought — is well beyond their abilities to comprehend.

TallDave
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Lisa Simpson: Watch yourself, Dad – you’re the highly suggestible type.
Homer Simpson: Yes, I am the highly suggestible type.

Correia is good, Correia is great, we surrender our will, as of this date!

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 2 months ago

@TallDave: To the International Lord of Hate? 😉

The Phantom
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
dear rcade, personally i paid $40 for the express purpose of making YOU whine. i didn’t know it was you at the time, but i knew it would be somebody. i just wanted you to know that all your convoluted bullshit here has fulfilled my every hope, and i feel i have gotten my full-on forty bucks worth already. next up, i get to read all the nominated stories and books, which for the first time in 30 years WILL NOT SUCK. wait until you see what we do to you fuckers next year. you’re going to be pining for… Read more »
Alan S.
Guest
Alan S.
1 year 2 months ago

I need a shirt that says this.

rcade
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Whatever floats your boat.

I’m not your enemy. I’m just a Hugo voter who wanted to make nominations that had a shot at getting on a ballot. Correia and his pals took that away from me with their bloc voting campaign, so I’m telling him why I think that sucks.

As for the notion that the Hugo packet has sucked for 30 years, Kim Stanley Robinson alone shoots that idea to hell. And there are plenty of other authors along that span among the greats of the genre.

Nathan
Guest
Nathan
1 year 2 months ago

Rcade. Prove your claim, please. A 200 vote variance between #1 and #5 in the Novella nominations tends to argue against people voting a bloc.

Alan S.
Guest
Alan S.
1 year 2 months ago

Nathan, only if you’re willing to think and apply your own honest assessment. If you’re willing to concede higher functions to Argument from Authority, well, you get what you get.

Craig
Guest
Craig
1 year 2 months ago

The high point for SP-related votes is probably 368-387 (editor or novel). Let’s go with the editor figure, 368.

Looking for a lowpoint…
Two Best Dramatic shorts did not make it. Cut off was 71. Semiprozine cutoff was 94, and one missed.

Unless they were ineligible or declined, of course, that establishes the overall range.

Douglas B. Killings
Guest
Douglas B. Killings
1 year 2 months ago
rcade: I’m another Hugo voter, off and on for the last 30-some years. Personally, I’m used to nominating works that never wound up on the ballot, because 99% of the time that’s what happens to my picks. But it used to be I could rely on the final ballot to have at least some works I could enjoy. For novels its more or less still true, but for shorter works… I really can’t say I’ve enjoyed many of them for at least a decade now. Last year’s SP noms were probably the first in a fairly long time which I… Read more »
John C. Randolph
Guest
John C. Randolph
1 year 2 months ago

So, you’re bent out of shape that a couple hundred people bought memberships and voted in a way that you don’t like. Rather anti-democratic of you, isn’t it?

-jcr

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 2 months ago

Bloc voting is apparently only actionable when wrongfans do it.

( sarc ) The SJW crowd never bloc votes. It is just a coincidence that their hivemind always picks out authors that are of the protected-class or the day. No hive-voting here, no siree. ( / sarc )

BikerDad
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

You keep saying “he used bloc voting”. Do you have some arcane insight into the actual nominations? Or are you simply ASSUMING?

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 2 months ago

Screw them. They have bloc voted their hivemind for years.

Dish some of it back to them.

Obey the Libertarian International Lord of Hate. You know you want to.

Joe Buckley
Guest
Joe Buckley
1 year 2 months ago
I’ve tended to avoid all this controversy because most people already know that I personally know & like most of the authors from SP1 & SP2, but I’ve been on the verge of commenting on this for days, now. You say: “I’m just a Hugo voter who wanted to make nominations that had a shot at getting on a ballot. Correia and his pals took that away from me with their bloc voting campaign, so I’m telling him why I think that sucks.” It’s comments like this that bug the hell out of me. You say that you’re “just a… Read more »
Wombat-socho
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

F*cking A well told, Joe.

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 2 months ago

Of course we are not worthy. We are wrongfans who promote wrongfun.

Our badthink must be purged.

Mike Glyer
Guest
Mike Glyer
1 year 2 months ago

Wait a minute. Joe Buckley? I read in a book that you were dead. A lot!

phunctor
Guest
phunctor
1 year 2 months ago

Oh, just die already, Joe.
hehehe

Carbonel
Guest
Carbonel
1 year 2 months ago
Not a single one of my graphics works nominations made the ballot. Not. One. None of my artist noms made it Only one of my best novel nominations–Jim Butcher–made Nearly all of my short fic made the list: because JCW was on fire this year. And, you’re going to screw me and Mr. Wright over, raced, just to make a point? How in the unsanctiried lack of salvation is THAT fair? Why do you hate me? What did I ever do to you that you would piss all over the chance of my favorite author winning the Hugo? I’ve been… Read more »
Jeff Gauch
Guest
Jeff Gauch
1 year 2 months ago

But the pool of people eligible to vote for Hugos is small (850 people nominated a best novella last year),

You’ve obviously missed the point. The purpose of SP is to broaden the Hugo electorate to make bloc voting, public or no, ineffective. I’d bet that more than 1000 nominating votes were made in the novella category this year, and that number is going to grow.

rcade
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
Bloc voting doesn’t expand the electorate. It discourages participation in the Hugos for everyone who does not join a bloc. It makes our nominations worthless. No one outside of Torgersen and Day’s blocs got a nominee on the novella, novellette, short story, best related work, or best editor categories. Before the nominees came out, I held out hope that the Puppies would be a net positive by bringing a lot more people into the nominating process — both pro-Puppy and anti-Puppy. But bloc voting games the system so completely that it will just cause one or more other blocs to… Read more »
Eamon J. Cole
Guest
Eamon J. Cole
1 year 2 months ago

rcade,

You’ve fouled your message, as far as I’m concerned. You showed up at another author’s page, one who’s taking some joy in her nomination despite finding herself amidst the silly kerfuffle, and denigrated the value of her nomination.

Leaving aside her request to keep the nonsense out of her space, who are you to lecture her about the value of her nomination? Who are you to stop by her place and cast a shadow on her pride in the accomplishment?

It’s pathetic concern trolling, it’s petty and pointless.

Alex
Guest
Alex
1 year 2 months ago

Oh, s/he’s the graceless and pathetic concern troll that did that? Guess I should have compared names…

Eamon J. Cole
Guest
Eamon J. Cole
1 year 2 months ago

Yep.

Not much class on display with this one.

McChuck
Guest
McChuck
1 year 2 months ago
But I thought the SJWs wanted people to organize? Are you saying you’re anti-union? What SP is at its heart – organizing the oppressed working class reading masses into recognizing their oppression and working together to do something about it to make a better future for their children. We demand good science fiction and fantasy! Down with puerile, heavy-handed, “progressive” message fiction! We demand heroes who perform heroic deeds! We demand stories where the humans are the good guys! We demand stories where the good guys win, or at least go down doing their best, setting up a sequel where… Read more »
s0beit
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

“Bloc voting doesn’t expand the electorate. It discourages participation in the Hugos for everyone who does not join a bloc.”

Except for this year when this exact thing happened…

A bloc existed, a new one formed, and hopefully so many blocs will be created that they aren’t just blocs anymore, but intermingling individual opinions (gasp)

It’s either that or do away with democracy, which I’m totally fine with, but it’ll probably blow up in their faces if they’re exclusionary again.

Back from Space
Guest
Back from Space
1 year 2 months ago

That’s quite the temper tantrum there. Would you care for some Preparation H for that industrial-strength butthurt?

But then, as A Certain Frenchman once said, “Never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.”

Please, continue.

BikerDad
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

But the pool of people eligible to vote for Hugos is small (850 people nominated a best novella last year), so it doesn’t take much for a small group voting as a bloc to determine all of the nominees.

Wrong. The pool of people eligible to vote for the Hugos numbers in the billions. The pool of those who choose to make the effort and expend the resources to do so is much, much smaller. Sad Puppies has expanded the latter pool. Why is that a bad thing?

curmudgeoninchief
Guest
curmudgeoninchief
1 year 2 months ago

I just plunked down my $40, so I will match your “I’m picking up my marbles and going home” brave “No Award” with my vote for the stories I like bestest. When democratic, party politics can trump the creation of a Supreme Soviet for SF, I have to cheer.

Conformity and acquiescence is easy. Democracy is hard, and sometimes it isn’t pretty. Nancy Pelosi, for example. But it is better than the alternatives.

Greg Q
Guest
Greg Q
1 year 2 months ago

“Be sure to let me know when your movement to oppose elitism in the Hugos will allow nominations to once again be selected by individuals”

Um, never have, and never will. It takes at least 30 votes to get something or someone nominated. 30 >>1 that your vote pretty much never matters.

Sorry

Brad R. Torgersen
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

rcade, these were not “my” choices. I polled (straw poll) many dozens of fans, as well as friends, and fellow pros. The list was condensed from a large number of selections. It was right there in my damned blog comments. Of course, all the whiners and complainers never bothered to check. They just wanted to vent their spleens and point fingers, like the crying toddlers that they are.

rcade
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
The fact you took comments from “dozens” in your community does not make it OK that you hijacked the Hugo nomination process away from everyone else. The nominations that I and hundreds of others submitted as individuals in good faith had almost no chance of making the ballot because your slate and Day’s slate filled it. In another comment in this discussion, Correia admits he has no proof that even a single novel/novella/novelette category was stuffed with a secret bloc’s nominees in the past 10 years. None. Yet in the name of fighting that non-existent problem, you’re completely taking over… Read more »
Shadowdancer
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

AAAAAAAAAAAND there’s that moving the goalposts when you are outright told that nope, it’s not just a small handful of people who picked out what to put on that list. Retreat to screaming about hijacking and recommendation lists and voting lockstep when that didn’t happen with SP3. Don’t know about Rabid Puppies, you’ll have to demand answers from them.

So predictable.

Dcrhere
Guest
Dcrhere
1 year 2 months ago

Out of curiosity, just what were your nominees that didn’t make the cut?

Groblek
Guest
Groblek
1 year 2 months ago
I’m in the same place as rcade on this one. I’m sympathetic to the goals of SP – I’m a newcomer to Hugo voting, having attended my first and only Worldcon in 2011. I’ve kept up a supporting membership since entirely because I didn’t see enough of the sorts of work I like on the ballot. My wife and I have been buying Baen’s monthly bundles almost every month for nearly a decade now, so it’s not that I dislike the sort of work you’re trying to get nominated, either. That said, organized open campaigning for the award is not… Read more »
keranih
Guest
keranih
1 year 2 months ago
“That said, organized open campaigning for the award is not something I can support. I get a little uncomfortable with individual recommendation posts from people for what they think of as works worthy of nominating, and the SP movement has taken that to a new level.” I can get the first part. I’m not really looking forward to the Steampunk slate, and the MilSF slate, and the CyperWar slate, and the Medical slate, and the Latin America slate, and the AltHist slate, and the KillHitler slate, and the Muslim slate, and the Orthodox slate(*) and the FTL slate, and the… Read more »
Eamon J. Cole
Guest
Eamon J. Cole
1 year 2 months ago

^This!^ Oh, so completely this!

If people passionate about their interests got together and gave everybody their particular list? And I could go strolling through those lists to find great stuff?!?

I could live with that.

Groblek
Guest
Groblek
1 year 2 months ago

Honestly, of those two options, I’d reluctantly rather have no visible slates. Entirely because I believe that there’s a limit to how many people can be involved in a secret slate voting bloc, and so enough other voters will be able to over come them. And because I think the effects on the community of having visible slates are going to be very negative. I could well be wrong on both of those fronts, but that’s my opinion on the matter.

Differently
Guest
Differently
1 year 2 months ago

I think we should reach out to all of those fandoms next year, if we can. It is their award too.

Carbonel
Guest
Carbonel
1 year 2 months ago

Some of us came late to the party (but you’ll note we’re not complaining)

I swear on my towel I’ll get in touch with Kate Paulk and share links & resources to amazebos Indy art and comics. I’m a librarian. We Do Research Right 😉

Power to the people!

JSchuler
Guest
JSchuler
1 year 2 months ago

“As a Hugo voter for several years…”

Question: how many years does someone have to vote before their vote becomes legitimate?

astrodog
Guest
astrodog
1 year 2 months ago
Rcade, I find you fascinating. I think SJWs need to be studied as a psychological and sociological phenemenon of the internet age. What I find remarkable is that you are completely lacking in any self-awareness. You keep projecting your own characteristics on everyone else but you don’t even know you are projecting. Then you realize the SJWs don’t actually see themselves as SJWs at all. They just think they are RIGHT. About everything. And in a completely mindless way. You don’t reconize how badly the SJW crowd ruined the Hugo awards despite being a SJW because you don’t any clue… Read more »
rcade
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
If you knew my tastes in SF/F and the way I’ve voted for the Hugos the past several years, you would realize the absurdity of calling me a social justice warrior. I roll my eyes at all the excessive politicization going on within these genres, whether it’s coming from someone you’d call a SJW or someone whose politics align with Correia. All I want is to make my Hugo nominations as an individual and have them not completely swamped by people running slates. Like hundreds of other Hugo voters acting in good faith, I had no chance to see one… Read more »
Ember11
Guest
Ember11
1 year 2 months ago

I have to wonder… how do you feel about bloc voting for under-represented minorities in general?

Or perhaps, this situation is different?

Geodkyt
Guest
Geodkyt
1 year 2 months ago

Frankly, Rcade, if you didn’t agree with Scalzi, et. al., you never DID have a chance of getting your choices nominated.

But you didn’t “No Award” every work from Scalzi’s lists in previous years, did you?

rcade
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
Show me where John Scalzi posted a list of nominees and urged people to vote for them as a bloc. He didn’t do that. There has never been a public bloc campaign like the one the two Puppies slates have undertaken, nor has there been anything that successfully put an entire slate all over the ballot to the exclusion of anyone other people’s nominees. I’ve voted as an individual and seen some of my nominations make the ballot in past years, and I never took recommendations from Scalzi. What Scalzi does is tout his own Hugo-eligible work on his blog… Read more »
rcade
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
Obviously the bloc voters didn’t vote their own individual tastes — at least not with much variance — or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. There’s no way the Puppies slates fill the entire ballot without a bunch of straight party-line voting. If your bloc just voted together because they liked the same works, I’m not seeing many comments that reflect it. It seems like everybody just wants to talk about how they stuck it to the social justice warriors. I don’t care about that stuff where SF/F is concerned. If I want to argue about politics I focus on… Read more »
Geodkyt
Guest
Geodkyt
1 year 2 months ago

Mathematical analysis, by a fairly disinterested party who has been cranking out fairly accurate predictions and analysis of such awards voting says you’re simply wrong.

Analysis shows that Puppy voters only stuck to the Puppy slates 40%-50% of the time.

That’s not “bkoc voting a slate”. Hell, any political party that counted on slate voters that did that poorly would be firing the campaign managers.

Math is hard.

James May
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
What’ politicization? Listen, everyone can say all they want about what’s in the stories but the truth is that without the massive wave of anti-white, anti-male and anti-heterosexual remarks this never would’ve happened. That’s the single binding factor that got all these folks on the same page. Or rather, they were thrown onto the same page merely by existing. That massive wave of bigoted remarks continues even right now. I am more than happy the morons throwing stuff around about “white privilege” are authors who got pushed off this year’s ballot. They will also be pushed off of next year’s.… Read more »
Tim H
Guest
Tim H
1 year 2 months ago

“SJW” is just a relatively new label a certain group of people uses for anyone and everyone who doesn’t toe their line. It doesn’t have any functional meaning beyond “someone saying something I don’t want to hear”.

Feather Blade
Guest
Feather Blade
1 year 2 months ago
“SJW” stands for “Social Justice Warrior”. The term refers specifically to those people for whom “social justice” is the highest good in the world and who aim to accomplish “social justice” by means of slander, defamation, and incitement to violence against those whom the “Social Justice Warriors” deem either members of a privileged class, race or sex (sorry, gender) or insufficiently committed to the cause of “social justice”. This slander, defamation and incitement is usually accomplished by blogging or tweeting passive-aggressive comments and outright insults with neither the provision of evidence nor any other attempt at substantiation by the SJW.… Read more »
Geodkyt
Guest
Geodkyt
1 year 2 months ago

No, actually, “Social Justice Warriors” is a term they started using to describe themselves. The ACLU even used it in an article several years before I ever heard it used by conservatives.

Sorry, but your narrative is sadly missing factual truth.

Jim in Alaska
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
I must admit, rcade, I’m not a fan, just an avid sf&f reader for well over 50 years, None the less I’m delighted with this whole sad puppies thing, through it Larry, et al, have introduced me to a lot of great writers and reads. Your ‘No Award’ stance seems, sorry to say, rather elitist and silly. Because you don’t like those who proposed the slate, you plan to refuse crediting an author/book/etc., even though they deserve credit? This sounds so much like the thoughtless action of a true SJW (sorry I’m calling it as I see it), -the type… Read more »
Someone Else
Guest
Someone Else
1 year 2 months ago

Funnily enough, I distrust you not because of any politics or social justice reasons, but because you lied. You’ve said that you’d asked all the authors on your slate if they were okay with being associated with SP, but you didn’t. Several of the authors have made that clear.

So, while maybe you aren’t pushing any agenda I can’t and won’t trust anything you say in that regard. If you have no agenda, you had no reason to lie about that.

James May
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

I agree with LC. The fact they even needed to be contacted shows an inquisition is in play. Does anyone need to pre-contact N.K. Jemisin or Saladin Ahmed. If those Twitter feeds were the world I’d think white people were hunter-killer teams.

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 2 months ago

What do you mean we don’t have a hunter-killer team? What kind of International hate organization is this?

Shadowdancer
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Well, they’re sjw seals, so natcherally we have hunter-killer teams, except it’s only metaphorical. Also tetsubos. We established that the last time there was a flood of trolls over here.

Don’t forget the tetsubos.

Geodkyt
Guest
Geodkyt
1 year 2 months ago

Tetsubos make the meat tender…

T.L. Knighton
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Wow. What a special word you live in. It must be nice to be able to label every goof up as a lie.

Here’s the thing. I was being considered for the Sad Puppies slate, and I got spoken to before I was even on the slate (and I wasn’t, alas). I have every reason to believe that the attempt was made, because I saw evidence of it myself.

But you go on believing that a mistake is a lie. I sincerely hope you get to experience the sensation soon enough.

Geodkyt
Guest
Geodkyt
1 year 2 months ago

Wait? So everyone is supposed to ask every author’s permission before saying, “I like these stories, and I think you will, too. Go buy them, read them, and decide for yourself…”

Shit, I’d better go edit my Facebook “likes” page, since I already know Ouija boards are fake…

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 2 months ago

There already is a permission process. The authors are asked if they accept the nomination.

Apparently this special snowflake is worried we might be triggering authors.

The only triggering here is being done by the SJW witch-hunters to author careers.

Porkopolitan
Guest
Porkopolitan
1 year 2 months ago

Damn skippy! I mean, affirmative consent, right? (“Can I linger over this next verb? Please?”). (/sarc)

keranih
Guest
keranih
1 year 2 months ago

*spits coffee*

You, sirah, owe me a new monitor.

Reziac
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

If YOU nominated someone, would YOU feel obligated to inform them? Maybe, but no one else does. That SP did so (however imperfectly) was a courtesy they dreamed up, not a requirement of the process.

And I don’t count honest mistakes as “lies”, especially when the perp has already owned up to their mistake.

Someone Else
Guest
Someone Else
1 year 2 months ago

With something this politically charged with the fandom and internet as it is? Hell yes. Causing problems for someone is something I try and avoid to the point where things actually become detrimental to myself.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 2 months ago

So the actions of SJWs causing problems is somehow Brad’s fault?

What an… interesting world you live in.

Rob Crawford
Guest
Rob Crawford
1 year 2 months ago

It’s the same mindset that gave us “she dressed provocatively, she knew what to expect”.

Shadowdancer
Guest
1 year 2 months ago
Yeah. Fan of (insert author here): “I love this person’s books so much I will nominate them for a Hugo Award. I’ll blog about it.” Friends of the fan: “Hey, let’s make a list of awesome books that qualify this year and we think deserve a Hugo. Raise awareness, because I didn’t know you could vote for the Hugos.” Fan: “Sure! Nobody has to vote for it, this is just the list of the ones we like.” Some of the friends: I like some of the ones on that list but I’ll nominate a few others that aren’t on it.… Read more »
Taarkoth
Guest
Taarkoth
1 year 2 months ago

One of the problems with modern discourse is the tendency to equivocate responsibility with blame. They are not one and the same.

Yes, Messrs. Correia and Torgerson and the rest of the people involved with SP3 are partly responsible for the SJW attack swarms going after the SP nominees. They are not, however, AT FAULT for the antics of the morlocks.

Torgerson et al. acknowledged that responsibility by attempting to contact everyone they nominated, something they didn’t have to do. That they failed was simple human error, not maliciousness (that trait lies entirely with the morlocks doing the attacking).

Someone Else
Guest
Someone Else
1 year 2 months ago
Brad telling them that the authors agreed to be on the list is the reason the authors are being attacked so, yes, he bears some responsibility for it. He didn’t have to say they’d all agreed, and he obviously has low opinions of SJWs and has been on the internet for more than ten minutes. Saying he didn’t expect the authors to be harassed just doesn’t cut it. Since other people seem to want to think I’m a rape apologist or excuse domestic abuse, here’s another analogy: It’s not the fault of the victim that they were raped, ever. However,… Read more »
Eamon J. Cole
Guest
Eamon J. Cole
1 year 2 months ago

No. Quite simply no.

Quite with the asinine analogies.

Creators were chosen because their creations were appreciated. Full stop.

Bullies are attacking them because they’re petty human beings.

You’re here, castigating the people who appreciated the creations for daring to voice their opinion.

Care to illustrate where you’re anywhere else standing up to the bullies for their petty filth?

J. C. Salomon
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Oh, this is great:
• Brad says he got agreement → he left them open for attack; but
• Brad doesn’t say that → he gets attacked for this omission.

Go commit some anatomically-improbable obscene acts elsewhere.

SDN
Guest
SDN
1 year 2 months ago

No, the only liar here is Someone else and his crew. They are using the exact logic of a wife beater: “If you took better care of the kids, I wouldn’t have to hit them and you.”

Shadowdancer
Guest
1 year 2 months ago

Yep, the justifications of the habitual abusers, the muggers, and stalkers.

Stalker: “Tell you what, if she takes down the sticky (that documents all my abuses and warns other people about me) I’ll leave all of right-wing SF alone. Oh, she didn’t, it’s her fault then that I’m harassing everyone. It’s all on her now.”

I’m very, very familiar with the ‘argument.’

I love how they blame the victim. DARVO tactics at it’s finest.

</