A response to George R. R. Martin from the author who started Sad Puppies

When one of the most successful authors on the planet takes the time to talk about something you did, I figure that deserves an in depth response. I’ve got no direct line to Mr. Martin, but I am hoping that this will get back to him.

I am going to respond to some of the things Mr. Martin said to try and explain my reasoning. His words will be in italics, mine will be in bold. The link to his original articles is provided. Since I’ve read like 4,000 posts on this topic this week and written a novel worth of responses, I’ll not be going through everything he said and just be responding to things that I think need clarification or direct response. I will provide links to each of his posts so that you may read them in their entirety.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417521.html

Let me begin with the basics:

Who owns the Hugo Awards?

You know, looking back, I am probably partly to blame for some of the misconceptions that seem to exist on this point. For years now I have been urging people to nominate for the Hugo Awards, and saying things like “this is your award” and “this award belongs to the fans, the readers.” I felt, and still feel, that wider participation would be a good thing. Thousands of fans vote for the Hugos most years, but until recently only hundreds ever bothered to nominate.

Still my “it is your award” urgings were not entirely accurate.

Truth is, the Hugo Awards belong to worldcon. The World Science Fiction Convention.

Mr. Martin, that is exactly one of the reasons I started this campaign.

When I started this the Hugo Awards were not portrayed as the awards that belonged to WorldCon. They were portrayed as the awards that represented the best of all of fandom. After my first experience seeing how the sausage was made, I publically said the same thing you said there, that the Hugo Awards don’t represent all of fandom, they represent one tiny part of fandom.

I was called a liar.

I too was nominated for the Campbell for Best New Writer. As a young, new writer, who had grown up reading the great ones, I was super excited by this incredible honor. See, I was born around when you got your Campbell nomination. I was one of those fans who grew up believing it when great authors said things like “this is your award” and “this award belongs to the fans, the readers”.

Because I was naïve.

I was overjoyed when I found out I’d been nominated. I was even dumb enough to think that I might have a chance. I had already read works from two of the other nominees and I knew that they were remarkable story tellers. I had read Wells and Beukes and knew the quality of their work was excellent. In any fair wordsmithing contest either could kick my ass, and I hadn’t even read Ahmed or Grossman yet, but if they were as good as the other two, then there would be a lot of quality works to choose from.

But that’s the kicker… I hadn’t realized yet that for many voters it wasn’t about the quality of the work. 

Within a few days of the nominations being announced I not only knew that I was going to lose, I knew that I was going to be last place. Only it had absolutely nothing to do with my writing, but rather, who I was, and what I was. 

I know you remember when you were starting out, Mr. Martin, because you talk about it in this very post, that scrimping, saving, and sleeping on couches phase of your career, where you are desperate to get your work out there in front of people, to get any exposure at all, and I’m betting that you were always really excited to hear what readers had to say about your creations. Right?

I know I was. So I went out on the internet and started searching my name, trying to find out what the buzz was for the Campbell nominees. I started calling friends who belonged to various writer forums and organizations that I didn’t belong to, asking about what people thought of my books in there.

You know what I found? WorldCon voters angry that a right-wing Republican (actually I’m a libertarian) who owned a gun store (gasp) was nominated for the prestigious Campbell. This is terrible. Did you know he did lobbying for gun rights! It’s right there on his hateful blog of hatey hate hate! He’s awful. He’s a bad person. He’s a Mormon! What! Another damned Mormon! Oh no, there are two Mormons up for the Campbell? I bet Larry Correia hates women and gays. He’s probably a racist too. Did you know he’s part of the evil military industrial complex? What a jerk.

Meanwhile, I’m like, but did they like my books?

No. Hardly any of them had actually read my books yet. Many were proud to brag about how they wouldn’t read my books, because badthink, and you shouldn’t have to read books that you know are going to make you angry. A handful of people claimed to have my read my books, but they assured the others that they were safe to put me last, because as expected for a shit person, my words were shit, and so they were good people to treat me like shit.

At first I was shocked, then I got angry. What the hell? This is supposed to be the most prestigious awards in scifi and fantasy?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not lumping all of the WorldCon voters in with that perpetually outraged, politically motivated clique. I know plenty of voters read my books and just didn’t think they were as good as the people I was up against. Awesome. I salute you for you being an honest person with an honest opinion, and let’s face it, people have different tastes.

But don’t tell me now that the Hugos don’t have whisper campaigns…

Though I knew I still had fans voting, and I figured there were a lot of honest people who would give my works a fair shake regardless of my politics, I also spent most of my adult life as an auditor who did statistical analysis for a living. I understood how Australian Rules voting worked, and the rankings are not most popular to least popular, but rather least disliked to most disliked, and 72 hours after the nominations came out it was pretty obvious I was going to be most disliked.

Then I went to my very first WorldCon.

Mr. Martin, you talked about your positive, joyous experiences at WorldCon. How you were welcomed as a peer, about how you had all these great, wonderful, memorable experiences.

But I’m betting before your first WorldCon a whole bunch of malignant lying bastards didn’t spread the word to thousands of complete strangers that you were a racist, sexist, homophobic warmonger who deserved to be shunned. 

Side note, I’m not racist, sexist, or homophobic, but if that crowd (I’ll talk about the derogatory label my side uses that you don’t like in a minute) decides you are the enemy, they will smear you with those labels, regardless of the evidence. If you don’t believe me, read the many, many news articles about Sad Puppies that came out a few days ago working off that same script.

I met many wonderful people at that WorldCon. I also had many people treat me like garbage. I was berated by other panelists. I had people get up and leave the room when I entered. I had belligerent drunks challenging me at room parties because “Oh, it’s that fucker”. 

A lot of people will tell you now that I bring this upon myself, because I am rude and abrasive on the internet now. Yes. Now. But back then I was still trying to play it cool, and didn’t think I could have a successful career if I made the wrong people angry. It wasn’t until after that WorldCon that I said screw it, they’re going to hate me anyway, might as well state my honest opinions.   

So I mostly hung out with the Barflies, because they were cool. But I can hang out with Barflies at fifty other cons where I’m not assumed to be the second coming of Hitler because the internet said so. And while I hung out with them, I got to hear how many of them were shunned for various reasons too. 

Then I went to the award ceremony, and the parties, and the various schmoozefests, and I discovered that the Hugo Awards were like one great big In Joke. And the cool kids told their cool stories to the other cool kids, and lorded it over those who weren’t part of the In Joke. Honestly, it reminded me of high school, and I was the poor fat kid who had inadvertently pissed off the mean girls.

Then I got to meet and hang out with a whole bunch of authors, artists, and creators who spent most of the con bitching about how broken and biased the Hugos were. Some of these were old school, and got the In Jokes. Some were so talented, so famous, so successful, that it blew my mind that here they were at dinner, pissed off and angry that they knew they would never get any sort of consideration.

After the awards were over and all the cool kids patted each other on the back about how brilliant they were, and everything shook out pretty much exactly how everybody predicted it would anyway, they released the actual numbers for nominations and votes, and I discovered just how freaking tiny the number of people involved in this supposedly most prestigious award in the world was.

The winners were those who played the game, and as I sat there with the losers, I watched the game already being played for next year. As an author, I was sad. As a fan, I was disgusted. But as an auditor, I marveled at how something so statistically insignificant could be taken so seriously.

That was my first exposure to how the process really worked.

So I went home, dejected. And when I openly spoke about my experience, and I said pretty much exactly what you just said there, Mr. Martin, that the awards don’t represent all of fandom, and that they just represent one tiny, insular, clique of fandom… I was called a liar.

I was attacked all over again. I was told it was just sour grapes from a loser, but what could you expect from a shit writer, making shit product? The Hugos represent greatness, worthiness, and all of fandom. WorldCon is inclusive. How dare you question it?

So I said I would prove it, and I did. 

Here we are, a few years later, and oh how the narrative has changed. Now we are being told that the idea that the Hugos represented all of fandom and not just the tastes of one small convention were misconceptions. Now the most successful author in the world and editors for the biggest scifi publishing house are telling us that it belonged to just WorldCon all along.

Too late.  When people like me kept getting told that it represented all of fandom, we believed you. When you told us that if we wanted the stuff we liked represented better we should get more people involved in the process, we believed you.

And we did. Now we’re the bad guys.

((Never believe anyone who states loudly and repeatedly that they don’t care about awards, especially if they don’t care about one award in particular. Aesop saw through that okey-doke centuries ago. Boy, them grapes are sour. If you don’t care about something, you don’t think about it, or talk about it, or try to change the rules so you get one. The people who keep shouting that they don’t care if they ever win a Hugo are the ones who want one the most, take that to the bank)).

 

I am many terrible things, but dishonest is not one of them.

Let me clarify something, because I have been personally attacked for this for three years now. Yes, like most authors I dreamed of winning a Hugo, because I was very naïve. In the past I did very much want to win a Hugo. Just like I was dumb enough for a couple days to think that I might actually have a shot at winning a Campbell.

However, I know that I will not ever win a Hugo. I’m way too good at statistical analysis. I had a snowball’s chance in hell before I upset the apple cart and made myself radioactive to the typical WorldCon voter.

I launched the Sad Puppies campaign with the idea that if I could get authors with the wrong politics onto the Hugo ballot, I could prove to the world that the Hugos were in fact what you are all now admitting that they are. (Mission accomplished) Plus I wanted to expose that the perpetually outraged crowd would react with vehemence, vitriol, lies, and career sabotage, so that the world could see that our genre is overrun with bitter culture warriors who have politicized everything, and that if you had the wrong politics they would do everything in their power to destroy you (mission accomplished beyond my wildest dreams).

Not only did I know going into this that I would never win a Hugo, I also knew that I was going to make myself a target, and that I would be slandered, threatened, and have my career sabotaged.

But I still did it anyway.  

The thing I’m shouting about is bigger than just the Hugos. It is about freedom of expression, and the ability of authors to say what they want to say without fear. It is about exposing the malignant, destructive bullies who live to persecute others for crossing their invisible lines.

I got a nomination for my novel Warbound last year. The people I’m trying to expose rose to the occasion, formed lynch mobs and started attacking. I got a nomination again this year, for my novel Monster Hunter Nemesis, but I refused the nomination, specifically to prove that this isn’t about me wanting a Hugo. Apparently that still isn’t enough.

Allow me to demonstrate my conviction, and state for the record that I will never accept a Hugo award nomination for myself. However, I will continue to assist other authors who I believe have been unfairly blacklisted and shunned get theirs.


You will all have noted, no doubt, a common thread here: worldcon.

The Hugos belong to worldcon.

I am glad we are on the same page now.

If important people like you had said this to the people feeling disenfranchised before, then you wouldn’t be seeing this backlash now.

But instead of telling us the truth, that we were right and the Hugos belong to just WorldCon and didn’t represent all of fandom, my people were insulted, and told we were stupid, and that we liked stupid unworthy things. When an outsider dared to complain in public about how they would never get considered, they were told it wasn’t because WorldCon was biased, it was because they just weren’t good enough.

Worldcon continued… but the steady growth that had characterized worldcon through the 60s and 70s stopped. That 1984 worldcon in LA remained the largest one in history until last year at London. Meanwhile San Diego Comicon and Gencon and Dragoncon grew bigger than worldcon… twice the size, ten times the size, twenty times the size… Dragoncon even went so far as to break with a half-century old fannish tradition by moving to Labor Day, worldcon’s traditional date, a date that had up to then been inviolate. And why not? Dragoncon’s attendees were fans, sure, they were comics fans and Star Wars fans and cosplay fans, and some were even book fans… but they were not “trufans,” as that term was commonly used, and they didn’t care when worldcon was.

 

While WorldCon complains of the shrinking and greying of fandom, Salt Lake City ComicCon has been around for 2 years and has 150,000 attendees. For some people, books might not be their primary fannish outlet, but they still read books. Just because somebody plays Dragon Age or the Witcher doesn’t mean they don’t read fantasy novels too. Heck, I believe Halo tie in novels are some of the bestselling books in scifi.

If somebody was introduced to fantasy by watching Game of Thrones on HBO, and then they bought and read all your books, discovered they liked fantasy and read other books, and they thought some are awesome and deserving of an award, are they somehow lesser fans on the scales of fandom because they don’t know WorldCon trivia?

So do you not want those fans to vote in the Hugos because they don’t share the proud traditions of WorldCon, or not? Because I do.


(The term “trufans” is an unfortunate one in this argument, since some of the Sad Puppies and their supporters take it amiss, and understandly, when told they don’t qualify. The term is a very old one, however, probably dates back to THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR, a parody of PILGRIM’S PROGRESS about the search for “true fandom.” Like “SMOF,” it is at least partially a joke. And if any of this paragraph makes any sense to you, you are undoubtedly a trufan… but don’t worry, you don’t need to know what a mimeograph machine is to be a real fan, I swear).

 

Yes, part of the issue of why my side is very loud right now is that people like Teresa Nielsen Hayden have been very explicit that they aren’t welcome, and that they are the wrong kind of fans.

But now that we are talking terminology, let me explain why exactly the term SJW has come into common usage. Much the same way SMOF and trufan have taken on meanings representing groups with a shared mindset to your community, SJW has taken on a meaning representing a group with a shared mindset to my community.

The term SJW is way bigger than Sad Puppies, and predates Sad Puppies, and has entered the general lexicon of easily half our nation, but probably mostly the red state tired of getting yelled at half. We use the term SJW because it is far easier than typing out Perpetually Outraged, Searching For Offense, Quick to Accuse Racism/Sexism/Homophobia/Privilege/Patriarchy, Holier Than Thou, Politics Before Fun, Unholy Cross Between Communists and Puritans, Twitter Lynch Mob Forming, Career Sabotaging, Social Justice Crusaders.

The term has stuck, and shows up everywhere in America. Comet Guy with his “offensive” shirt did more to popularize the term SJW than anything my people ever did. It is here to stay.

And to contrast SMOFs, who are mostly normal, sane, good people, Brad came up with the term CHORFs for the really snobbish elitists, because unlike SJWs, we have a sense of humor


Other conventions have other awards. Wiscon has the Tiptrees. The World Fantasy Con presents the World Fantasy Awards, or Howards. The Bram Stokers are given by the HWA, the Nebulas by SFWA. Libertarians have the Prometheus Awards, though I don’t know where they give them out. I just came back from Norwescon, where they handed out the Philip K. Dick Award. We used to have Balrogs and the Gandalfs, but they went away. The Japanese have the Seiun awards, the Spanish have the Gigameshs, the Czechs the Newts. Australians have Ditmars, Canadians Auroras. Gamers have Origins Awards, comic fans have Inkpots and Eisners.

I don’t denigrate any of these awards. I’ve won an Inkpot, I’ve handed out an Eisner. I won a Balrog too, but it was smashed before it reached me. I have a Newt and a bunch of Gigameshs and even a Seiun. Awards are cool. Awards are fun. Or should be. I don’t expect I will ever win a Tiptree or a Prometheus or a Dick, but that’s fine, I applaud them all the same. Writing is a hard gig, man. Any recognition is a plus. Big or small, any award is a pat on the back, a way of saying, “hey, you did good,” and we all need that from time to time.

The difference is that none of those awards claimed to speak for the entirety of fandom.

The barbaric outsiders shelling out their $40 to get involved now grew up being told that the Hugos were it, the Big Deal, the best of the best, and like me, they were naïve enough to believe it for a long time.

Yet, as the Hugos became increasingly politically skewed in one direction, people can now admit that is because they reflected WorldCon, not all of Fandom, only for all these years Fandom were the ones being told that they were dumb for liking the wrong things. They were wrongfan having wrongfun.

If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award… for Best Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be… whatever it is they are actually looking for… hey, I don’t think anyone would have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn’t. More power to them.

Mr. Martin, up until a week ago, nobody in the upper echelons of fandom or publishing would say that the Hugos belongs to just one tiny convention. They kept claiming to represent the best, most worthy things in our whole genre. And we had stuff that we thought was great and worthy too, but it was ignored or shunned, so why would we go start another award when there was a perfectly good award right there already claiming to represent us too?

We started doing this 3 years ago. Maybe, if 3 years ago some VIPs had come out and said what you’re saying today, we would have done that instead. “Okay, Sad Puppies 2013 or 2014, you are right, you really are outsiders, and we’re insiders and we want to keep this our thing, so go do your own thing” would have avoided a lot of trouble.  But you guys didn’t say that then, so you can’t get mad at us for taking you at your word that you represent everyone, and then get mad at us for not knowing the insider information that you guys claimed didn’t exist until last week!


But that’s not what they are doing here, it seems to me. Instead they seem to want to take the Hugos and turn them into their own awards. Hey, anyone is welcome to join worldcon, to become part of worldcon fandom… but judging by the comments on the Torgesen and Correia sites, a lot of the Puppies seem to actively hate worldcon and the people who attend it, and want nothing to do with us. They want to determine who gets the Ditmars, but they don’t want to be Australians.

 

I told my WorldCon experience above. I know Brad had a similar experience when he first got involved with WorldCon too.

Why do the many people involved in the Sad Puppies campaign seem to hate WorldCon? Because the SJW crowd (I know you don’t like that term, but it is the appropriate one to use here) hates my kind of fan, actively and routinely attacks my kind of fan, and calls them racist, sexist, homophobes without evidence, all day, every day.

I know the SJWs are only one small clique at WorldCon, however they are the loudest and the meanest. And sadly, the moderate, rational, normal WorldCon folks rarely seem to condemn them for their antics. So from over here on the Sad Puppies side, they take your silence and lack of condemnation against the hate mongers as tacit approval, and then they tend to lump you together.    

So why then would they want to attend when they are told their kind is unwanted?

Why would they stick up for WorldCon, when in their minds they think the silent majority of WorldCon attendees are the same as the vocal minority of crusading social justice crowd who actively and openly despises them?

WorldCon claims to be inclusive, but scroll through the various comments threads on the various fan blogs on my side of the fence and get their perspective sometime. SFWA also claims to be welcoming, inclusive, and apolitical, but again, read how they are really perceived by many. Snobbish, snooty, bossy, self-righteous, etc. Don’t take my word for it—you know I’m terribly biased—but ask them yourself.

 

The prestige of the Hugo derives from its history. The worth of any award is determined in large part by the people who have won it. Would I love to win the Hugo for Best Novel some day? You’re damned right I would. But not because I need another rocket to gather dust on my mantle, as handsome as the Hugo trophies are. I want one because Robert A. Heinlein won four, because Roger Zelazny and Alfred Bester and Ursula K. Le Guin and Fritz Leiber and Walter M. Miller Jr and Isaac Asimov and Frederik Pohl and so many other giants have won the same award. That’s a club that any science fiction and fantasy writer should be thrilled to join.

Yet honestly, with the current state of the Hugos, how many of those greats that you list would win today? Sadly, I think we both know the answer depends on how well they could play the game.

My personal favorite on there is Robert Heinlein. Hypothetical question, if Robert Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 2014, could he get on the Hugo ballot now? Or would he be labeled a fascist with troubling ideas, and a product of the neo-colonial patriarchy?

And before you dismiss that question, maybe you should read up on what the voting clique that shall not be named says about Heinlein now.

Sadly, I suspect the only way Heinlein could get on the ballot today would be if my horde of uncouth barbarian outsiders got involved and put him on our suggested slate.

[[Once again, comments and dissent are welcome, but I expect courtesy from all parties. And yes, that means those of you who are on “my side” as well. Let’s not throw around insults, or charges of misogyny and racism, please. And Puppies, sad or happy, if any of you feel inclined to reply, please avoid the term “Social Justice Warriors” or SJWs. I am happy to call you Sad Puppies since you named yourself that, but I know of no one, be they writer or fan, who calls themselves a social justice warrior. Offending or insulting posts will be deleted. We can disagree here, but let’s try for respectfuldisagreement.]]

We do not mind being called Puppies, but for the record we are doing this on behalf of Sad Puppies, because good books being excluded over political message dreck is the leading cause of Puppy Related Sadness.

We do not however like being called racists, sexists, misogynists, homophobes, fascists, hate mongers, the KKK, or wife beaters. Especially in major media outlets like Entertainment Weekly, Salon, Slate, the Telegraph, and io9. If you would like to compare the amount and level of vitriolic lies spread in this contentious debate, it is pretty obvious which way those scales are going to go.

As for the term SJW, as I said above, that isn’t going to happen at this point. It is entrenched. You might as well tell people not to say conservative or liberal, because though often inaccurate when applied to every single individual in a movement, they are useful, handy descriptors that get the point across quickly.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417600.html

I find the above link to be an excellent article about the tone.

Yes, I do get angry, and yes, I have said some very mean things as part of that.

I know you’re not looking for excuses, Mr. Martin, but I’m a little nobody, no name, hack author, who sells a tiny fraction as many books as you do, who had the bright idea to expose the bias in a biased system. As a result I’ve had people who know better spread the vilest lies about me you can imagine, and even when they know it is a lie, they have continued.

For five years, nobody on your side said a damned thing about tone when I was the one being labeled a hatemonger, or a “rape apologist” by disingenuous SFWA presidents, or they were using fabricated “scare quotes” to show I was a homophobic woman hater in the Guardian.  

So, yeah, I’m angry. When people who haven’t talked to my wife since high school reach out to her, worried for her safety, because they read about how her husband is a wife beater, I get angry. Right now in about 50 blogs going out to I don’t know how many hundreds of thousands of people, the narrative is that I’m an angry white man, trying to keep scifi straight and white and male.

And the fans who got involved with Sad Puppies? It turns out that one of their primary motivators to finally get involved was that they watched all this happen live. And as more of them voiced their opinions, more of them were publically attacked too, which motivated more to jump in, etc. etc.  

But once we finally succeeded in making a big splash, and everybody started paying attention, and tons of people on my side are speaking up now too, and media outlets from the both sides of the political spectrum are reporting on it, and the insults are flying back and forth…

Now we get warnings about tone.

You know the most heartening things I’ve seen this week are? Writers who are my polar political opposites finally standing up and saying things like yes, Larry Coreia is an asshole, but he’s not any of these horrible things you are accusing him of, or yes, Larry Correia is an asshole, but please quit threatening to kill him and his entire family.

That’s been nice.

But yeah, I’ve said some pretty mean things during this debate, so you’ll have to forgive me if after the 1000th post calling me a bunch of things I’m not, I come off a little testy. When you have professional culture warriors like Brianna Wu and Arthur Chu, who make their livings off of generating political controversy, saying that Brad Torgersen’s two decades of interracial marriage is just a shield to hide his true secret racism, then yes, there is a serious tone problem.

People like us have been dealing with people like that for our entire careers. One of my goals was to get your people to notice it.

So thank you for calling for civility.

Personally, I will try to remain civil to anybody who disagrees and wants to debate, but I’m way past the point where I have any mercy left for people who just want to scream in my face, or the mind readers who ignore what I actually say and do to tell everyone what I really meant, and I will treat them accordingly. 

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417812.html

Mr. Martin, on this last post of yours, there is actually very little that I disagree with, and it is actually extremely nice to see a writer of your caliber and level coming out and saying this stuff. For that, I am truly appreciative, and I’m not just blowing smoke. I’ll explain why below.

The Sad Puppies and their supporters have argued that they are not the first to campaign for awards in our (not so) little genre.

They’re right about that, of course.

I’ve been around a long time. So has campaigning, by one means or another.

(I left out several paragraphs here about campaigning for the Nebulas, just because of space, because this blog post is already huge, but I would really recommend that everyone go and read the whole thing. The Nebulas aren’t the Hugos, but the communities are intertwined)

And what about the Hugos, you ask?

Yeah, there too. In the ongoing discussion of Puppygate, numerous people have cited one instance, wherein a stack of identical nominating ballots arrived with the same postmark, paid for by consecutive money orders. Those were disallowed. In 1987, members of the Church of Scientology campaigned successfully to place L. Ron Hubbard’s BLACK GENESIS on the Best Novel ballot. That was not disallowed — the Scientologists had done nothing illegal, after all, all they’d done is buy supporting memberships to a convention that they had no intention of attending, for the sole purpose of nominating LRH for a Hugo (hmmm, why does that tactic sound familiar?) — but their campaign created a huge backlash. Hubbard’s name was booed lustily at the Hugo ceremony in Brighton, and his book finished last in the final balloting, behind No Award. (The winner that year was Orson Scott Card, with SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, for those who are counting).

Of course, there were also recommended reading lists. That wasn’t campaigning, not strictly, but certain lists could have huge influence on the final ballot. The annual LOCUS Recommended Reading List, compiled by Charles Brown and his staff and reviewers, was the most influential. If your book or story made that list… well, it did not guarantee you a place on the ballot, but it sure improved your chances. NESFA (the New England fan club) had an annual list as well, and LASFS might have done the same, not sure. And of course the Nebulas, which came before the Hugos, carried a lot of weight too. Win a Nebula, and the chances were good that you’d be a Hugo nominee as well. Again, no guarantee, some years the shortlists diverged sharply… but more often than not, there was a lot of overlap.

One quick note, after SP2 made a little bit of a dent and I had said a bunch of things in public about the bias in the awards against people with the wrong politics, various incredulous fan bloggers started looking at it. These were people who don’t like me (which I am totally cool with) but they were honest, and figured my claims of political bias in this process would be easily disproven.

Except they ended up finding various things that indicated maybe all of us “right wingers” weren’t such liars after all. That prestigious influential LOCUS Recommended Reading List you mentioned? I think it has like 40 or 50 books but ZERO from Baen (a publishing house that gets a bad rap because it is willing to publish any author regardless of their politics, from capital L Libertarians to card carrying Communists as long as they can tell a good story).  Most of the other various lists from various pro places? The politics of the recommend authors are either unknown or overwhelmingly fell in one direction. You can guess which direction that is. 

Chaos Horizon picked two Hugo contenders to compare for 2015, one “right wing” (me, because of my showing during SP2) and one “left wing” (because this overtly political and opinionated author is a perpetual Hugo favorite) and they compared the buzz and reviews. What they found was so lopsided it surprised even me. Our books sold about the same, came out within a month of each other, and I had higher reviews on Amazon, except the left wing author had been plugged on ALL the recommendation places they checked. The right wing author was on ZERO.

So there were always these factors in play. Cliques, I can hear the Sad Puppies saying. Yeah, maybe. Thing is, they were COMPETING cliques. The NESFA list and the Nebula list were not the same, and the LOCUS list… the LOCUS list was always very long. Five spots on the Hugo ballot, and LOCUS would recommend twenty books, or thirty… sometimes more, when they started putting SF and fantasy in separate categories.

 

Yes, there were competing cliques, but the only cliques who mattered all looked virtually identical to us outsiders looking in. And hardly anything they ever nominated represented anything we liked. To most of us barbarian wrongfans, the competing cliques were indistinguishable from one another.

For example, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe with last year’s winners, every single one shared similar political viewpoints. And all but one of them was white, yet that year was hailed as a huge win for diversity.

You need to see this from Wrongfan’s perspective. You guys had competing cliques, but to us it was like an Eskimo having a thousand different words for snow, and you can tell us about your many diverse and wonderful types of snow, but all we saw was snow.

And in recent years when we looked at the ballots it was like, awesome, let’s choose between these five items of approved socially conscious message fiction. Yay! We’ve got selections from: religious people are stupid bigots, capitalists are raping the earth, capitalists are stupid bigots, bigots are stupid, and I’m not quite sure what the hell this last thing is about and I’m not even sure if it qualifies as fantasy or scifi but it has bigots in it… Oh man, tough call.

Again, now we can openly say that this all makes sense because my kind of people aren’t WorldCon regulars, and this award belongs only to WorldCon, so the stuff making the ballot wasn’t aimed at us… but sadly that wasn’t what you guys were telling us when we started this. This stuff was supposed to be the best stuff in the whole world.

So we formed our own competing clique and actually bothered to show up.


Bottom line, lots of people influenced the Hugos (or tried to), but no one ever successfully controlled the Hugos.

 

And I truly don’t want to either. I don’t want to be Hugo Pope.


That became even more true when we entered the age of the internet. Suddenly blogs and bulletin boards and listservs were everywhere, and there were DOZENS of people drawing up recommended reading lists and suggesting books and writers and stories. Sweet chaos. It was glorious. So many people talking about books, arguing about books, reading books.

That was also when the practice of writers blogging about their own eligible books and stories took root. “Say, the Hugo nominations are coming up, and I had a few things out last year. Hey, check them out.” Some people were deeply offended by this practice. (Some still are. Check out the blogs of Peter Watts and Adam Roberts on the subject, for instance). Others, especially newer writers and those hungry for attention, seized on it at once as a way of getting their name out there. Publishers and editors began to encourage it. Publicity and advertising budgets being what they were (non-existent in many cases), new writers and midlist writers soon realized that if they did not publicize their books, no one would.

And once it really got rolling, there was no stopping it. “Everyone else is doing it,” you heard writers say. “I have to do it, in self-defense.” They were not wrong. Sometimes the difference between making the Hugo ballot and falling short is a single vote. The writer who refused to self-promote and then fell a few votes short… ouch.

[And yes, I have done all this myself. Mentioned my own work, drawn up recommended reading lists, blogged passionately about people I thought deserved a nomination. I am not condemning the practice, just reporting on it. It always made me feel awkward, but like many of my friends, I knew that if I refrained and then missed the ballot by a few votes, I would be kicking myself. I’d sooner see the practice die out. But until it does, you have to play the game.]

Of course, not everyone was equally good at self-promotion. Certain subfandoms were better organized than others (the DOCTOR WHO fans, for instance). Certain writers were more skilled at social media than others, and built up huge personal followings on Twitter and Facebook, or through their blogs… numbers that soon translated to multiple Hugo nominations.

 

You have no idea how incredibly glad I am that you wrote all of that, Mr. Martin. After the week I’ve had… Holy moly.


And that was pretty much where we stood, until the Sad Puppies came along.

Last year I didn’t do anything different than what was listed above. I talked about it on my blog. I tried to motivate and rally people to get involved. I plugged stuff I liked. And all of a sudden there was a little clique of Wrongfan nominating for LonCon, just big enough to get one item into every category. We were no different than the other above mentioned subfandoms.

Yet, somehow, when I did that, I was a filthy villain, breaking all the rules, with no respect for tradition. Just as I predicted, there was a wrathful terrible public backlash from the clique which shall not be named, and even though I went into it knowing that none of us would actually win, once the final results came in, the leaders of the clique which shall not be named out of respect for Mr. Martin, moved the goal posts, and danced in our blood. Articles were written about how these horrible racist hate mongers were soundly driven from the sainted halls of WorldCon. Back beneath your rock, foul barbarians! And anyone who supported Sad Puppies was motivated by racism! Booooooo!

That reaction did more to cause the avalanche that was Sad Puppies 3 than anything I could have ever done. It proved exactly what I’d been saying all along. I was joined by a whole bunch of other people, authors, creators, artist, and fans, who said enough of the lies and BS and slander, now we’re in this too. We’re tired of the Hugo awards being a circle jerk of like-minded people telling each other how brilliant they are.

To be perfectly frank, some things changed between LonCon and SasQuan. I’d proved my point about the bias and attacks, and was ready to hang it up. They poked the bear, the bear mauled them, and now the bear just wanted to go back to his cave and be left alone. But Brad Torgersen is an idealist, Mr. Martin, I can’t accentuate this enough. He would be dead in Westeros in fifteen minutes. Brad is TruFan. That man waves his nerd flag high. He looks at the Hugo with adoration like it is some sort of religious icon with a halo around it. He prays to his altar of Saint Heinlein 3 times a day and lights candles for Frank Herbert.

If I was naïve at first, Brad makes me look… hell… I don’t even have a good comparison. So when he grew up hearing that the Hugos represented the Best of the Best, bright shining light on the hill, he incorporated that into the very fiber of his being.

And Brad figured that with my insane stunt of SP2 actually working, let’s make the Hugos represent more of fandom, fans like him and his friends. So instead of a thousand words for snow, we might actually  have some dirt, or grass, maybe even some trees, and no doubt some bullshit will show up once in a while, but damn it, our side is sick of freaking snow!

At that point Sad Puppies was no longer just about proving a point. It was about giving a voice to a whole mess of fans who didn’t think they would ever have one again. The mission changed, and it became about getting deserving worthy creators who would normally be shunned or ignored some freaking recognition for once in their lives.  It was time to stand up to the clique that shall not be named and their lectures about how we were having wrongfun.

Unlike the existing cliques, Sad Puppies 3 didn’t give a damn about politics, race, religion, or orientation. All we cared about was could they tell us a damned good story. The big game you describe, the campaigning, the favors, all that, our suggested slate was made up of the people who didn’t, wouldn’t, or couldn’t play that game. 

I have very mixed feelings about campaigning for awards. Part of me agrees with my friend Lisa Tuttle. Wouldn’t it be great if each reader could make his own nominations, without being influenced by slates or lists or mass mailings? It would also be great if all the children of the world could get together and sing in perfect harmony, but that’s not going to happen either. Like it or not, campaigning is here to stay.

I can see where this is going. I am a Worldcon member and a SFWA member, but I am also a member of the Writer’s Guild of America and the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which means I vote on the WGA awards and the Emmys… and so the flood comes in, DVDs and Blu-Rays and screeners and links to lockboxes, all full of TV shows and movies “for my consideration.” Way too many to watch. Way too many to count. Are there studios and directors and networks that don’t play the game, that don’t send out screeners and run ads in VARIETY and THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. Sure there are. They are easy to recognize. They’re the studios and directors and networks who don’t win any awards.

Once you let the genie out of the bottle, he doesn’t go back in.

The Sad Puppies did not invent Hugo campaigning, by any means. But they escalated it, just as that magazine/publisher partnership did way back when. They turned it up to eleven.

If the people attacking us don’t chill out, more of my people are going to get pissed off, and it might hit a 12 or 13 next year. 🙂

 

Their slate was more effective that anyone could ever have dreamed, so effective that they drowned out pretty much all the other voices. They ran the best organized, most focused, and most effective awards campaign in the history of our genre, and showed everyone else how it’s done.

I used to be an accountant. We are monotonously efficient.

Truthfully, we never dreamed that we would block out whole categories with our suggestions. I underestimated how motivated my people became after seeing the childish, petulant, entitled reaction from the clique that shall not be named last year.

I’ve had a bunch of well-meaning SMOFs telling me that they nobody would be upset if we’d only gotten one or two things into each category, but that’s exactly what we accomplished last year, and they still freaked out at us.


The lesson will be learned. The Sad Puppies have already announced that they intend to do it again next year. Which means that other factions in fandom will have to do it as well. Just as happened with the “let me tell you about my eligible works,” the rest of the field is going to need to field slates of their own in self-defense.

 

Mr. Martin, we didn’t start this. We are the inevitable backlash that occurs when the pendulum swings too far in one direction.


I don’t look forward to that. It cheapens the Hugos. Will future winners actually be the best books or stories? Or only the books and stories that ran the best campaigns?

As far as we could tell, it was already like that.

Can all the king’s horses and all the king’s men put the Hugos back together again?

I don’t see how. And that makes me sadder than all those puppies put together.

My honest opinion is that to a gigantic chunk of disenfranchised fandom, we felt like Humpty Dumpty fell off that wall a long time ago.

If you want to talk about going forward, from here, I don’t know what to tell you about your campaigning cliques. They were already there long before we showed up.

But you really want to “fix it” and make sure my people don’t screw it up anymore, and keep the Hugos sacred? Well, right now the ball is in your court.

You’ve got people out there who supposedly love the award so much that they are organizing block votes for No Award against absurdly deserving yet consistently overlooked people like Jim Butcher, Toni Weisskopf, and Kevin J. Anderson, all to burn the whole thing down, just because my people violated your secret gentleman’s agreement and plugged them on a slate. As Brad Torgersen pointed out already, that sounds suspiciously like the story with Solomon offering to cut the baby in half.  And one mother saying, screw it, I’d rather the baby die than that bitch get him. (paraphrasing, obviously).

No matter how you change the rules, Sad Puppies will still obey the rules.  

First and foremost, you guys need to decide, once and for all, what the Hugo Awards really are. There are two choices.

  1. It is the most prestigious award which represents the best works in all of fandom.
  2. It is a little award, for one little group of people, at one convention.

You can’t have both. Pick one, stake your flag on it, and we will proceed from there.

If it is just WorldCon’s little clubhouse award, and some of us aren’t welcome in the clubhouse, then fine. Duly noted, and Sad Puppies next move will be predicated upon that.

But if it is the most prestigious award that represents the best of all of fandom, then that means that all of fandom, including us, gets to participate.

You can’t have both.

I think you will find that the people who are involved with Sad Puppies are willing to talk about the future, but we are very tired of being yelled at and lied about.

No matter what happens, whether you like the term for them or not, you guys need to calm your SJWs down, and tell them to quit forming angry twitter mobs, and scaring the hell out of authors who cross their invisible lines. Most of us aren’t big and successful enough to be immune to their inquisition. I’m fine. You’re doing, holy crap, like mega bucks piles of gold bars fine. But many regular authors are being intimidated by these bullies, having their careers damaged, and it isn’t right.

Anyways, I hope you actually read this, and if so, I appreciate you taking the time.

Sincerely,

-Larry Correia

Donations to help Shadowdancer's family after tragic loss of their child
The Weber State Creative Writing Class is now open

1,075 thoughts on “A response to George R. R. Martin from the author who started Sad Puppies”

    1. The Puppy Buddha Correia, having renounced the Hugo, sat down beneath the bodhi tree and began to meditate upon the Middle Way of Science Fiction and Fantasy.

      And the demons and concern trolls of social Mara began to dance and posture, trying desperately to distract him…. 🙂

      Seriously, though, I give you all my respect for relinquishing the Hugo Award. May your award be great in Heaven, or at least pretty darned cool.

      1. Larry will have to settle for his Legion of Loyal Fans and dry his tears with huge royalties checks I suppose.

    2. Hmmm… how about this? Perhaps the Sad Puppies should start a meme that anyone voting “No Award” is actually voting for Mr. Correia. After all, he has already publicly and clearly stated that he will accept “no award” or nomination in the Hugo voting.

      They could even have a nice celebration if “No Award” wins!

      🙂

    3. Nobody also finds this ironc. A white man bitching about finally facing an ounce of “discrimination” in his life. Whining that he didn’t win anything because a couple people that he had to search really hard for thought he was a racist joke? This is a joke. Let’s screw over people who are exactly like you were in your younger days because you didn’t get your way. Grow the fuck up.

        1.         But Mr. Martin is employing his white man’s privilege to live life on the lowest difficulty setting.  While we shouldn’t be too hard on him, let’s not let him off too easily either.

                  And he does need to learn not to whine when he loses a fair fight.

      1. In a novella sized blog post, I spent a couple of paragraphs talking about my personal experiences, because GRRM asked me about them… And then dismiss the whole thing as personal whining. Check. 🙂

      2. Oh,wait, I get it now. The real irony is the fanboi coming over here talking about “White” and “Discrimination” when Larry is Latino and grew up damned near a sharecropper.

        But right, he’s FINALLY facing discrimination.

        So, Hammy, exactly what ethnicity and class are you, son?

        1. As if you didn’t already now.

          He is white, upper-middle class, and riddled with guilt over not having struggled ever in his life.

        2. I hope then that his wiki page is wrong because if it isn’t, this is the kind of misleading bullshit fit for a politician. Characterizing someone as being a Latino who grew up damned near a sharecropper in refutation of someone that that calls him white conjures up the image of a Latin American immigrant whose family toiled in someone’s tomato fields… which is horrifically and intentionally misleading if he’s Portuguese and grew up on his father’s farm. There’s a great deal of debate on whether Portuguese even qualifies as Latino, but it sure as fuck qualifies as white. Although your post could be considered ironic, I think hypocritical is more apt.

          1. There’s no debate that Portuguese are Latino. Unless you’re a racist fuck.

            And poor is poor. Portugal is most certainly not a wealthy nation, and immigrants are immigrants.

            And Hispanics and Latinos can be of any race.

            But we see where your obsession is–if you can characterize someone as white, you can ignore everything else about their history.

            I’m waiting for the first White African American. Or is that Allen West?

  1. Hear, hear.

    I also would not want to be Hugo Pope. However, if the College of Cardinals elects me next time to the Chair of Saint Peter, I will take the name Pope Hugo. Not the same thing.

    1. Heh, I’d pay to see that one… but your wife might be unhappy about the celibacy requirement. Great library and nice rooms for the kids, though!

      “Habemus papam! Legem Magistrum et Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ laicum Johannem Wright, qui sibi nomen imposuit Hugonis.”

      1. Actually if elected Pope Hugo would still be married.

        And once enthroned he would be totally qualified to say, “That celibacy thing? It’s a discipline, not a doctrine. Not all priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes need to follow it now.”

        Whether he’d do this is a whole ‘nother question. But he certainly could.

          1. Yeah, but married bishops have historically been few, because historically bishops and priests were bound to abstain from sex as well as food and drink before saying Mass. And bishops were saying Mass every day in times when most priests didn’t.

            In the Eastern rites, the current rule is that married priests can’t become bishops; they take their bishops from among priest-monks or priests who did not marry.

            Back in Alexandria in antiquity, Hypatia’s student who was made a bishop against his inclination was very unhappy about the effects of his sudden be-bishoping on his family life.

          2. I was taught that the original issue was with married bishops (not priests) because in the middle ages, dioceses began to collect (retain?) real property and wealth (gold communion cups, for example) that were inadequately differentiated from the wealth that a bishop (generally a person of the upper educated classes) himself held, and which could/should be passed down to his widow and heirs. One too many screaming matches over whether the bishop’s kids got something and Mama Church said ENOUGH, done with that option.

        1. Actually, if elected Pope, my first pronouncement would be to reactivate the secular power of the Inquisition, declare a Crusade against the Mohammedans and the government of China, and appoint Skynet and Colossus (the computer, not the X-man) as archbishops.

          Worst. Pope. Ever.

          People would look back on the Borgias with nostalgia.

          And then I would be struck with a lightningbolt out of a clear blue sky, agnostics would STILL call it a coincidence. Some people are just never convinced.

          1. Data should be repeatable. I’m sure that some agnostics would be convinced something weird was going on if multiple Popes got struck by lightning when they did stupid things.
            Of course, I’m pretty sure the College of Cardinals would stop electing stupid Popes before it got repeated enough to convince most skeptics.

          2. Actually, if elected Pope, my first pronouncement would be to reactivate the secular power of the Inquisition, declare a Crusade against the Mohammedans and the government of China, and appoint Skynet and Colossus (the computer, not the X-man) as archbishops.

            Worst. Pope. Ever.

            I am reminded of the scene at the end of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” The main character is offered the purple. His response: “You would find me unsuitable. My first official act would be to have you all crucified.”

          3. Ah, but what color of smoke would emerge from the crater, and would that have any significance under canon law?

          4. Well no, this model agnostic would call it very weird, while acknowledging weirdness happens.

            After all, stand up comic Sam Kinison, who had a whole bit about how we have to drink and drive to get our cars and ourselves back home, and another where in he compared marriage to being in hell, was killed by a 17 year old drunk driver within days of his 3rd and hence final marriage.

            God may or may not exist, but if he/she/they/it does, Spider Robinson’s whole ‘irony’ attribute would seem to be part of it’s makeup.

            Ultimately, it would become one more datum in the life long, (or possibly eternal) quest to answer the whole god question.

      2. Pffftttt. I’m fairly sure that the number of popes who truly kept celibate has been a significant minority, and mostly in modern times where communications spread the word of infidelity faster than pie at a country fair supper.

        1. Modern times’ communications? There’s the old joke that seminaries in Rome don’t have fire alarms, because gossip spreads fast enough already.

    2. You horrible, right wing, sin hating badbeliever!

      I’m voting “NO POPE”.

      I’d rather burn the Catholic Church to the ground than have a Pope nominated by you SadSheep jerks!

    3. Then you can issue a papal bull that rocket ships ought to land on their tails, the way God and Robert Heinlein intended.

        1. Not at all…in fact the “as God and Heinlein intended” line is one I’ve been using since their first attempt although I can’t remember where I picked up.

          1. That sentiment was expressed in Steve Savitzky’s song “The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of” (copyright 1998). Whether that was where you got it from (or indeed, whether that was where it originated) I cannot say.

            http://steve.savitzky.net/Songs/stuff/

            “But the future that we lost is still someplace out there
            Orion still rides hellfire toward the blue,
            And rockets proudly land upon their tailfins,
            As God and Robert Heinlein meant them to.”

    4. All award competitions and their attendant ceremonies are, and always have been, a joke.

      They are, and always have been, a falsehood… a pretense at meaning.

      From the junior high pep-rally popularly elected MVP to the Hollywood Oscars, they are all as manipulated and rigged as last week’s pro wrasslin’ cham-peen-ship.

      Anyone who believes that they have any meaning whatsoever is precisely the type of moron who would actually buy a book or see a movie based upon its having won such an “award”.

      It is an illusion, people.

      So stop fighting over something that doesn’t exist.

      Go *write* something… ya’ lazy, procrastinating, masturbatory, adolescent fucking trolls pretending to be writers!

      Then maybe you’ll win the award of a few dollars of my hard-earned money.

      Maybe.

      1. You weren’t impressive on Torgerson’s blog.
        You aren’t impressive here.
        Seeing as Correia actually writes stuff.

  2. You know, Larry, I was once very close to the “leadership” of the “Boskone” Cons here in Boston (since renamed), and I have to tell you, if they were representative of the people who “ran” the Hugos, then yeah, a major problem existed. These characters felt that this was theirs, no one else’s. Screw the fans. They would choose what *they* wanted, because they were the only people who knew what should be lauded.

    And, frankly, seeing and hearing him in action, GRR Martin reminds me *exactly* of that ilk.

      1. They’re doing some good stuff. For instance, reprinting the works of such masters as Poul Anderson. . . they are currently on volume 6 of his short works.

    1. They renamed Boston? Crap; nobody tells me anything!

      Seriously, Boskone still exists and is still run by NESFA. Arisia also exists and is run by Arisia, Inc. and while some folks work on both cons, they are definitely separate and one wasn’t renamed into the other.

      1. Is Boskone still in “exile” is Springfield? The only time I attended it was there and not Boston but that was…not quite 30 years ago?

  3. “If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award… for Best Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be… whatever it is they are actually looking for… hey, I don’t think anyone would have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn’t. More power to them.”

    If gays want to have their own pizzas places that cater their weddings, hey, I don’t think anyone would have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn’t. More power to them.

    If illegal immigrants want to have an improved life in their own country, hey, I don’t think anyone would have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn’t. More power to them.

    If unabashed cultural Marxists want to have their own public schools, universities and governments that are run by control freak bullies and petty bureaucratic tyrants, and start their own country somewhere else that’s not America, hey, I don’t think anyone would have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn’t. More power to them.

    I could go on like this all day.

    GRRM’s post is basically, “when my side was in control, everything was fine. As soon as we start losing, the whole thing is broken.”

    What a jerk.

    1. You’re spot-on. His might not have been the same volume of foot-stomping temper tantrum as Bradford’s screed was, but it’s still a temper tantrum. It’s the pseudo-reasoned response of someone whose grip is loosening, and he don’t like it one bit, no sir.

      Mr. Martin, as a historian, here’s a little bit of advice from the years I’ve been studying movements such as what the SJWs (and I call them that to distinguish them from actual social justice activists) represent today:

      The revolution eats its own. Today, you might be their darling for speaking power to truth, but they *will* turn on you one day. The fans you have denigrated today will remember, and they will not defend you when the movement turns its hungry gaze and bloody jaws on you. There will be no one to help you, to speak for you, or to defend you. At that point, it will be too late.

      1. The odd thing is that Martin has been attacked by these people on numerous occasions. There’s no shortage of SJW ranting about the sexism and racism in GoT/ASOIAF (because Danaerys is a blond white woman, e.g.).

        Granted, he’s big enough to be immune to such attacks, but one would think he’d have more pity for the little guys.

        1. If he were a little guy he’d be more than made aware he is an ethnic European heterosexual man, the cause of ills in the sick gender feminist ideology SJWs adopted for their own 5 years ago.

          1. James, googling “Game of Thrones racist” turns up some fine examples that you may want for your collection (assuming you don’t already have them).

          2. He’s got his own movie theater. I doubt he wastes much time Googling his name on the Internet. 🙂

          3. Yeah, I looked; “Easterlings.”

            These very odd people seem to want Chinese to tell their own stories, Arabs to tell their own stories, and me to tell those stories too. Tough, I have my own.

          4. Oh, but if you do tell their stories, you’re engaging in “cultural appropriation”, while if you don’t tell their stories, you’re “racist”.

            The only way to win that game is not to play.

    2. “Why can’t the gay rights people make their OWN boy scouts organization? Why can’t female comic book fans accept that the male super-heroes who get all the movies are just BETTER than their favorite heroines? And, seriously, isn’t it time the elderly realized that once they’re old society is right to pretend they don’t exist? If they want help and company, they just need to visit each other! Yeesh.”

      ….yeah, that part stunk.

        1. No, actually. That’s EXACTLY the context in which he meant it. He just didn’t mean it to apply to the peasants.

        2. Actually, I was trying to make the point that GRRM saying “Why can’t the unhappy people just go away and do their own thing” was kind of the very thing SJW always accuse the other sides of.

      1. What a pitiful attempt to twist a legitimate comparison. And assert all only leftists are capable of compassion and empathy for their fellow man.

        You disgust me.

        1. No, that wasn’t what I was asserting. I was agreeing with Joshua’s point that George R.R. Martin’s attitude of “If you people are unhappy, just leave us to do your own thing” very much resembles the supposed attitudes they allegedly claim to combat.

          Obviously, I did it poorly.

          1. No, you did it very well.

            Quit apologizing. Making the other side apologize is how you win this game.

          2. I kind of agree with him.

            The Hugos and the Nebulas aren’t just niches, they are too general niches.

            I would love to have a Best Military Science Fiction category, or even an individual award with subcategories like short story, graphic novel, tv series, movie, videogame, board game, best new writer, series and lifetime achievement.

            Same goes for a number of subgenres, like Hard SF, space opera, cyberpunk, and so forth.

    3. LC consistently reminds folks that he posts not to convert the entrenched liberals/SJWs but to reach the fence-sitters.

      GRRM, from what I recall, explained the gap between the SoIaF books by the fact that he was so dispirited when Bush was re-elected that it resulted in a years-long writing block for him.

      I suspect ‘moderate’ or ‘fence-sitter’ are not the terms that describe him and I suspect he is unlikely to be moved in his opinions. Still, you never know I suppose…

      1. Pshaw. Martin is no moderate. He’s just smart enough to start to realize that the histrionics that his fellow fascists have been engaged in are self defeating, so he’s striking a reasonable tone. But underneath that reasonable tone are the same fascist arguments that the hysterical have already put forward to no avail. Its just a posture. He’s not being reasonable, he’s being just a tiny bit cunning. And dishonest.

      2. But that’s the thing. This isn’t exactly trying to convince GRRM. This is one of those essays that will be passed all over the Internet, and thousands of fence-sitters will read GRRM’s casual dismissal of the wrong thinkers, and LC’s calm, logical rebuttal and correction of each point. Whether it sways GRRM or not is immaterial.

        1. Hi! Fence-sitter, here. I read GRRM’s LJ. Then I read this. I’m left-wing in my politics. I went to Loncon last year. I will never go to another Worldcon, even I, left-leaning, felt disenfranchised. I was bullied for not being a ‘trufan’ because I’d never been to a Worldcon before. Noticing how the voting worked… it’s a statistical nonsense. This article is exactly right. I don’t care what your political views are – I’ll read your books if they’re any good. I don’t appreciate people trying to tell me things are not good because they were written by someone with the ‘wrong’ views. I always wanted to be part of fandom, I thought I WAS. Nope. It’s stupid. Well done, sir, for your excellent experiment. The Hugos and that branch of fandom is now beneath my notice, I’ll carry on reading what *I* want to read.

          1. I’ll say that as a fan of sci-fi/fantasy, whether it be books, comic books, movies, TV, action figures, RPGs, video games, and whatever else I may have forgotten, I like that I can run into someone like Fence Sitter above and we can most likely have a great conversation about our mania. I don’t have to give any more of a shit about your politics than you do about mine while we’re discussing whether or not 5e is the best iteration of D&D since 2nd (it is), that it’s a fucking crime that Firefly was cancelled before we got to learn that Shepherd Book was actually the guy who ordered the attack on Serenity Valley (you know he was), how much gas Marvel Studios has left in their tank (hopefully a lot), why Games Workshop had to go so far off the fucking rails (this one may skirt dangerously close to politics depending on your attitude toward free market structures), and whether or not GRRM will actually finish ASoIaF before he gets a piece of a Milky Way the size of my big toe wedged in his ascending aorta.

            Seriously, these days being able to talk to someone rationally about something other than politics is becoming less and less common. In a time where our society is turning increasingly toward the main identifier which people apply to themselves is a political ethos, I’m glad that we can ideally have something like a shared geek-out over the fact that this next Star Wars movie *might* not suck. Being told that this shared apolitical interest can no longer be such blows camel dick. Being told that the reason we can’t have a shared apolitical interest is because I don’t believe in the right things is even worse.

          2. Welcome to the land of Enjoyment and WrongThink. We are glad to have another person whom we can share books that we find enjoyable.

          3. Holy heck, of course Shepard Book ordered the attack. Tuco, you brilliant bastard. Yup. That is absolutely the way Whedon would have (and probably did) set it up.

            You a writer yourself? Because that one insight is enough to make me buysomething you wrote.

      3. It’s true – I was following GRRM’ lj back in 2003 and when Bush won reelection he was all like ” winter has come to America.” Although I suspect his block is more about chickening out about his planned ending, whatever it is.

        1. Yeah, I don’t for one second think his writers block (any of them) have anything to so with politics. He just doesn’t want to finish his story. I think that’s why the last couple books were mostly treading water.

          The show is gonna finish it for him though.

      4. That he’s clearly left politically doesn’t mean that he’s not a “fence sitter” on the idea of inclusion in science fiction and at Cons. And while I’ve never actually talked to the guy I’ve done “fire marshal door guard duty” on his panels and “general hall monitor” for his book signing lines and from what I’ve seen he treats his fans with a great amount of respect… wait, I have spoken to him because he’s signed stuff for me… forgotten that.

        In any case!

        The thing is really… if your experience at conventions is warm and fuzzy and welcoming (even if you miss the days when you didn’t have to have an actual *staff* keeping you from getting mobbed) it’s reasonable to think that conventions are welcoming and fuzzy places.

        Various people have been explaining that to *them* going to a con might have been fun and they might have loved it, but it also would invariably involve at least one moment of silently enduring outright abuse toward you or yours… and probably more than that.

        That someone may have never realized that doesn’t mean that they think those people should just go away.

        And the same with the sort of terrified self-censorship that wanna-be authors were taught to practice, to make sure they didn’t let anyone find out they had a wrong-thought or voted the wrong way or were religiously observant in a way that wasn’t alternative.

        Just because someone is clearly left-politically doesn’t mean that they think that’s okay.

        (And it’s also one reason that the term SJW is used… because the self-appointed enforcers don’t actually include everyone that ever secretly or not-so-secretly killed off George Bush in a novel. There ARE liberals out there who are not interested in being the thought police.)

        1. Various people have been explaining that to *them* going to a con might have been fun and they might have loved it, but it also would invariably involve at least one moment of silently enduring outright abuse toward you or yours… and probably more than that.

          You mean that GRRM and his warm and fuzzy fellow travelers might have to…check their privilege? ^_^

      5. Eric Flint is quite literally a card-carrying socialist. He’s not a moderate or a fence sitter either when it comes to politics. But I believe he’s on “our side” when it comes to inclusion in sci-fi fandom. (He had a great essay some years back on why boycotting authors for their politics was a bad idea).

        Similarly, while Martin’s comments about Bush clearly indicate there’s no chance we’re making a Republican of him anytime soon, it may still be possible to convince him of the importance of being inclusive in fandom. His works at least (well, some of them) show a considerably more nuanced picture of the world than you might suspect from his political rants.

    4. This is battlespace preparation for changing the Hugo rules at Sasquan. The only question I have is if that gambit is predicated on “no award” sweeping the fields, precipitating a crisis, or if the SJW’s are able to lock us out without broader trufan support.

      1. And if they manage to change the rules, then we can point out that their little award no longer has any meaning outside of their little clique. And won’t THAT be setting the cat among the pigeons!

    5. Here’s the thing… Martin is a lot like an older Patrick Rothfuss. He’s a bleeding heart liberal who genuinely wants the world to be a better place. He’s not an SJW. He’s a man you could have a beer with while debating a point of disagreement and not have him smash you over the head with the bottle and say you deserved it.

      Martin is an idealist and I believe he sometimes mistakes today’s cries of unoppressed people for equality with the very real equality issues of the 60s. I would like to see him call out the SJW side a little more for their obscene behavior. I also believe that if their side toned down the -ist insults the backlash against them would slow down.

      However, as Vox has pointed out several times, the SJWs are always looking for a new target to attack and are seemingly immune to normal human reason. If we cannot reason with them, what other option is there but confrontation? Here’s a question I’d like to see Mr. Martin answer:

      Someone who has been slandered with the most vile names imaginable and who faces the very real possibility of having their reputation and career ruined. At what point is it okay for this person to fight back?

      1. He’s not an idealist if he’s making excuses for why his favorite people should remain in power, and have their way and continue bullying anyone else who disagrees with them, and oh, hey, as I say something so ridiculously outrageous as this, I’ll try to paper it over with a transparently insincere mask of reasonableness.

        You can’t be an idealist while spouting about you’re a soi-disant one-of-the-good-guys who’s actually simply an elitist and clinging to power for your clique. There’s a famous phrase you may have heard; “By your fruits shall ye know them,” and those ain’t the fruits of an idealist.

        For that matter, I don’t know how you can be an idealist and write such a wretched, nihilistic, amoral, and utterly joyless depiction of the human condition as his work either, but that may be neither here nor there.

        I didn’t have a lot of respect for GRRM before this, but his post on this today, especially the more I read it and the more I dig a bit into the details of it, the more I’m convinced that it is not in the least flattering to him at all.

        You’d think at least one of these guys would realize, or even at least suspect, that there are enough fans on the SP side that calling them out, calling them names, and contemptuously patronizing them is much worse career suicide than making the Nielson-Haydens and their little clique not like you.

        But no.

        1. Yep. This is the ol’ step up with a smile and talk and talk, saying nothing much, while his fellow travelers sneak up behind and plant the knife in.

          Concern trolling as a distraction. That’s all it is.

      1. It’s hard to read who this question is in response to, but on the off-chance that it’s me, absolutely. I don’t pretend to have said anything particularly brilliant or original anyway.

    6. I love this post.

      A convenient litmus test to see if someone is being a hypocrite is to simply take something he/she thinks is good and apply the same logic or circumstance that he/she is trying to push on to you.

      Quickly you will see that they are not looking for equality or acceptance, they are really after affirmation and overt repression of dissent of whatever their pet project or view happens to be.

    7. you forgot to add one more “if” example:

      **if black people want to have their own drinking fountains or stores that cater to their blackness, i wouldn’t have any objections to that.**

      when you leave that paragraph out, people might mistake you for reasonable.

    8. It’s funny, because it looks to me like a flipside of what is going on with GamerGate.

      Strange how when it appears to be their side that is on the outside of an entrenched fandom and trying to be heard it is an injustice beyond all human comprehension, but when someone is trying to make something they control more open and accepting to differing points of view? Oh, then it is still an injustice beyond all human comprehension.

      So it appears that the sole determination on whether an entrenched fan culture needs to make room for alternative points of view is on what side of the fence the SJWs are currently standing.

      Sounds tolerant.

    9. A very obviously flawed analogy.

      GRRM isn’t suggesting Sad Puppies shouldn’t be allowed to participate in Hugo nominations — whereas you ARE suggesting gays should be excluded from pizza places, immigrants should be excluded from the US by immigration law, “cultural Marxists” should be excluded from public schools, etc.

      GRRM is suggesting that Sad Puppies should participate in the Hugo nominations as equal participants rather than a political bloc. I’m sure GRRM would likewise believe that all the “undesirables” to whom you draw your analogy should also be able to take part in various aspects of public life as equals* — I think your perspective is actually that they SHOULDN’T.

      *Well, illegal immigrants are breaking the law by doing so, so I doubt GRRM would actively encourage that. But he’d probably advocate for some compassion for fellow human beings trying to make their lives and those of their children better. What a jerk.

      1. Sorry, who is proposing to exclude anyone from anywhere? Cite, please. Implied bigotry is obvious straw man.

        And equal participants…who pay their $40 and vote. So, you’re saying that a poll tax and a literacy test aren’t “equal” enough for you.

        “Bloc” = “the voters I disagree with.” Textbook liberalspeak. Because by definition, the ballot that wins was voted by a bloc who all voted similarly.

  4. Thank you for sharing with us, Larry. Even though it’s quite long, it’s very well worth reading it. And I agree with you. I am a new writer and a Mormon and a woman. I don’t understand why gender, religion, sexual orientation, color of skin or political ideology should be anyone’s business – especially when it comes to writing or writing awards. I don’t shout my ideas from the rooftops and then yell at people, if they don’t agree with me. I want people to read my work, comment on that said work and not about if they like the color of my hair or where I am from.

    Writing should be about writing and writing only. If the book is good, I really care less about what kind of dogs the author has and how many children, where he or she went to school and all that nonsense. Writing is not a reality show, it shouldn’t be treated as such.

    To be wide eyed newbie with no connections is never fun, even more so if you somehow don’t belong to some pre-defined mold that “the industry” approves of. Finding an audience and “making” it in this business is hard as it is, without dragging hate and social prejudices into it. Acting like cliques in high school is petty and childish ( but I bet they do it, because now they get to be the cool kids – instead of that bullied fat and pimpled kid they were back then ) – such a shame.

    I wish authors, who are already established and recognized world wide would remember how tough it was when they started out and stop making assumptions before hearing, reading and learning both sides of the fence.

  5. Excellent letter, Larry. Unfortunately, I suspect it will fall on deaf ears. After all, Mr. Martin was one of the people leading the charge to keep the wrong people out. Robert Jordan is one of his particular bete noirs – you think it a coincidence it took until A Memory of Light before there was even the thought of an award. Terry Goodkind – same reasoning. Weber, Stasheff, Correia, Flint, Ringo etc. You all have these things in common – you write good stories, sometimes, exceptional stories; you believe in the freedom of the individual and you have a sense of honour – something sorely lacking from most of the other authors – and I include GRRM in that group.
    I applaud your effort to reach out but please, don’t be surprised when your outstretched hand is gnawed off at the wrist. As an aside – I too have ponied up my money for supporting membership (even with the Canadian dollar exchange rate!) because I too have always believed that the Hugo was for all SFF fans – hell – Spider Robinson told me that in person – and if we can’t trust Spider – then we’re all shafted!

    1. This is the first I’ve ever heard of GRRM doing anything to prevent Robert Jordan, specifically, from getting a Hugo. You wouldn’t happen to have any links to back that up, do you?

      1. I’m not going to believe that one until I see some serious evidence. Martin’s fans tend to be somewhat hostile to Jordan, but as I recall, Martin himself has never said anything negative about the man; he’s given Jordan a lot of credit for ASoIaF’s success, saying that many of his fans first picked up Game of Thrones because of Jordan’s endorsement on the cover. He’s also put several little tributes to Jordan in the series: Trebor Jordayne, Lord of the Tor, and Archmaester Rigney (Jordan’s real name), who claims that time is a wheel.

        I suppose it’s possible that he says the right things in public but is a jerk about the man in private, but I’d want to see some proof before tossing that accusation around.

          1. Anecdotal evidence only, but I definitely found that when I was a serious ASoIaF fan. On the various message boards I found a lot of Jordan-hate. It tended to fall into two categories:

            1) The enthusiastic converts who believed that ASoIaF was OMG!!BEST THING EVA!!! and were determined to raise their idol at the expense of possible rivals (of which WoT was clearly the biggest). Thou shalt have no other gods before Martin.

            2) Ex-WoT fans who felt burned by the direction the series took after Book 6 and felt the need to rant about whenever someone would listen.

            Between the two groups, you could usually find at least one, more often multiple, Jordan-bashing threads at any given time.

          2. 2) Ex-WoT fans who felt burned by the direction the series took after Book 6 and felt the need to rant about whenever someone would listen.

            Man, those folks must have been pretty upset when ASoIaF started going in the same direction as early as book 4.

        1. Yeah, that’s kind of what I thought too. I’ve never seen any sign of animosity between Martin and Jordan, and hoped that anyone who would make an accusation like that would have something comcrete to back it up with. Hell, I *WAS* one of those fans who started reading ASoIaF primarily because of Jordan’s endorsement!

          Now, I SUPPOSE it could be argued that Jordan was snubbed in the Hugos because he wasn’t part of the clique, (which hopefully is all Rob Thompson meant) but even if that WERE true, it’s no more fair to blame Martin for that, simply because he is accepted by that clique, than it is to blame all white people for the racism of others. Despite everything social justice advocates say about “systemic” problems, you don’t become responsible for a problem simply by existing.

  6. It will be interesting to see if they change the rules next year. There will no doubt be enormous pressure brought to ensure This Never Happens Again.

    I guess they’ll always have the Nebulas.

    1. IIRC, to make a change for next year would require not only a change to the rules, but change about when a change in rules goes into effect. Typically it is supposed to take two years.

      1. That might be the motivation behind “no award.” Precipitate a crisis – no Hugos awarded – to drive the attending membership into drastic rule changes to respond to the emergency.

      2. The Nielsen Haydens are already down as guests of honor for the 2016 con. They, GRRM, a lot of the rest, have long-standing ties to cons (and Worldcons) in the KC area.

        I’ll put down $50 that says supporting memberships effectively won’t exist by 2017. They may up the price to basically the same as the con, they may just do away with them entirely – but there is no outcome where the unwashed, uninvited masses will continue to be allowed to decide the Hugos.

        1. Anyone who’s purchased a membership gets to show up for, and vote in, the business meeting. No rule changes can be made without being approved by business meetings in two consecutive years.

          If they cut out supporting memberships, they’ll go broke.

          1. “We had to burn the village in order to save the village.”

            They have 2 years to figure out some alternate form of financing. Big publisher sponsorships? Increase the price of an attending membership? Bump up dealer costs? GoFundMes?

            Lots of ways to get a little extra cash here and there. But, yeah, it ultimately ends in Worldcon shrinking even further and the Hugos being even less influential.

          2. I don’t consider myself a trufan, but I have attended five WorldCons. They ranged from good to fantastic. When I go, I try to read every Hugo nominee, and only vote in categories where I have read/seen at least a majority of the nominees. I probably am an outsider, although I am friends with several trufans and authors. I have spoken on several panels, mostly about gaming. My happiest moments are WorldCon were drinking with Terry Pratchett, which alas will happen no more; I also enjoyed lots of panels, especially when Worldcon was more about ideas and concepts in gaming instead of providing game rooms. But as a computer game professional, even by WorldCon standards, I am an outsider.

            I have never had anybody try to influence my Hugo ballot. That may be why I consider myself an outsider. I look at the controversy like this:

            1) Voting memberships exist for one organizational reason: they bring in more money for WorldCon. They also allow those who care, who read lots of science fiction, to participate, if they care enough to buy a voting membership.

            2) Anything the increases voting memberships is good for WorldCon. WorldCon needs money.

            3) My back of the envelope analysis of price points and vote numbers suggests that a Hugo award is fantastic as recognition, but doesn’t mean diddly for sales. Given how cheap it would be to buy a Hugo for a publisher’s title, and examples of much larger book buys to influence NY Times bestseller lists, and with the assumption that any nominated novel has a fan base, I’m pretty sure that the publishers don’t think it’s worth doing this.

            4) Thus Hugos are a very prestigious little award that means something to the community but has little outside value.

            5) If puppies of any mood are unhappy with how this is happening, they are free to organize their own slate using exactly the same rules.

            6) It does not feel good to feel disenfranchised. If, say, “Lord of Light” was blocked this year from being nominated by the concerted efforts of puppies, I would move from outsider to anti-puppy status, no matter which puppy was behind the move. And yes, I say this with knowledge that that disenfranchised feeling is a major motivator of this movement.

            7) Thus, I urge puppy nominating committees to not try to control any category. Nominate at most three out of five, or, rather, designate for nomination at most three out of five. Two would be more effective still. State you are doing so, and why. Thus, Hugo awards would not be controlled by a fraction of a fraction, those who make the nominations.

            In this way, we get a more balanced slate of nominees. You would seem more reasonable. Public opinion would swing your way. The Hugo award itself would have more meaning, since there would be nominations from more viewpoints. WorldCon would make money from all the voting memberships sold, and perhaps use that money to make for better conventions. And you would not risk the farce that a Hugo deserving author (say, Jim Butcher) who was on your slate, turn down a Hugo because he did not approve of what you were doing overall. (As an outsider, I don’t know Butcher’s feelings about puppies, but since his web site touts his nomination, I suspect that if he wins, he’ll accept).

            I also suggest that you are hurting your likelihood of winning by nominating most of a slate. Take the novella category. There were four novellas from one puppy publisher. I assume votes for them will be split. I predict the winner will be “Flow” because it is the only non-Castalia House nominee. You see this kind of thing happen all the time in baseball MVP voting. Will Andrews feel he really deserved his win? If “Flow” really did deserve the win, haven’t you diminished Andrews’ joy? And as a science fiction fan, what if history would judge some other novella, forced to the side, as being the deserving nominee from a new writer who deserved the recognition? Will I be likely to become pro or anti puppy?

            What you have done, at least in the Novella category, is proven to the science fiction community at large that their system is broken. You have made thousands of Hugo awards fans unhappy and disillusioned. That’s not really why I read science fiction. ComicCon and Game Developers Conference and GenCon are looking a lot more interesting to me than the next WorldCon. I could not persuade my wife to go this year even though she loves the Canadian Rockies, which would be a relatively short/cheap detour. None of my outsider friends are going or voting either.

            To me, as an outsider, you have tarnished the Hugos. I don’t think that was your goal. And you look unreasonable and selfish. Which I know was your point: you felt excluded and left out by a nominating process astonishingly easy to game. . I don’t think they are broken beyond repair, but then I’m by nature an optimist

            What’s done is done. If you are truly science fiction fans, I ask you to consider what I wrote. If you are more interested in vengeance, I fear for the survival of the Hugos.

          3. Man, I get tired of repeating myself… I’ve only written about this a dozen times now.

            You know you wrote a whole big bunch of stuff, most of it about how Sad Puppies shouldn’t have filled whole categories, but you miss the one basic fact that WE DID NOT. In the vast majority of categories the Sad Puppies suggested slate left gaps. In the few categories we took up all five it was because so many fans suggested them.

            In the categories that were filled, it was due to the fact that the Rabid Puppies (a separate group) took our suggestions, and then filled in the remainder of the slots with their own picks.

            And you’re missing another huge thing. We made suggestions. The fans we got involved voted for what they wanted. The SP supporters didn’t vote in lockstep. Looking at the tallies and how many of our things didn’t make it in categories like Best Novel, the SP fans didn’t vote straight ticket, they voted for whatever they personally wanted.

            So you can feel like we tarnished it all you want, because my side has felt like the award has been tarnished for a very long time.

          4. I notice you totally ignore the last 8 years of the Making Light/Tor group stuffing the ballets for their friends. Like 5 winning long form editor Hugo’s going to Tor editors from a total of 18 nominations. With Hayden himself winning 3 Hugo’s.

          5. If thousands of fans are disappointed it would be a surprise for me since there were only 1083 ballots submitted for the Novella category. Sheesh.

          6. > You have made thousands of Hugo awards fans unhappy and disillusioned.

            Richard, I don’t think you see it the other way. You have given some Hugo Award fans hope for the first time in years. I am a passionate reader and writer of SF pulp and ideas-based fiction – what Vox Day calls ‘blue’ SF. I’m a former scientist (female) and was attracted into doing a PhD by SF adventures written by real scientists like Rendezvous with Rama.

            I’ve been disillusioned by the Hugos and by short fiction, which seems to be slanting towards fantasy that prioritises emotional masturbation over ideas. I’ve never been tempted to write short fiction because ideas and adventures stories didn’t seem to get published anymore – or, at least, didn’t appear on prominent awards shortlists which I used to pick what to read.

            As a result of encountering this year’s Hugo Award nominees, I’m daring myself to write a short story for the first time. If I succeed, I will be a woman writing hard SF. The anti-puppies claim that the puppies are putting women off SF but, in my case, it’s the opposite.

            It’s worth mentioning that only 10% of submissions to Tor in SF are by women… Not acceptances, but submissions. Women aren’t being thrown out of SF by a cabal of misogynists. They’re not submitting manuscripts in the first place.

        2. That would (under the current WSFS constitution) require raising the voting fee to the same price as an attending membership. Since it takes two cycles to amend the constitution *and* the vote for 2017 takes place this year, 2017 looks extremely likely to continue to have supporting memberships.

        3. The obvious answer is to fire all the honest vote counters.

          Keep the money from the Sad & Rabid Puppies, but shuffle the votes so they get two or three nominees only, then the blessed SJW finalists win.

          1. Actual conspiracies are rare because once you expand them beyond one person, they tend to get exposed.

            Whatever they do, it will be something systematic, repeatable, and public. GRRM already laid the foundation by repeating the laughable claim that only now are the Hugos too broken. They must be “fixed.”

        4. However, on their blog, they’ve admitted it would be a real trick to change the rules to keep the wrongfans out.

          Indeed, some commenters grumbled that what was needed was a moderator.

          There is no way to fight abusive rules-lawyers by writing stricter policies. The only method that has ever worked against abusive rules-lawyers is moderators empowered to say, “You’re being an asshole, and now you are banned,” and powerful gatekeepers behind the moderators supporting them when the rules-lawyers attempt to shriek for redress.

          1. These people love moderators! It is just awful to hear words from people you don’t agree with. Ban them all.

  7. I find it utterly hilarious that the opponents of Sad Puppies have—not satisfied with poking the small sleeping bear—have decided to shove their pointy sticks at Gamegate. When I pointed out that doing this had a good chance of provoking thousands of Gamergaters into buying Worldcon Supporting Memberships next year, I was confidently told that Gamergate would not be around in a year, and that we were racists and misogynists, and “fuck off” and was blocked.

    1. I don’t think it’ll be thousands but from ehat I heard about the numbers already a small crowd can skew the whole thing.

      I am a GamerGater who recently bought a membership. Before this whole kherfuffle I wasn’t really aware of the Hugos nor of the perks of being a member despite reading quite a lot of SFF: I have read stuff from all sides of this issue. Scalzi or Butcher? An author’s nsme really didn’t make a lot of difference because all works can offer interesting perspectives.

      I will read, nominate and vote for whatever I end up enjoying most. However, I am abit disappointed by the behaviour of the likes of Scalzi. It is just the same arrogant demeanor we saw in GG from people who want to depict themselves as righteous warriors for justice telljng the unwashed masses what to do when in reality they need to be humbler.
      If they write something that deserves an award I will still give them a vote but preaching only works as long as the preacher hasn’t been found out to truly be the most sinful of all. And some of these sjws really seem to be one-trick ponies.

      Something tells me the next few Hugos will be very interesting. May the best fiction win.

    2. Funny thing about poking the Gamergaters. They spend money. That’s kind of the point. They are the end consumer of the $100 billion Videogames industry. A Worldcon membership is less than 1 game, and most of them really are SciFi fans. SciFi fans who spend.

      At what point do those operating Worldcon see the sudden surge in unexpected funding and start to rethink the whole equation? That’s kind of the thing with the SJW’s. At the end of the day these are all businesses. Money talks. And the SJW’s are typically infamous for not really having any and not spending it so freely. Whereas Gamergaters? I seem to recall the opening salvo labeling them as “Wailing Hyper-Consumers”. In other words nerds who have lots of disposable income and freely spend it. If you’re a starving writer starting out or the people running a declining and shrinking SciFi con, which group would you rather have on your side? The Shrill penniless hippie SJW’s? Or the Wailing Hyperconsumers with money to burn?

      1. Gamers spend AND they will show up – rain, snow, sub-zero temperatures be damned – to wait in line for hours to pick up a game that they will then concentrate on for anywhere from 10 to 300+ hours to finish. Gamers as a whole is the posterchild of the wrong group to lob attacks at and expect them to disappear in short order.

    3. Exactly, Mr. Henderson. Sad Puppies 4 is going to be a tsunami. They’ll be drowned.

      The will for self-destruction is amazing, isn’t it?

  8. “First and foremost, you guys need to decide, once and for all, what the Hugo Awards really are. There are two choices.

    It is the most prestigious award which represents the best works in all of fandom.
    It is a little award, for one little group of people, at one convention.

    You can’t have both. Pick one, stake your flag on it, and we will proceed from there. ”

    That is really all it would take, isn’t it? Well, that and some actual accountability for the position.

    Throughout this whole thing, there’s one side that is clearly unwilling to come to the table and talk ‘peace,’ and its clear which side that is.

    Its the side that wants to have its cake and eat it. They want to enjoy the prestige of being the most important award in all of sci-fidom, but they want to *operate* as an insular clique that passes down its decisions from on high and let everyone else just suck it up.

    That this arrangement has essentially tanked the importance of the award to anyone outside the clique is merely incidental.

    Essentially they want to ride on the longstanding reputation of an award that USED to be about the very best of the genre while not having to live up to the standards that such a reputation implies.

    And the fact that there is a group willing to TANK The award as a whole really just underlines this.

    So that is really all it comes down to. They can either announce to the world that the hugo award is the choice of a small, insular, nonrepresentative sample of the sci-fi fandom, and close the doors on everyone else (and accept the consequences that has for the award) or they can continue with the facade of it being an open process for the fandom and suck it the fuck up when the fandom doesn’t swing their way.

  9. If you can make me tear up reading a blog post – you may not ever accept another Hugo nomination but you’re on my list of “buy release day” writers. And that’s a short list.

  10. Always a pleasure to read you, Larry, from your fiction, to this. I’m just a little Fan, no shrines, and when I started out, I had no idea my flag of heartfelt affection for Baen would have me standing in the corner, rejected and confused, in most cons. Fortunately, there are others who feel like me, and want to see more diversity – true diversity – return to the Hugo Awards.

  11. My take is that George is simply sad to see something he loves/loved change and he’s trying to let people know how it changed. I didn’t get the impression he was trying to attack anyone directly. Even when he talked about forming another award.

    There are plenty of talks about how to change the Hugo voting system. It won’t happen next year because of WorldCon rules. Some I feel are really fair ideas that leave room for everyone to have a place at the Hugo Awards table. Other suggestions are rather self interested.

    A lot of authors are vowing they will decline a nomination if they end up on a slate. That might get used against them.

    The No Award campaign is going pretty strong. I can see that forming a counter No Award campaign which some have mentioned, but the more extreme crowd isn’t listening.

    I find it all kind of sad. But I’m just going to read the works and let my ballot go where it will. I kind of wish I could go back to the days of Hugo voting when I didn’t know any of the closed-door politics.

    1. I’m giving serious thought to adopting “No Award, No Buy” as a personal policy.

      If you try to “game the Hugos” by urging people to vote No Award based on politics, I won’t buy your books.

      1. You’re not alone.

        I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with SP, politics, etc. I do have a problem with hypocrisy and loud online tantrums. I’d rather spend my time in worlds created by honorable authors who truly understand and appreciate real diversity.

        1. Honestly, I don’t even care if you’re a rabid racist sexist homophobe. I know I’m not supposed to say that, so my view doesn’t get appropriated as some SP3 viewpoint (which it isn’t, I speak for myself), but if you write good books, I don’t care what your personal politics are. That’s the point.

          OSC is certainly one example of this, and given the number of people who have read his books or watched the movie version, it just goes to show someone’s writing is what should be judged, not what they believe. That he won a Hugo almost 20 years ago points to a time when this was, in fact, the case.

          1. “but if you write good books, I don’t care what your personal politics are. That’s the point.”

            I agree with you. Where I draw the line for myself, as a reader, is when I come across authors attacking–not disagreeing, but outright attacking–others (authors, readers, people at large).

            There are a number of stories I’ve loved over the years, many written by authors who have completely different ideas, opinions, and beliefs than I do. I’m fine with that, and I enjoy it because I want to understand how different people tick. In a perfect world, an author spewing hate on the internet wouldn’t affect my enjoyment of their stories. Being only human, I have to admit that a fair number of books have been spoiled for me because their authors have gone on the attack. Not because we don’t share the same political opinions. I’m sad for that.

        2. I have no idea why I can’t reply to your other comment, but I just want to say that I read what you wrote wrong, and thanks for the clarification.

        3. I agree with you, windsong. To me SFF has always been the vehicle for exposure to new ideas. I do not say I agree with all the ideas, but at least those ideas got me to think.

          Also, SFF ideas have brought us many of the things we have today. Ideas from DiVinci (artist, not writer, I know.) got us flying. Ideas from J Verne got us submarines. Ideas from I Asimov got us robotics. What else dreamed of by SFF writers will we see tomorrow?

          Unfortunately, today’s SFF lecturing gives me only heartburn.

          1. Heck, Star Trek, soft SF as is it, got us automatic sliding doors and (arguably) cell phones.

          2. My very first cell phone was a Motorolla Star Tak. The name is no coincidence. It was an explicit callout to Star Trek. My current phone is not a flip phone, but it has voice recognition. I could set it so that when I said “Kirk to Enterprise” it would make the call. (So long as I knew the Enterprise’s number.)

          3. The Trek device is a walkie-talkie, its contribution is pretty much just the physical appearance of the device. There were walkie-talkies prior to Trek.

  12. Thank you for that Larry, as a long time Science Fiction and Fantasy reader (since the 60’s) I appreciate you saying all of this. And I appreciate SP as well.

    GRRM needs to understand, that when you keep beating the peasants, eventually they will rise up and take over. The people who are all screaming now made this bed, and now they have to lie in it. There is no defense that can be made for their actions, it is too late for that.

    Again, thank you Mr Correia.

  13. The tolerant ones are sure wasting a lot of air telling us why certain people aren’t allowed.

  14. GRRM is an example of why moderates are useless. They don’t care about the kid getting beaten up on the playground until the kid gets a good swing and topples the bully into them, spilling their juice box. At that point, suddenly fighting is a terrible thing and the kid who fought back should be ashamed of himself or something.

    Yes, he says a lot of good things, but he said them all too late, and only when those things could also work in service of the bullies.

    1. Bingo. I have no skin in this. I’m not a sci-fi reader. But it really grinds me when people start to fight back and are called nasty things because they rejected being treated like crap. As if its their fault they just didn’t die and go away.

      For true neutrals I sympathize because usually they don’t see the drama that leads to these things. The “cool set” usually don’t have to do dramatic things. They did it all in advance by whispers and back-channeling. And those oblivious don’t see the change before them or just decide it doesn’t affect them.

      And so it goes, life is all high school again… just with some of the roles switched around.

  15. It’s amazing to me that a lot of the very vocal “fans” railing against the Sad Puppies will now be patting Mr. Martin on the back; they’ve only spent several years loudly complaining about the “problematic” nature of the popular show based on his novels.

    I don’t care about politics, I care about being entertained. I don’t want a mediocre political lecture dressed up with fiction held up as “the best in the genre”.

    Just the other day, I saw someone (SJW) online attempting to explain that the “just make your own” argument is steeped in privilege, and is inherently “problematic and dismissive”. Never forget, “It’s okay when they do it!”

    I hate to admit it, but I firmly believe these people are willing to destroy the Hugos if they can’t control them.

    1. “I hate to admit it, but I firmly believe these people are willing to destroy the Hugos if they can’t control them.”

      They already *have* destroyed the Hugos for everyone else. But I agree with you that they are petty and childish enough to take up their ball and go home rather than play fair in the future.

    2. Yes, but how numerous are they really? I mean… how numerous are those people who mostly write “important” things on the internet about how much horrible bad-think is in Game of Thrones? Or who go on and on about any other particular aspect of Wrong Fun involved in a good Colonial Diaspora or First Contact novel or Alternate History?

      I mean… will they even try to bring in more and more fans who are politically left or liberal on the theory that *of course* all of those people obviously prefer a certain kind of story? Their voices would be every bit as diluted, no matter who got involved.

      1. Anything that brings more voters in isn’t a bad thing. And especially from Worldcon’s perspective, it shouldn’t be.
        Worldcon has gotten lots of extra money from the Sad Puppies campaign, probably over 10,000 dollars this year.
        It is in the interests of Worldcon (as a convention), to have more Hugo voters paying them money.

  16. Yeah, we could totally make up our own award. Hell, some groups have. But none of those awards have ever pretended to be for everyone.

    I find it hysterical that this “The Hugo’s aren’t for fandom, they’re for WorldCon” meme fires up this year, despite how well Sad Puppies 2 did. None of their arguments last year swayed anyone (at least not in the ways they wanted), so now they had to try something new, so they’re using the “it’s not for you” line. Whatever.

    This is the same award that nominated a soft core porn film for best dramatic presentation in the past. Perhaps some of the people so bent out of shape should consider that before the climb up on their high horse.

    1. Last year, they didn’t have to destroy the award in order to save it — if they can do even that.

    2. Maybe the “No Award” could be the new award. For people who have been paying attention, the publisher could put that on the cover and they’d know it was a good book because it was rejected by a bunch of simpering message fic simpletons who think ignorance is a badge of honor. Take the “No Award” and turn it into something to be proud of.

  17. I want one because Robert A. Heinlein won four, because Roger Zelazny and Alfred Bester and Ursula K. Le Guin and Fritz Leiber

    Good grief. Does Martin have any idea how not only Heinlein, but also Zelazny, Bester and Leiber get viewed by SJ– *ahem*, a certain class of folks? Does he seriously think ANY of those authors would have a shot at winning a Hugo in the here and now?

    1. Him bringing up Heinlein, Zelazny, etc. seems rather disingenuous, given that the actual argument is that the SJW capture is a recent thing.

      1. “Him bringing up Heinlein, Zelazny, etc. seems rather disingenuous, given that the actual argument is that the SJW capture is a recent thing.”

        Actually, no.

        People have gotten fed up enough to start fighting back. That’s recent. The SJW have been working on doing what they’re now publicly called out on since PCism became popular.

        1. Hi, Pug!

          Something I find amusing: the other day I read a recent fb post by K. Tempest Bradford, saying that people like her have been working to make sf more “inclusive” for the past thirty years. Well, this year a whole bunch of people have included themselves.

          1. Hi, back atcha, Stephen!

            Keep in mind that with SJWs, whatever they claim they stand for, their actual intended effect is 180 degrees off.

            So, yeah, by “inclusive” she meant “only us”.

        2. Depends on where the line between “recent” and “not recent” is. Yes, the backlash against SJW capture is more recent than SJW capture. But SJW capture is more recent than Heinlein, Zelazny, etc. winning their Hugos.

          The Sad Puppies position, as I understand it, is that Heinlein, Zelazny, etc. deserved their Hugos, but that the SJW cliques recently in control of the Hugos would not have awarded them. But historically, they *did* win them, ergo SJW capture must have happened more recently than when Heinlein, Zelazny, etc. won their Hugos.

    2. “Kameron Hurley ‏@KameronHurley 6h As long as we present SFF as stuff by/for folks like Asimov, Heinlein, Bester and Ellison, this isn’t going to happen.Will be fewer readers”

      “Runy ‏@runycat 6h @KameronHurley I would be fucking thrilled if folks could get over their weird Heinlein boners and move forward.”

      “Ro Smith ‏@Rhube 5h @KateElliottSFF @KameronHurley @gderekadams @runycat I’m now happy with chucking out ‘classics’ rife with misogyny, racism etc.”

      1. The Mirror Empire by Kameron Hurley, 2014: Amazon Sales Rank: 39,000, 4 stars

        Starship Trooers by Robert A. Heinlein, 19-friggin-59: Amazon Sales Rank: 4,622, 4.4 stars

        I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, Kameron, Runy, and Ro.

        Note that this isn’t just a bunch of “old white guys”. Old white guys bought their copies of Starship Troopers decades ago.

        1. As far as I can tell, Hurley doesn’t really have anything to say as an artist. Her main talent seems to be promoting people like herself and railing against everyone else. Her Atlantic piece shows she can’t even think. I doubt Heinlein or Bester would’ve been dumb enough to write such an article when they were 8 yrs. old. Does she think quote marks are only for dialogue?

        2. I run a comics/games store on a military base. I sell multiple copies of Starship Troopers every WEEK, to guys who are 18-19 years old.

          I don’t even bother trying to stock the SJW message-fic.

          1. They let comics/games stores on base now?

            Dang, back when I was in, both Heavy Metal and Epic magazines were banned from the PX.

          2. Peterson had a gamestore. Then the moved over to FT. Carson and farther away from me.

          3. I was in the Corps. We were under PX Kelly as CMC.

            It was the era where it came down from on high that all officers would wear their shiny insignia on both collars and their cover, regardless of garrison, field or deployment.

            And, all enlisted had to wear white t-shirts because we were the good guys.

            Oh, and no official unarmed combat training because we might hurt a civilian when on libo.

            But, the powers that be stood staunch against allowing comics to rot our brains and sap our fighting spirit!

            Bastards.

        3. Old white guys have been busy trying to MAKE Starship Troopers powered armor ever since Heinlein made it up.

          Almost 50 years later, starting to get some of the basics working. Still no decent power source, I suspect we have to wait for room temperature superconductors.

          Somebody show me an SJW author who invented something that other guys immediately set out to try and make.

          1. Star Trek doors. The Great Bird of the Galaxy was hardly a right-winger, and a guy sat up and said, dude, that would be so useful! and worked for years on proximenty sensors to make the doors work.

            One of the ST:TNG guys (JF? maybe?) was talking with some of the TOS crew, and he was “man, the thing I hated most was having a take screwed up because the doors weren’t working right. Bet you guys hated that, too, huh?”

            And the TOS actors were like, “dude. We had two crew guys pulling the doors apart on the other side. No automatic opening doors for us.”

            The dreams our stuff is made of, indeed.

  18. Personally, if the Hugo’s Powers That Be decide they want their award to toddle off into the setting of whatever triple sunset they envision on their own tiny private island, I would have a hard time caring.

    They had so damaged their brand years ago with me due to the dreck that they promoted that I had been actively avoiding buying books that had had the so-called “honor”. In fact, I had pretty much given up sci-fi and fantasy altogether letting my Asimov and Sci-Fi and Fantasy and Science Fiction Book Club subscriptions lapse and rarely bought anything from any bookstore anymore.

    What I WOULD like to see is some award that DID actually encourage and support anyone, no matter what their personal private thoughts or politics might be, who could tell a good story. Don’t care about personal lives, don’t care about politics. Do NOT want to be harangued about any of those things as part of a story either -unless there was a very good plot-based reason for it.

    I don’t care what they call this award, I don’t care who is Pope of it. I just want good stories to be honored.

    It doesn’t even have to be stories I like. Not a fan of this Martin dude’s books but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to see him get awards as I know he is very popular and his fans are devoted. But I wouldn’t feel gypped if stories like his won over stories I personally liked better.

    He’s no If You Were a Dinosaur My Love, in other words.

    1. Oh, but that award already exists: It’s now 2 years old. It’s called the Sad Puppies Nominating Slate.

      Seriously, if we were nominated as books that help cure puppy-related sadness, I’d count that as an honor on par with classic hugos… and better than winning a hugo today.

      When I’m hunting for a good read beyond the pool of fan recommendations, I’ll buy stories off the list, even without having heard of them before, because they’re good.

      1. Which brings up a truly inspired idea for next year. For SP4 put GRRM on the Sad Puppies Slate. He’s obviously got the quality work product that the fans crave. He rights interesting characters that fans fall in love with. ( Then slaughters them in horrifying ways before their eyes. One suspects ol’ George may have a few “issues”) so put him on the Sad Puppies nominating slate next year and watch what happens. Watch how various people including George react. Much like Larry’s other tests buried into the SP concept. It would show the truth of where things lie.

        1. We’ll have to see how good it is. Me, I gave up on Game of Thrones when I saw Feast of Crows available at the library and realized I didn’t care.

          Likewise, though Pratchett’s not getting one is a disappointment, I suspect I would not support Shepherd’s Crown, because I fear I have seen the decline of his writing powers in painful evidence in earlier works.

        2. For SP4 put GRRM on the Sad Puppies Slate.

          Dude, no way WoW will be out in time at this point. I guess you could put some random short story on there…

      2. “Oh, but that award already exists: It’s now 2 years old. It’s called the Sad Puppies Nominating Slate.”

        Okay, this one make me do that snort laugh. And you’re 100% correct 😉

        1. The one time someone can truly mean it when they say, “It’s an honor just to be nominated.”

  19. One thing that stands out if you look at Hugo nominees and winners is that ONE publisher and it’s authors dominates far more than you would expect. Maybe more than just political, it’s the opinions of that publisher and more importantly, it’s editorial staff that’s been driving the Hugos for far too long now. Do we really want to turn the Hugos into the “best of Tor?”

    1. If the Hugos were the best of Tor, SP wouldn’t exist.

      Alas, the Hugos are actually ‘the works that make Tor’s SJW’s feel superior, yet still sell enough not to get them openly laughed at’.

  20. You keep rejecting those nominations, Mr. C. You’ll get lot’s of practice at it, in the coming years. (Well, as along as you keep putting out good stuff. You pull a C.Stross (politics over story) or LK Hamilton (pr0n before story) and , out you’ll go. Don’t do that, please.

    Until then you’ll remain on my list of “Do it this way” type authors. Never Quit! Never Surrender!

    (Note to self: find out what Mrs. C likes, bribe her. He’ll come around.) 😛

    1. I have decided that until he backs down from this ridiculous no Hugo pledge I shall refer to him as His Terrible Holiness Larry Correia, International Lord of Hate, defender of puppies, Scourge of the SJW’s, Hugo Pope.

    2. You guys are playing into WorldCon’s hands.

      They can fire the honest counters and replace them with people following a ‘higher truth’ now that Larry has vetted them.

      Then, they can take all the S/R Puppies slate votes, award them to Larry overwhelmingly, he declines as promised, and the 4 SJW’s are joined by #6 SJW, for a sweep of the category.

  21. Well. The reaction to this should be interesting.

    (Sadly, more likely the silence will be deafening)

  22. “You guys had competing cliques, but to us it was like an Eskimo having a thousand different words for snow, and you can tell us about your many diverse and wonderful types of snow, but all we saw was snow.”

    This is a wonderful way to describe this. I’m going to use this a lot to describe liberal diversity(tm), versus actual diversity.
    I’ll give you credit, though. Maybe.

    1. I personally would have thought that “but all we saw was a snow job” would have sent a more direct message, but to each his own.

      1. A very interesting set of lists.

        Really too bad we adopted a “Standardized Dictionary” and (mostly) dropped the Germanic approach of -making- new compound words.

        Because we’d be crushing the “Words for snow” count at that point.

      2. Yeah, bad list. Many of the ‘English words for snow’ refer to ice formations themselves. Or don’t apply merely to snow itself at all in the case of accretion, cornice, ablation et al. The Inuit still have many more words for snow.

  23. Thank you, Larry, for saying what needed to be said.

    I’m not really part of the adult SFF fandom. I *love* SFF, but in the kidlit sector, so the Hugos have never really been on my radar beyond some abstract award on certain books. Kind of like the Newbery.

    The reason I’m getting involved now is because I’m tired of watching people lie, spew hate-filled rhetoric, do their best to bury dissenting voices (while they claim to abhor censorship), and assassinate people’s characters while patting each other self-righteously on the back. Discrimination is bad, they say. Unless, of course, it flows from one direction.

    I’m tired of being afraid of voicing my opinions on what *should* be small, inconsequential matters for fear of backlash and twitter mobs. I’m tired of watching good people being torn down because they march to the dictates of their own consciences instead of socially approved jargon. And I’m more than a little irritated with myself for only being able to speak up now, under a screen name, because I can’t deal with all that comes from standing up and saying enough right now.

    Thank you for being willing to take a stand. I am sorry for all the hate that has come your way because of it.

    1. Hey, fellow YA fan! Glad to see you here.
      Yeah, the Hugos ignored YA except in 2009. It stinks. But the more YA fans who get involved in the Hugos, the more that will change.

      1. Hail, and well met, fellow traveler. 🙂 (Although, I must confess, I’m more of an upper MGer or young YAer.)

        I agree. One of the things I’ve appreciated about the SP campaigns is learning that we *can* vote. (Though I’m still not sure if Middle Grade qualifies or not. >.<) I'm hoping that as more and more people learn they can vote that they will. 🙂

        1. As long as it is SFF, it qualifies. In one of the two years YA was nominated, the Graveyard Book won. It also won a Newberry, which is a children’s award. There is nothing forbidding Middle Grade, as long as it’s SFF.
          Go for it.

      2. I love YA and adult both. I wonder why the Hugo has no YA category? Perhaps it just never occurred to them. Some of the best stuff I’ve seen in years is coming from the YA section.

        1. STARSHIP TROOPERS was written to be a YA novel. No one distinguished between “adult” and “young adult”, just “great” and “not great.”

        2. It is part of the regular fiction categories. It is just far from proportionally nominated, considering it sells nearly 4 times as much in print as adult SFF.
          That being said, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and the Graveyard Book, both won Hugos despite being YA (or children’s).

  24. Oh, and Mr. Martin needs to be careful, or else Kevin Standlee will arrive to tell us how there has been no cliquishness or any kind of collusion involved in the Hugo process, despite what George R.R. Martin says.

    1. “It would have been noticed!!!!”

      “We noticed it.”

      “But we would have seen a pattern!!!!!”

      “We saw a pattern.”

      “This has never happened before!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

      “Um, it’s been happening for years.”

      “….oh yeah, well….you just want to make people cry and stuff! This blog said so!”

    2. yes, this exactly. I remember Kevin first made a comment about seeing possible indications of it (Vox has the quote copied somewhere) but he quickly backed off of that one!

      I just keep thinking of Casablanca “Rick! I am shocked to discover that gambling has been going on in this establishment”.

      Everyone knows that the awards have been gamed for years, the winner’s list made that very clear. Now they’re going to have the change the rules made by all those ‘old dead white men’ if they want to keep control of something which they hijacked in the first place.

      1. At the risk of giving the CHORFs any ideas: They’ll remove the supporting memberships. Or make voting done only at Worldcon in person. May happen at this year’s, may happen at next year’s, but it will happen. Makes too much sense.

        This will, of course, financially hit the Worldcons going forward to the tune of, what, $20k or so? Maybe more? And it will make the Hugo even more irrelevant going forward, the sole property of a dwindling number of greying old timers. But, dammit, sometimes you have to burn the village to save the village, right?

        1. So then we set up an award that is nothing but supporting memberships. $25, the cost of a hardcover, buys you a vote. Let WorldCon keep the Hugo, we’ll buy the rights at the fire sale when the last Trufan dies.

          Then we can run retro Hugo awards. Start at 1990 and we nominate five pieces published that year that go on the final ballot alongside the five original nominees.

        2. I asked a similar question on Mad Mike’s FB page, and he said last year’s supporting memberships brought in 60 kilobucks.

          Dunno if that’s gross or net income, didn’t think to ask. Doesn’t sound like that much, though, even for a con that struggles to hit 10K attendees (never mind Hugo voters).

          1. Net and Gross both. WorldCon knows how to print cheaply. The biggest hit is bulk postage. A generous estimate is $3/supporting membership. Hell, call it $5 to allow for skimming.

            After that, what the heck does a supporting member cost? Nothing.

            And they’re pushing email printing, which is totally free.

          1. And this is another example where the CHORFs (which is more polite than SJWs) are contradicting themselves (more precisely each other). Because on the one hand Bradford says $50 is too much for some people (and she is not necessarily wrong) and on the other some anti-Sad Puppies writers (not Bradford to my knowledge) have specifically complained how it is too easy for the unwashed masses to fork over $40 for a supporting membership and have a say in the Hugos. So it’s too much and excludes… people. Or it’s too little and lets too many… people in.

            We should not forget Bradford attended an elite university and at one point lived off rich friends while attending writing workshops.

          2. Well, there will have to be scholarships, won’t there?

            Free (voting) memberships given out to only a deserving few who can’t afford it. And, of course, selected by only those wisest and most able to choose who is deserving.

            Nah. They’ll just kill off supporting.

          3. Can’t be done without bankrupting them. Supporting memberships are basically free money.

            They’ve got their sensitive non-gender-specific bits caught in a cleft stick, with no way out.

        3. I think in all this I remember seeing that over twice as many nominations have come in the last two years. That would make about 1,000, give or take, new memberships. If all those are just supporting memberships that’d net them $40K a year. That ain’t chump change. You’d think they would be thrilled. Even old GRRM says they struggle financially. We should be welcomed with open arms but noooo.

          1. The organizers (for Loncon, at least), were very gracious last year, according to this blog (unless I am remembering incorrectly). They do like getting $60000 dollars that doesn’t come with expenses.
            In other words, the people who actually have to pay for the con are thrilled about supporting membership money. Other fans who are involved with the con are less thrilled about the Puppies giving huge amounts of free money to Worldcon.

        4. They’ll remove the supporting memberships.

          Which makes Michael Z. Williamson either prescient or an Evil genius – he called for making Supporting Memberships $5 to increase diversity by attracting more Third World voters. SJWs hoist upon their own petard!

  25. Larry, I appreciate your tireless work trying to explain your mind and your history with these awards. I’m beginning to really understand your perspective and the goals of SP3. Your character is coming through and making an impact with me.

    If I may as a sideline observer – please try to continue to keep this as a fight on the issues. A friend of mine said “This is actually a really good lesson in “why a speaker needs to use persuasive language instead of divisive language”.

    Had the SPs made their point (the awards are the province of cliques and claques) without the ingroup snide language (“all the sjws are trufen!”) this might have gone better.” In that, we are in agreement. As one who tends Conservative (and Christian – just for further marginalization in SFandom!), that was a primary reason why I, someone who would otherwise fit nicely in the SP3 footprint, was initially troubled by what was happening. The in-group snide language looked less to me like gentle good humor and more to me like thugs rattling shields. If the SPs are really plucky but selfless freedom fighters honestly pushing back against oppressive insider trading I’d hope that could be evidenced by the excellence of the participants. The motto should not be (imo) “They shall know we are (fans) by our snark.”

    I’m interested in an award where the works are judged on their respective merit regardless of the politics / race / gender / religion / whatever of the author. I don’t know if it’s possible to get there but that’s what I’m still eager for – some kind of peace where cooler heads can work out something that represents the best of us all. I’m worried that this world may be too partisan to find that kind of common ground. If anyone would be able to find the grit and imagination to bridge that gap, I’d hope it were SF/F fans. “You may call me a dreamer…” etc.

    Anyway, I wanted to say many of us are reading this dialogue with great interest and some of us on the fence are being swayed by how you’re handling yourself. Keep fighting the good fight goodly, if that makes sense.

    Kind regards from the sidelines.

    1. You know, it was only after the libellous attacks got turned on, a few years ago, that the snark really came out.

      When people falsely call me and mine liars, racist, misogynist, fascist, homophobic, and determined to force All That Is Good And Light out of the world, I react.

      The bully who starts the fight with a sucker punch doesn’t get to claim wounded innocence nor set the rules for the conflict when he realizes his selected victim chooses not to accept the role of victim.

      No, I’ve been *personally* putting up with this sort of crap for over twenty years.

      1. Yeah. Go read about Emmett Till, a 14-year-old murdered for making a pass at a white woman in Mississippi in August of 1955. That’s evil and disgusting, but for me, it isn’t enraging. It’s what I expect from racist scum. I’d gladly climb into a time machine, go back to 1955, and murder the pair of lowlifes who killed Emmett Till, but I’d be fairly dispassionate about it.

        No, what I get enraged at in that history are the various defenses of Till’s murderers, the ones who said he had it coming, the ones who claimed it didn’t happen (till the killers admitted it), the ones who said Jim Crow existed (brace yourself, this will make you want to vomit) to protect black people! The ones I’m really angry at are the ones who said, in effect, ‘Why, some of my best friends are negroes, I’d never do that, but you have to admit, that kid Till provoked the attack.’

        The Leftists who took over the Hugos and used them for their political purposes don’t really anger me, because that’s what Leftists do with everything they can get their hands on. Power is all they think of, all they can think of. But the people who looked the other way for years, who let this happen, and who now attack us Sad Puppy voters for fighting back, they’re the ones I’m angry at. If you didn’t want this happening, you should have done something about the Leftists a long time ago.

        I’ll stop now, before I give myself a headache.

    2. “I’d like you better if if you would just accept your second class status with grace and a positive tone.”

      Check.

  26. “His words will be in italics, mine will be in bold.”

    Why do I get the same twinge running down my spine when reading those words as I do during the scene in Serenity where Mal Reynolds says “I aim to misbehave” ?

  27. I think one of the most interesting things that could come out of this is actually running the numbers. In GRRM’s thread he has this to day: http://grrm.livejournal.com/417812.html?thread=20684052#t20684052

    “That business about one clique (those dreaded SJWs, I am sure) dominating the nominations for the last ten years strikes me as pure Puppy poop. Where’s the evidence of that?”

    In your above titanic post you talk about numbers (specifically about LOCUS) and that folks investigating the various numbers–whether they were looking for confirming OR disconfirming evidence–found enough that is statistically significant.

    Has anyone compiled the various investigations into running the numbers? And is this something that can be blown out into the larger conversation?

    (I also think it would be pretty entertaining to compare the SP3 suggestion slate to last year’s winners, to contrast their diversity in relateable terms to the quota-inclinded. Has that been done?)

    1. I hadn’t seen his latest when he wrote that.

      But when he lists off some of those names, and he’s like, nope, no SJWs here! I honestly have no coherent response to that… Just wow…

      Just a complete disconnect from what everybody on my side has had to deal with for years. Total and complete disconnect. No understanding of what those people have said or done.

      1. I respect George R. Martin, irrespective of how he feels about all of this, but my impression in reading his posts and his responses to comments is that whenever there is mention of cliques dominating the Hugos he dismisses it out of hand as rubbish. I fear not even numbers will sway him, unless you provide a secret dark document filled with scheming words.

      2. I fear at some time in the future, we will have to uncap the Twitters and the blogs and shine a light onto all the comments people have been making.

        1. Talking to all the GamerGater folks who have been fighting this battle for the past 9 ish months or so- they ALL highly recommend this rule:

          Document. Document everything. Screenshot everything.

          Because the SJWs and the concern trolls will not believe you. Or they will pretend they don’t. Until you put it in their face and MAKE THEM OWN IT.

          Solid advice- I think.

          1. They’re also fond of deleting things they’ve said that can be used against them, or that go against the hivemind, so they don’t get excluded.

      3. They haven’t said or done that to *him*. Therefore, they’re good people. Maybe a little misunderstood, maybe they get carried away occasionally. But they aren’t like those fringe people attacking GoT as racist/sexist/whateverist.

        For GRRM to accept that a lot of the people in his circle of “good people” are, in fact, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics would require too much. This is a guy who’s basically devoted his life to fandom in one way or another. These are his people. To realize they’re in some part a brood of vipers would be akin to realizing his life has been wasted on such.

        Easier to just look the other way, dismiss any unfortunate incidents as unassociated fringe types. If it is one of the “good people,” well, you just have to understand how they are. Or they were provoked. Or maybe they went a little far, but they’re not bad people. So on.

        1. Exactly. It’s how “Requires Hate” thrived for so long. They all knew exactly for certain that she was cyberbullying, but it wasn’t until years had passed that she began cyberbullying the “wrong” people.

          Similar thing happened in comics fandom recently. snarky internet fanboy columnist Chris Sims, longtime columnist for the ComicsAlliance site (self-appointed “Enlightened and Pure” site that specializes in attacking the core fandom and urging Marvel and DC to never create any super-hero with the WRONG pigmentation or sexuality ever again) recently won the plum job of writing one of the high profile X-MEN comics.

          It’d been well known for years that in the name of “pranks” he’d done some pretty intensely vicious posts and messages directed at certain pros and fans. But they were just Evil Straight White Male Christian Evil People Who Were Evil, so he was given a pass.

          Then a female pro revealed he’d treated HER this way for years.

          Suddenly, waves of condemnation!

          But none of it “Bullying is wrong, plus maybe ComicsAlliance isn’t as enlightened and pure as they depicted themselves”

          Oh, no.

          Instead it was all “He shouldn’t have done that because it was directed towards a woman! Every one knows that it’s only wrong when it’s towards someone on the Approved Victim List!”

          ….the hypocrisy actually woke some fans up.

        2. Yeah, like ‘decent, civilized’ Southern Whites in the 1930s-’60s denying the Klan was a problem, because they weren’t discriminated against. They never lynched anyone, after all. They just stood aside and let it happen.

          1. Stephen – we might want to focus our attention to things that happened while members of the audience were old enough to walk.

            Things this century might be even more on point and relevant.

          2. What’s that they always say about the past, keranih? Something about those who don’t learn its lessons being doomed to repeat it?

            Also, it’s worth pointing out that in the aging Worldcon audience, there are quite a lot of people who WERE walking, talking, and reading sci-fi during that era.

      4. It’s like asking a fish to notice the water it’s in. They don’t see the water, they don’t believe it exists. They absolutely believe, hands on hearts, that there is only one reasonable outlook and it’s theirs.

        The phrase ‘check your privilege’ comes to mind.

    2. Someone needs to look at Chaos Horizon…
      One could argue the ‘cliques’ that run things like Locus and the Nebula are distinguishable, but they’re probably less varied in taste than SP compared to RP.

  28. Oh, and I know Larry has his reasons, great and personal, for saying he’ll never accept a Hugo nom.

    My response still can be summed up with the following.

    (For a visual bonus, imagine the scene in Dragon Age Inquisition when they find out a giant demon is nearby, when they are in the Fade.)

    Well… Shit.

  29. You know why I’m happy (yes, happy) about SP3? I’m finding authors I ENJOY, and filling my wish-list up on Amazon at a rate even I can’t keep up with – I read 3-5 books PER WEEK, usually 1-2 new ones, and re-reads make up the rest – finding new fiction that I enjoy has been somewhat problematic, but now I have Cedar Sanderson to look at, and Brad Torgersen, etc. etc. – And I’m not going down the SP3 slate, rather, I’m looking at it from a ‘had a reasonable reaction to SP3’ vs. ‘Wow. What an ass’ (Looking towards Scalded.*) Honestly? I’m all FOR a new award, one that IS open, but the sad truth is, if it’s on the internet, somebody WILL find a way to game it – so, let the revenue be the award – I read MHI after having it recommended to me by a good friend, then the rest of the MHI books as they came out – reading Larry’s blog, I discovered the Grimnoir and read all three of those (heck, I think I ordered all three at once, and for once, it took me about a week to get through them.) Some authors, despite my disappointment at their reaction, I know I’ll still read: Joe Abercrombie, for instance, is too damn good not to read, and if you haven’t read him, try “The Blade Itself.” You can blame me if, several weeks later, you’re digging in the couch for spare change to by the rest of the books. But the ones out there literally lying through their teeth, then standing on a mental high-horse bellowing about how DARE the SP3 crowd SULLY this HOLY process with their (insert every negative word Larry used above here) selves!? Those people can pony up to kiss my ass, AFTER I eat Taco Bell for a week.

      1. Don’t they have libraries for that? You don’t even have to check out the book. Hide away in the corner of the library while you’re reading it and people have less of a chance of discovering the author with one fewer of their books on the shelf while you read it.
        Best of all, you aren’t breaking any laws.

      2. You are posting a link to a pirate site on an author’s page?

        That’s kind of ridiculous, and really, offensive to both sides in the author fight.

        1. Minor point: http://www.utorrent.com/ isn’t a pirate site. It’s the homepage for a piece of software with many legitimate uses. And they specifically promote the legitimate uses & denounce piracy.

          But the context of rest of Mars’ comment does make it quite clear he’s referring to piracy, so yeah, this is an incredibly minor point.

        2. I apologize if it came off as disrespectful. It was not my intention to insult anyone. However Mr Correia when I first heard of you through this blog I downloaded the first of the Monster Hunter books from a pirate site. I loved it so much I have since bought a copy of it, and the others in the series. I have also bought some of the grimnoir books as well.
          But there have been times in the past when even though I may love an authors work, I have been unwilling to support them financially. This has included buying their books second hand, borrowing them from a friend or the library, or in some cases yes pirating their work. I can understand that you may not like the idea of people pirating your works, or that of others and I can’t speak for anyone but myself; but if not for the copy of Monster Hunter International that I pirated for free I might not have bought several other of your books.

          1. Thank you. Please feel free to delete my other comment in your newest post. I did not know if you had seen this one.

  30. Well, as a fellow Anti-woman misogynist, internet arguer, and general shitlord, all I can really say is: you have my sword. I can honestly say that I disagree fully, or at least in part, with your politics (listening to Wright on a certain podcast yesterday made me want to vomit) but on this we agree. You do not stand alone.

  31. Thank you for a most informative response to Mr. Martin’s… screed. This year will be my very first WorldCon. I wasn’t aware that I could nominate or vote until I read this, and I suspect it’s now too late. Ah, well. There’s always next year.

    1. It’s not too late to vote.

      Sasquan.org. $40. Supporting membership.

      Get’s you a vote this year, and a nomination for next year, plus whatever ends up in the E-packet.

      $3.33/month for some of the finest works presented in the last 5 years. (IMHO)

      1. Oh, I have my membership – thank God for 50% off for military – and my wife has hers. We’ll be there. But I’m still hazy on how voting and nominating works and I dislike acting from ignorance. Unfortunately, since the Queen pays my wages, I don’t have enough time in the day to get caught up on this stuff.

        1. You aren’t the only one William. I put down my $40 this year for the first time, after reading SF for the last 45-ish years (think my first was Space Cadet back in oh, ’68?). Looking very much forward to the e-packet.

        2. Mr. Underhill, how it works is that you and your wife will get Hugo packets of nominated works, and PINs, and you read the works, then vote online.

    2. You can still vote William. The information should be coming soon. 🙂

      The Hugo voting ballot will be available to members of Sasquan online and by mail later in April.

      This will be my 4th or 5th official Worldcon, I’m usually busy costuming, on panels or volunteering somewhere – I don’t attend the award ceremony, but do read a LOT of books (own somewhere around 6K, over half of which are SF&F)

      1. I’ve already had a couple of emails from people plugging particular works, or suggesting I avoid others. I dislike this in the extreme, and it really puts me off the whole process.

      1. I have to say, I’m (probably naively) shellshocked. I’ve been pro writing for @ 10 years, I’ve had my share of shit dished at me because I don’t bow down to the SJW cause of the day (even though I do agree with some elements of their arguments and say so) but this? This has staggered me. That EW piece, and all the flow on from it, leaves me stunned. The rank dishonesty floors me. And it’s the EW piece that has in fact stirred me to becoming far more visible, into making myself a real target, more than I ever have before. Because really, to stay silent in the face of this kind of dishonesty is rank cowardice. And I must hold myself to a higher standard than that.

        1. You think this is bad? Wait until they make a Law and Order SFU episode about you?

          I truly feel for the SFF fans and writers in this. At least the Gamers had spent the past 3-4 decades being the whipping boy of everyone and the media menace of the week going back to the 80’s. They long ago exhausted what they could call us and it stopped having any meaning. We had travelled through the storm. Their words no longer had any effect on us or about us. And that’s when we rose up to challenge them.

          I fear the SFF community is not quite so numbed to the heinous and hateful rhetoric that the media will be pouring their way in defense of the SJW agenda. Just please remember. You have friends and fellow travelers in this. Some often in unexpected places. (I might suggest looking up a rather unusual fellow named Milo over at Brightbart London) and please remember at the end of the day all it is is just hot air and wind. The pompous jackasses really are nobodies. You will find more true fans and more loyal friends sticking up for yourself and facing down the ideological bullies than you ever would just trying to keep your head down and appease them for just a little longer.

    1. …and, judging from the comments, will dismiss and/or ignore people pointing out the Sad Puppies side of the story.

      Typical.

  32. Dear Larry.

    Put -THAT- up on Amazon for $.99.

    It’s a contender for best related work NEXT year.

  33. I have been to many WorldCons over the years, but I have quit. Originally because I wasn’t having enough fun, but now because as an unapologetic straight white male, I don’t feel welcome. So let the SJWs have at it.

    1. You know, you’re not encouraging me 🙂 This year is going to be my first Worldcon, but I’m beginning to wonder if there’s any point in going.

      1. I always enjoyed Worldcon when I attended. If you go, you’ll find plenty of nice people there, and plenty of fun stuff to do. Look for the BAEN BOOKS suite for a starter!

  34. Until last years Puppies thing i had NO IDEA, none at all, that the Hugo awards were part of some sort of Con. I thought it was just a general sci-fi/fantasy award from well… the ‘book’ community as a whole. I had always assumed that there was a small group of voters but also that the small group of voters were normal book reviewers, people like reps from news papers and sci-fi/fantasy magazines.

    When i think Hugo Award i think Golden Globe or Oscar and all those other awards. Finding out that it’s nothing like that is/was a shock.

    Sad to find out that the awards are kind of a joke now…

    1. I was relieved to discover it was just a small group.

      I had been thinking all of SF fandom had gone stupid.

      1. And once you start to realize just how small the numbers of these petty ideological tyrants are, it suddenly starts to make sense. The world hasn’t gone stupid. It’s just these handful of ideologues seeking to slowly conscript the means of communication in a few industries. SciFi fans haven’t gone SJW nuts. Gamers haven’t suddenly signed onto this narrow spiteful ideology. Comic book fans sure as hell don’t like what is actually being published these days instead of the quality stories that they remember. It’s this small cult of a few thousand have declared themselves gatekeepers in order to control what the rest of us see. And this has worked astonishingly well for them for years. But then communication got to fast. Too broad. Too many people can now talk and compare notes. The actual fans are starting to see the repetitive scripts being used in each community. They have spotted the (insert gender or species identification of your choice no matter how batshit insane) behind the curtain and know it’s no wizard. Nor is it actually what the people want. And thus we get Sad Puppies. And Gamergate. And Shirtstorm. And whatever will come along next week.

  35. Shorter GRRM:

    “It’s WorldCon’s pizza, and they can refuse to sell it to anyone whose lifestyle they disapprove of.”

      1. Ooooh!! Can we have a SP parade? That could be some very inventive CosPlay if nothing else 😉

        As a side note, has anyone noticed the difference in GRRM and Larry in this little back and forth? Yeah, Larry doesn’t “massage” his comments. And GRRM had the nerve to call Larry dishonest. He’s always straight up with us.

  36. This is all so much more complicated than it needs to be or is. You can see that in Martin writing in his comment section “I don’t doubt that the Sad Puppies feel slighted. (Well, some of them. Others just enjoy the idea of fucking with the ‘SJWs’).

    “Problem is, a lot of other groups feel slighted too. Minorities, women, and so on.

    “Conservatives love to dismiss the complaints of such groups and accuse them of playing the victim card… yet here we have the Puppies, loudly declaring, ‘no, no, we’re the REAL victims.'”

    It’s further symbolized here where LC quotes Martin writing “If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award… for Best Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be… whatever it is they are actually looking for… hey, I don’t think anyone would have any objections to that.”

    First of all, there is no institutional trend in SFF where minorities, women and gays are being defamed as a group or excluded by virtue of sheer hatred, quite the contrary. Secondly, people don’t get hopping mad about a lack of military SF. So both of Martin’s points are completely empty. However there is in fact an institutional trend in SFF where men, whites and heterosexuals are being defamed as a group or excluded by virtue of sheer hatred. That is not an opinion but a matter of quotes for and against.

    Is there a conservative/liberal thing going on? Sure. But’s that’s since forever. I suspect were this only about that conservatives could live with it. They understand politics is a legitimate thing and the world’s not a fair place. Supremacy and ethnic group defamation is another thing; that’s hate speech.

    The new element that has ratcheted this up to an unprecedented level is the entry of racial gender feminism. Anyone who pushes back against that flood of defamation AUTOMATICALLY becomes – not only a conservative – but even more of a racist, transphobe, misogynist than before they pushed back. Suddenly, there’s a lot of conservatives. For my part, anyone who knows me would laugh at the idea I am right wing. Just trust me on this. However what is true is I don’t like being defamed by sick gender feminists anymore than Jews or blacks dote on neo-Nazis and the KKK. In the eyes of gender feminists, aside from my race and sex, that makes me even more of a problem. In gender feminism, the best I can ever be is an analogy to a kapo. I am impure by virtue of heterosexuality, sex and race. Within racial gender feminism, I am an inferior both by birth and conviction.

    That’s it in a nutshell; the whole nine yards. Every single issue in the SJW community is laid at the feet of heterosexuality, men and whites – not political conviction. I am not a fucking “clique.”

    We are not a political alliance. We have been declared one because of our race and sex. I don’t have to say or do a thing to be THAT kind of conservative – no more than do blacks or Jews to their enemies. SJWs love the idea of portraying this as a liberal-conservative thing – at least the worst of them, the most feral of them – do.

    As for Martin’s “tone” argument, this is not a he-said, she-said and so yes, who started it is important, because the only ones who can end it are the SJWs. I cannot stop being a straight white man, Jew or black and I don’t need a moron saying the equivalent of “will you blacks and KKK just stop?”

    I for one do not hate WorldCon, but I do hate the atmosphere of a KKK it tolerates. And there’s the single greatest Orwellian madness that sits behind all this: SJWs conspicuously claim they are compassionately against the very thing they will not stop doing. They claim we are the ones doing it but have nothing but empty scare quotes.

    I have a thousand quotes and they are not empty. Because that’s where Martin is wrong about the campaign. Our best campaigners have been SJWs quotes. SJW’s worst campaigner has been their empty scare quotes. You cannot organize people against nothing, and that works both ways for both sides.

    I have only one single argument: a strike zone – so how can I be wrong? Well, when SJWs are done wrangling that bitch with power-privilege theory and punching up, our very Constitution and law lay on the floor. They think that’s right, but it will tear apart any society it touches. Look at where we are for proof of that.

    1. Welcome to the Right Wing. Please leave your Birkenstocks in the pile in the corner. There’s a buffet table with fresh babies to eat over their.

      No seriously, I am an actual Conservative. There are a number of us out here. We like SF and games as much as anybody else. But while you are watching the Sad Puppies folks go through this barrage of being accused of racism, sexism, misogyny, etc think on this. Chances are everything you know about conservatives, comes from those same people currently lying about SP. Every single thing. Chances are every single idea you have about Conservatives has been put there by the SJW cliques in the Mainstream press. I would encourage people to stop believing them and instead actually go read some real conservative writings. Read some George Will. Some Thomas Sowell. Some Jonah Goldberg. Stop believing somone else’s word on what it is they think, believe and who they may or may not hate. Stop Listening and Believing. Start asking questions on your own. You might find that those you have been taught are evil racist hatemongers are not really that at all.

      1. yes this….
        I work in a print shop (union), we d a lot of vote for me posters. so conversations can turn to politics. and when the tea party is brought up, it is always THEY ARE RACISTS
        I have told many people that they are not, look them up. some people will not be convinced, group think.
        others however (usually younger) I say to them:
        you have a smart phone, it connects to the internet, LOOK THEM UP, find out what they stand for, not what other people, including me, say about them.
        you maybe surprised how many people (by percents/that I talked to) come back and say wow they are not who I thought they were. not all converts (I respect them, but I am not them) but it changes their mind. knowing they have been lied to, about what is truth. some of these kids (you under 40— kid) are now thinking.

    2. I’ve always hated the “conservatives/white men/gamergaters/whoever-else-is-questioning-the-social-justice-hivemind-this-week are saying ‘no, no, no, we’re the REAL victims'” argument.

      It’s the “REAL” that frames it in an entirely dishonest manner. It implies that only one group can be victims, in every area, anywhere in society. No one is saying that other people aren’t victims. They’re not even saying that other people don’t have it worse than them in many situations. They’re saying that they, personally, ARE being discriminated against. for all the social justice community’s talk about “[whatever]splaining” and denying other peoples’ personal experiences, they sure are quick about doing that to others.

      1. Good point.

        I’ve been pointing out lately how often quotes and paraphrases by Sad Puppies are taken and an “only” is added… as if the meaning stays the same when you add an “only” to it.

        It’s a way of lying.

  37. Announcement: Special Panel

    In consideration of the recent events involving the Science Fiction Achievement Awards, commonly referred to as the Hugos, it has been decided to hold a meeting at Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention.

    It is tentatively scheduled to begin at 10 AM on Friday, August 21, the third day of the convention, with location to be determined.

    Panel: Hugos Unacceptable Activities Committee (HUAC)

    The formal seated panel will consist of real fans, those who love SF, who attend and work on WorldCon and other conventions. The fan community, the ones the Hugos truly belong to.

    Those in attendance may be asked to participate/answer questions by the panel. To make their position clear, a suggested introduction would be to place their left hand on a copy of Queers Dig Time Lords, raise their right hand and clearly state “I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of, affiliated with, or advocated for the Sad Puppies campaign.”

    I truly hope to see a strong, involved turnout for this very important gathering, although attendance is, naturally, on a volunteer basis.

    Seriously, of course it is.

    I mean, it’s not like we can make anyone do anything, right? There’s no negative effect we can put against your status or career.

    Anyway, hope to see you there.

    Sincerely,

    S. J. Woreeahr
    President, Socialist Fiction Writers of America

    1. Congratulations are in order for Nightwatch, who will be providing security and taking note of who attends, and who doesn’t.

      Volunteers for Nightwatch may visit MakingSpite, for badges and truncheons.

    2. Poe’s law: I read most of the way through this comment before I was sure it was parody & not a copy-paste of an actual SFWA/WorldCon announcement. And it was only the “S. J. Woreeahr” signature at the end that really made me heave a sigh of relief.

  38. This blog is hard to navigate if you are looking for historical archives and I was wondering if there are any posts from around 2011/2012 that speak to the roots of Sad Puppies ‘in situ’ as it were. The only one I could find was a general ‘had a great time’ kind of thing.

    I saw for myself the changing SJW narrative between SP2 and SP3 and how the goalposts have moved. I was curious if I could find similar pre-SP1 where the “hugo’s are for everyone’ narrative might have been more on display

    1. Strangely enough, I think this is the sort of thing that GRRM would read and may even respond to. If that happens, please let us know, Mr. Correia.

    2. You could take the Hugo Awards themselves as gospel,”The Hugo Awards, presented annually since 1955, are science fiction’s most prestigious award.”

      http://www.thehugoawards.org/about/

      They sure think they’re SF’s most prestigious award, and not just an award given by part to part.

      1. They definitely have to change that if they don’t want what has gone on here. If it is the most prestigious award, then it needs to be given out by the most prestigious Con. But how to determine that. If by numbers, Dragoncon I believe. Wouldn’t that put quite the little twist in their panties? lolz

    3. If you’re curious, I found a few posts about the start of Sad Puppies 1. It calls my message spam if I post the links, but if you search for the phrase “how to get correia nominated for a hugo” in the search bar, it should give you the four posts that initially started this thing.

    4. Jen G., and anyone else interested:
      I have a list of posts Larry made on the Hugos over the years, but WordPress won’t let me post it. They think it’s spam. But if you write me at saintonge AT hotmail.com, and put Puppy Posts in the subject, I’ll send you the list in reply. They go back to 2011.

  39. Awesome post, Larry.

    I don’t care if he’s late, Martin has brought the right tone to the opposition. And I hope his clout moves the conversation to a more productive ground.

  40. Hmm – you’re being persecuted for your ideals and pressured to abandon your heresy. Maybe you should call yourselves the Hugonots (or Hugoenots?)…

  41. This was actually a sad view into Martin’s mindset. I am afraid that he is of the elitist ilk. His “space opera, old fashioned science fiction” comments were enlightening. I actually think his mindset is what is going to sink his most popular series. If you even just casually pass by his blog on occasion you will notice he is spending a large deal of his time on other less popular of his works. I think he revealed the reason for this in his post. ASOIAF actually got wildly popular. Which means undoubtedly that it appeals to Wrongfans. I think when he arrived at this conclusion he lost his interest in the series and that is why his writing time has ballooned between books. I also think the quality of his writing on the series has gradually decreased. He used to supply threads and hints throughout his stories and in the later books he seems to just simply drop several story lines and walk away from themes that he had previously been building momentum towards. I don’t think it’s purposeful sabotage, It just takes a lot of work to keep track of all the threads and if your heart isn’t in it anymore it gets that much harder to do.

    1. The hubs and I said something similar when A Dance With Dragons came out. We both got the feeling that he’s just flat out bored with the series and is just phoning it in. Not a good book at all, imho. The other? Fabulous. I think he’s a great wordsmith. A delusional one, if these posts are any indication, but a fine author nonetheless.

  42. I can’t be the only one envisioning Martin essentially standing on his front porch, shaking his fist in the air, and telling those darn kids to get off his lawn.

    Look, Martin was big into the SMOF scene before many of us were born. He runs with the CHORFs. He has for decades. Heck, Patrick Nielsen Hayden is the editor of Wild Cards.

    If life has shown me nothing else, it’s that very few people actually have ideologies. What they have are interests and personal ties. It’s a rare person who can buck long-standing ties and their own interests to open their eyes to harsh facts.

    Hang in there, Larry and Brad.

  43. I’ve never forgiven GRRM for being a whiny git and threatening not to finish his books over Kerry losing in 2004. I am NOT surprised by anything he’s saying now.

    1. I was sort of looking forward to his not finishing them. 🙂 But then again, I came to view them as reader torture after the first two – when you start to learn that any character that you’re emotionally committed to will suffer ever more horrific fates with no sign that there will at any point, any where, be an emotional pay-off.

      1. I actually took more offense at having villains I utterly despised getting humanized into my sympathy.

        1. There is a villain and saint in a person. That’s what Martin is saying in this books. It’s all a matter of perspective.

          Careful there Sad Puppies in your effort to save the world, not to destroy it and become Rabid Dogs. Don’t forget that blacklash is violence too.

          Peace.

          1. Tikitiki –

            My jest evidently did not come through well – it is a frequently failing on the internets.

            I actually respect the heck out of GRRM’s ability to do that – to bring a hero down to earth and force the reader to acknowledge the humanity of the enemy.

            What is *really* impressive about how GRRM goes about it is that he forces the reader to re-write their assessment of the character but does NOT re-write what the character has done – their virtues and sins remain, just add complexity.

      2. Which is why I quit reading the series. When you kill every character I like I kill the book/series. 🙂

    2. Ah, no wonder he took forever.

      Maybe he needs to stop paying attention to politics. Clearly it’s interfering with his work.

    3. At this point, I’d be happy if, on the Final Page of the Final Book of “A Song of Fire and Ice”, that Ned Stark wakes up in a modern bed, aside of Catelyn, and says. . . “I was dreaming I was a Feudal Lord in a magical land. . .”

      1. Heartbroken, Martin never completed A Song of Ice and Fire before he passed away. His last fans pooled their money to buy the rights. They hired a lesser writer, who was only able to bill them for 150k words before finishing.

        Guro fans were disappointed, but still had the Doujinshi market.

  44. Well spoken Larry, pity you are collecting on word count 😉 . I do notice that you and others *still* believe the Hugo to be prestigous. Why else are you playing Worldcon’s game and trying to resuscitate it, when a perfectly viable alternative considering it’s condition is a mercy shot? Don’t misunderstand, I’ve been a SF fan for about 50 years and grew up when it was a different Hugo. But we won our independence from minority rule long ago (not so sure we’ve kept it, mind) and I for one don’t care to have it again in any venue. So consider alternative therapies to the one you’re currently about. Best wishes in any case and don’t let this interrupt your writing (books) as I greatly enjoy your fictionering as RAH would call it; just as much as I did his as a YA. Still do for that matter.

  45. Larry: Great post. Even if you and Martin both forget the forgotten author, the late great Poul Anderson, who won seven of those damned rockets.
    I recently joined SFWA as an indie author, now that they’ve opened up that path. I heard all the bad things going on over there, but thought, it was always something I wanted to do, and most of my old favorites had been involved one time or another, so why not. Plus, a friend who will remain nameless, but is a bestseller author, had told me he thought letting indies in would change the culture. After all, indies are into selling books, and, having made $260,000 in the last two years, I was the definition of a successful indie (not Hugh Howie, but doing well enough). One of the first people to welcome me was Jerry Pournelle, and, after reading many posts on the site, I realized he was firmly behind the push to bring in indies. To change the culture? Possibly. Because we indies are all about writing stuff we think people want to read. It’s hard to make a living otherwise. As far as the Hugos go, they lost their luster for me a long time ago. I used to love P. Anderson, Heinlein, Asimov and too many others to name, and they were always pulling in the award. Now I read people like you, Butcher, K. Anderson, Taylor Anderson, David Weber, John Ringo, Michael Z, Chuck Gannon, Salvatore and many others, people who were never mentioned in the Hugo nominations. If they win the award I will be very happy for them, but it will do almost nothing to change my reading habits. So keep fighting the good fight, and know that some of us, even if quietly, are behind you.

    1. One of my cherished Windycon memories is meeting Poul Anderson when he was a GoH there in the early 1980s. I still have my copy of The Avatar he autographed.

      Just checked out your titles on Amazon and I can tell there’s already a few I’m interested in. Good luck in the future!

  46. Of course, we could always ask the Hugo Awards itself…

    What are the Hugo Awards?

    The Hugo Awards, to give them their full title, are awards for excellence in the field of science fiction and fantasy. They were first awarded in 1953, and have been awarded every year since 1955. The awards are run by and voted on by fans.

    http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/

  47. I love how the Usual Suspects trotted this GRRM post out as yet another debate-ending trump card. “If you’ve lost GRRM, you’ve lost everybody!” Considering his politics, we never really had him to begin with.

    And I agree with the other posters: considering he’s subjected to some of the same paranoid crap we are, you’d think he’d have more sympathy. Maybe he and Larry need to swap SJW attack stories and bond. 😉

    1. I think Martin is just uneducated about all this, which is no crime. If that’s true, it’s only natural he’s going to have more of a he-said, she-said attitude. Frankly, I trust my homework. It’s there in black and white. People who haven’t done their homework yet insist on addressing this issue are of no interest to me. Prosecutors don’t run out on the street and ask for opinions. They amass evidence and then present it. SJWs can’t fisk their own quotes although they can have ignorant apologists come along and try that for them based on emotion and not facts. It’s clear Martin is in possession of no facts. He is no witness to this. I’m not calling him to the stand. End of story.

  48. Awesome analysis. My brain doesn’t work like that. Maybe that’s why you’re the professional author and I’m a wrongfan of yours and a victim of your nefarious schemes to get my money via Audible and Amazon. 😉

  49. So basically GRRM’s arguments boil down to:

    –A useless plea for “civility,” because it was so much more pleasant when leftists could be as catty, nasty, vicious, libelous and violent as they want and the rest of us were just supposed to sit there and take it.

    –“Seperate but equal” fandoms where in their graciousness the lefties will allow us to call ourselves fans and have our own awards, as long as we stay cooped up in our little ghettoes like Baen and Castalia and maybe indie publishing, assuming they don’t manage to kill off Kindle. Oh, and wear distinctive clothing and insignia, and perhaps sit in the back of the bus. Because

    –Contrary to what it says on their own website, the Hugos aren’t really for all the fans, just the elites, the Quality, the aristocracy, and we proles should know our place. And use the servants’ entrance.

    Yeah, OK, whatever. The amazing thing here is how much GRRM sounds like one of those country-clubber establishment RINO Republicans lamenting how *gauche* those uncouth Tea Partiers are. and lamenting the shortness of the hem of Sarah Palin’s skirt.

  50. But back then I was still trying to play it cool, and didn’t think I could have a successful career if I made the wrong people angry.

    Sarah Hoyt tells a similar story. And I’ve got to say how grateful I am for the two of you (and others) “coming out” politically. I’m not exactly suited to “flying under the radar” so folk like you show that it can be done.

    Thank you.

  51. Oh, my god, really? REALLY? Mr. Correia, I sincerely do not understand. I have been a fan for decades, have never been to a Worldcon nor involved in one, and I have still never had any doubt or uncertainty about the link between the Hugos and that con. Ever. It wasn’t hidden.

    I have zero objection to a more diverse science fiction world with a wider range of authors to read. I’m excited to read new things as well as familiar things, fun things and serious things. I came here to read your response to GRRM’s post, because I sincerely was interested in your reply and your viewpoint.

    And what I have found to me seems like the words of someone who feels shut out, outcast, and deceived. I’m sorry for that, even while disagreeing with the Puppies’ campaign; it’s an uncomfortable feeling for anyone (which, incidentally, is part of why I disagree with the Puppies, because the campaigns do read as very exclusionary, not about developing a wider and more representative list of recognized science fiction writers).

    And then I see things like characterizing Brianna Wu as you have, and I lose respect for you. For anyone, really, who can justify abusive sexism and harrassment as you have here. That does, in fact, affect your message and poisons your work, and casts a long and unpleasant shadow on your justifications.

    At the end of the day, I wish you clarity, and that you find something better to do with your time than this.

      1. All right, I’ll engage in good faith. Looks like current numbers are around $3400 per month in support of videogame development.

        More specifically, in support of hiring assistance to deal with the onslaught of targeted harrassment, all of which takes time, attention, and resources separate and apart from the creative and technical work of game development and production.

        Do you see something wrong with investing in either of those causes?

        1. BWA HA HA HAAAAA! 😀

          Wow!

          Seriously?

          Hey, I’m getting an onslaught of targeted harassment (and unlike Wu, the media isn’t on my side) all of which takes time, attention, and resources separate from my creating and writing work of fiction development and production.

          And I know that if I went out and asked people to give me money for that, it would be total and compete bullshit. And anybody who gave me money for that would be a sucker.

          1. Oh, and at one point it was at $13,000 a month, so it is good to see that at least some folks wised up to the con.

    1. ” is part of why I disagree with the Puppies, because the campaigns do read as very exclusionary”

      Which group do you feel was excluded? Not represented by good works on the Puppy’s recommended slate?

      Or do you think the last five years of almost entirely white liberal winners is “diverse”?

      1. I perceive an orchestrated and directive campaign to promote a particular slate with the agenda of sending a sociopolitical message to be problematic in and of itself, the more so when targeting a process that’s intended to surface and recognize works largely on their own independent merit.

        The process is not perfect; iterative improvement is always possible. Is this improvement? Do I think that more diverse representation could be achieved among the many, many disparate writers of talent out there? Yes. Do I think this is the way to go about it? No.

        I think this campaign is both destructive and tainted. How does that help?

        For the record, Mr. Williamson, as it happens, I have read (and enjoyed) several of your co-written short story works in the past; I am not wholly unfamiliar with everyone involved in the Puppies’ activism.

        1. You know, I keep seeing that narrative from the moderates, about how there were problems, but this is the wrong way to do it.

          I addressed that very specifically in a prior post already. http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/06/a-letter-to-the-smofs-moderates-and-fence-sitters-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/

          Yeah, there were problems, and you guys knew it, but you didn’t do anything. It built up until there was a backlash, and now it is too late for your perfect solution. Shoot. Sounds like you guys should have done something before there was this backlash.

        2. Sad Puppies 3 has never claimed to be about politics, merely the quality of the work and recognizing authors and works that otherwise might not be recognized. Because of a large amount of anecdotal evidence (no one has done a full statistical analysis, since it is difficult to find out authors’ positions on politics and classify them), Sad Puppies do believe that conservative authors are unlikely to be recognized in the Hugo awards.
          In previous iterations, it did have a more political bent. The purpose of the campaign has changed some. Like you say, iterative improvement is always possible.
          For the record, Larry and many of the fans here also agree that the process can be improved. We’ve actually been brainstorming ideas to try to improve the process. We’ve also been receptive to ideas put out by other fans who don’t like the Sad Puppies’ campaigns.
          For example, I’ve seen many people on this blog say they are fine with the 4/6 ratio of nominating slots to shortlisted works. Many of us want the cost of a supporting membership to go down so that people from all over the world can participate in Hugo voting. No one has opposed the idea of Single Transferable Voting for the nominating stage of the awards, though it has likely gotten less vocal support due to be slightly harder to understand.
          For the record, all of those three suggestions above were discussed and supported by some people over on Making Light. Good ideas are good ideas, regardless of who they come from (in almost all cases).
          We’ve also discussed ways to increase the diversity of slates (and reduce their power), by either having more slates of increasing the number of recommended works above the number allowed onto the short list.
          If you have suggestions for how to improve the Hugo award and nominating process (or even the slate process) that don’t amount to “Stay out, Puppies!”, you will likely find an interested ear.
          However, the slate was within the rules of the Hugos as they currently are. Criticizing groups for playing by the rules seems like a bad idea.

      1. If we shut up and sit in the back of the bus, Aspen will briefly consider allowing us to sit vaguely near the cool kids table.

        1. As if I had control (or interest in control) of any “cool kids” table or organization, or in controlling social norms? Ha! Not even remotely.

          (Advocacy is not the same thing as control.)

      2. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I came here to engage in good faith and will probably bow out in short order, because I have limited time and energy to devote to these conversations, but I did want to acknowledge your comment.

    2. That’s true. We could create Kickstarters for racial revenge fiction and men and heterosexual-only anthologies and not review non-white women, just like our darling SJW KKK does.

    3. Being ceaselessly accused of being exclusionary is very different than actually being exclusionary.

      But you knew that.

      In any case it works:
      “I was attacked, personally, and slandered.”
      “Oh, you’re just a racist homophobe.”
      “Hey, I heard that you were a racist homophobe.”
      “Hey, what about all those racist homophobe optics, dude, what are you going to do about that?”

      When you “read” the slander, of course it “reads” like the slander.

      Also… criticizing Brianna Wu is functionally different in ALL ways from justifying abusive sexism and harassment.

      I understand why you’re confused:
      “So-and-so has an agenda… you disagree with the agenda… therefore you’re an abusive sexist homophobe.”
      “No really, I disagree with the agenda and with being attacked as a wrong-fun wrong-thinker.”
      “Well then stop being an abusive sexist homophobe.”
      “But I’m not!”
      “Well, you sure “read” like you are because that’s what everyone is saying about you, and you refuse to celebrate every single word out of so-and-so’s mouth.”
      “But she’s wrong.”
      “Racist hater, abusive sexist homophobe!”

      etc.

      1. Going point by point in an attempt to address your concerns —

        Re: exclusionary perception: please see my response to Mr. Williamson above.

        Re: how things “read”: I based my comment on remarks made in this post, not elsewhere. Do I disagree with Mr. Correira about Brianna Wu? Evidently. Do I think that Ms. Wu has been under heinous and misogynistic attack? Yes, I do. Do I then draw the conclusion that because Mr. Correira perceives Ms. Wu as someone who makes a living from generating controversy, that we disagree about the sexist nature of her experience? Yes, I do. Direct conclusion in immediate context, not extended through logical fallacy.

    4. And this post, and the responses, can be summed up in the following sentence: “Talking past each other is awesome.”
      To wit: Aspen complains that the slates are “exclusionary” due to, presumably, a preponderance of white males.
      Michael Z. Williamson asks how on earth the slates are exclusionary, since (presumably) they are more ideologically diverse than previous years.
      And, there, gentlemen, is the problem.
      To wit: Aspen, and others like him, see diversity as people of many different races getting up and saying all the same things about all the same people.
      Correia and crew see diversity as a bunch of people disagreeing with each other while not breaking out the switchblades.
      The second one is the better path.

      1. If I might offer a couple of minor refinements —

        1) please see my response to Mr. Williamson about exclusion and the perception of same;

        2) I see diversity as a goal to be achieved, which has not yet been accomplished, and disagree that the Puppies campaign is a good way to do it;

        3) I’m not male.

        1. You are right. Diversity has not been achieved. I believe last year’s Hugo winners were all white liberals, with one Asian liberal. It was, and is still being hailed as a huge win for diversity, while our slate is all racist white males being racist. If you include film, then the percentage gets slightly better, since Alfonso Cuoron has similar DNA to me.

        2. “Sam J. Miller retweeted Usman Malik @usmantm · Apr 8 & no question in my mind abt this: the winner of the John W. Campbell for Best New Writer is Kai Ashante Wilson as well. So burn THAT slate.”

          Black guy writes typical anti-white racial revenge Jim Crow story only nominally fantasy cleverly titled “The Devil in America” which starts out with the word “1955 Emmett Till, and published at Tor.

          Nominated for Nebula. But Best New Writer too, huh? Gee, who saw that coming? Tough bounce. Better luck next year.

        3. And, with all due respect, you are wrong.
          1. The Sad Puppies slate sent no sociopolitical message other than “Story good!”
          2. And we have the disagreement right there.
          3. Okay, you’re a she.

    5. Wait, abusive sexism and harassment? REALLY?

      Let’s compare, shall we?

      Larry said: “When you have professional culture warriors like Brianna Wu and Arthur Chu, who make their livings off of generating political controversy, saying that Brad Torgersen’s two decades of interracial marriage is just a shield to hide his true secret racism, then yes, there is a serious tone problem.”

      I defy you to distill abuse, sexism or harassment out of that. If Larry said something so much worse, POST IT.

      Brianna Wu said: “Gamergate hijacked this year’s Hugo Awards, and loaded them with extremist homophobic authors.”

      That kinda looks like abuse and harassment right there. She said a bunch more in the same vein, I can’t be bothered to cut and paste it.

      So really Aspen… what the fuck are you talking about?

      1. She certainly should have narrowed it down, that isn’t fair to the rest of the authors, but you have read VD and John Wright, haven’t you? They are proudly and loudly full of hate for homosexuals.

        It’s not like that came out of nowhere.

        1. She certainly should have narrowed it down, that isn’t fair to the rest of the authors, but you have read VD and John Wright, haven’t you? They are proudly and loudly full of hate for homosexuals.

          And you have proof of that?

          1. I can’t tell, are you honestly not that familiar with those two, or do you know about them, but want to deflect? (Seriously, I can’t tell what tone of voice you wrote that in.)

            If you are asking in good faith, there are all kinds of posts that will answer the question. The most recent (that I am aware of) from Wright, and also the most amusing is:

            http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/12/the-perversion-of-a-legend/

            This one from VD is old, and really the first two paragraphs or so are the funniest bits, but I couldn’t bring myself to search through his writing any more than that.

            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938512/posts

          2. Did you read the link from before? The one where he is absolutely frothing at the mouth over the thought that two cartoon characters might be homosexual? Even in the link you posted he goes out of his way to talk about their ‘perversion’.

            Yes, he claims that he really loves them on the inside, but then writes things like the following. Now it’s possible that he believes that calling someone an abomination, etc, is speaking with love in the spirit of Jesus, but I think serious people can understand his true feelings.
            “You have earned the contempt and hatred of all decent human beings forever, and we will do all we can to smash the filthy phallic idol of sodomy you bow and serve and worship.”

            And from an earlier post from 2009 which he seems to have taken down:

            “Someone explain to me by what series of events persons with serious sexual-psychological malfunctions would somehow be awarded the status of moral arbiters, something like priests and confessors and sages…”

            Hmm… 2010:
            “Second, the argument also supposes that if society grants to the gays the legal recognition of their (let us not mince words) abomination as if it were holy matrimony”

            And this gem, implying that he believes ‘The Left’ has it wrong and homosexuality is like becropjilia, pedopilhilia, and bestiality:

            “The Left now take it as doctrine that there is no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, but that homosexuality is clearly and remarkably distinct from fetishism, sadomasochism, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, incest.”

          3. You know, John C. Wright’s blog is thataway. I’m sure he’ll be glad to discuss his Catholic (you know, the biggest Christian religion on Earth) beliefs with you.

          4. Thanks, I’m quite familiar with Catholic beliefs and Catholic people, I wouldn’t inquire about them on someone’s blog. I was responding to someone’s question about things that Wright has written. His beliefs will have to stay between him and God.

          5. Really? Then why do you keep talking about them here on my blog, to try and poison the well against him? If you actually care, as you have continually claimed to do, why don’t you go take it up with the source?

          6. You are doing it again. I answered that question in the very post you were responding to. If you are so certain that you are right, why do you feel the need to lie?

            Watch, I’ll do it again: “because someone asked the question and I was answering them”

            Ironically, I think it was in the comment chain where I said it wasn’t fair to attribute the comments from VD and Wright to the other authors in the puppy slates. Sort of like you said. Remember? You disavowed any support of VD? I was agreeing.

          7. Lies? Don’t I remember? No. I don’t remember. Because you are one of the five hundred demanding people I’m dealing with right fucking now.

            Dude, I’m reading these posts on the moderation page so I can approve the slew of new posters as I go. Which means they appear in the order they were posted, not under the proper sub comment. I’m doing it that way, because as you can see, I’ve gotten over 2,400 comments this week. And I don’t know how friggin’ many dozen are from you, thousands of twitter posts, thousands of FB posts, and I’ve answered your repetitive rhetoric I don’t know how many damned times while trying to remain polite, while I’ve done nothing but answer questions and respond to allegations for a week straight, wherein I’ve written a large novella worth of responses, and now I’m starting to experience argument fatigue. I don’t owe you shit, so no, I don’t fucking remember which fucking repetitive argument you’re talking about.

          8. So you went back a dozen years to find an article where Vox Day had issues with the ‘gay agenda’. Wow, some hate speech.

            As for Wright, again, you linked to an article where he disagreed with things that were being pushed, but no where did you point out anything about him attacking gays.

            I have very little respect for anonymous trolls who put up scare quotes, misread things that are written and then infer a lot from those things. Yes I understand that you’re just some lefty kid who enjoys screaming about issues that you have no commitment to, or stake in.

            You want to be taken seriously? Stop hiding behind a fake name and put up link in your real name to who you really are. I do not argue with sock puppets.

          9. I didn’t ‘have to go back ten years’ for VD. As you can see by reading what I actually wrote, there was too much, I didn’t want to spend any more time there than necessary.

            There was nothing ‘out of context’ about the quotes. They stand on their own and are quite clear. There is no manipulation required. Just ask May- quotes prove everything, yes?

            I’m not googling the Wright article again, there were several, but I believe this is the one where he claimed to not hate gays, but stated that they were like termites and should be destroyed just as termites are. This is not a quote that any amount of ‘context’ can help. I’m not sure how you can consider wiping them out to not be attacking them.

            Your last two paragraphs are pure ad-hominem and unworthy of response, except for ‘sock-puppet’? That isn’t a synonym for anonymous. If you are going to use internet terms, please look them up first.

          10. @John Van Stry
            Let’s see. Vox Day gives his support of hiring discrimination. He does not specifically mention homosexuals, so the article is not terribly good evidence of hatred of homosexuals. He just, you know, endorses breaking at least one law.
            John C. Wright calls people “disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth” for deciding they wanted to have homosexual characters in a relationship in THEIR TV show. Again, the article is poor evidence of him necessarily hating homosexuals, but apparently he hates people for deciding to have homosexual characters in a relationship in THEIR TV show.
            You know, hating people for not writing fiction in line with a set of beliefs is what social justice warriors do, according to this blog. Wright did the exact same thing, here. He didn’t stop at criticizing the work. Instead, he decided to insult the people who made the work for making an artistic decision.
            That excerpt doesn’t serve very well as evidence that he hates all homosexual people, but it does show he will insult creators for daring to write fiction not in line with his beliefs.
            Of course, he is perfectly free to write what he likes on his blog until it becomes libel. Just like social justice warriors are. But in that excerpt, John C. Wright acted like a social justice warrior coming from a different direction.

          11. Well, I’m glad to see you guys have gone from Wright is a Catholic Cooties Homophobe Who Wants Gays To DIE all the way to Okay, He Doesn’t Hate Gays, But Sounds Like a Social Justice Warrior, over the last few days.

            I’ll call that progress. 🙂

          12. And you, sir, are mistaken as to Mr. Wright’s reasoning behind his outrage at the matter, explained pithily in a follow-up post: http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/12/an-open-letter-to-mr-hines/

            Quote: “bad writing, cheap ending, lame out-of-nowhere romance between two female characters (neither of who previously was homosexual) being shoehorned into the last scene in the closing episode of LEGEND OF KORRA for reasons of Political Correctness.”

          13. @ 60guilders
            I work from the evidence I have. He merely attacks the show’s writing in this second post. I am not claiming that all of his posts make him sound like a SJW, I was merely claiming that his letter did. In the first post, he attacked the writers and the ideology he thinks they are a part of.
            He said: “You serve a cloud of morally-retarded mental smog called Political Correctness, which is another word for hating everything good and bright and decent and sane in life.”
            Nowhere does he say “I think you guys are bad writers” and leave it at that. No. He insults the creators because he thinks that they serve ‘Political Correctness’ when they write fiction.
            If you replace ‘Political Correctness’ with ‘cis-normative heterosexual white patriarchy’,you get something that sounds exactly like a SJW blog post. If you don’t agree with that, please tell me why.
            Note: I don’t claim to know what I don’t have evidence for. I have yet to see evidence that John C. Wright hates all homosexuals, so I’m not going to say he does. He does refer to homosexuality as a “perversion”, though, so it would seem that he doesn’t like homosexuality, though he may like some homosexuals as people.

          14. @Differently: My apologies, I was responding to Maximilian, rather than you.
            Your point I will concede.

          15. @ 60guilders
            My apologies. It gets hard to follow some of these threads. You are right that Maximillian failed to present evidence that John C. Wright hates all homosexual people. Perhaps there is evidence he does, but it wasn’t presented. I’m not interested enough to try to go searching, so I’m not going to assert anything on the matter.

        2. Seems I have heard someplace that it’s not right to judge everyone in a group by one’s perceptions of characteristics of one or two individuals. Come to think of it, I’ve even heard that if you’re using *negative* characterizations, it’s even worse.

          Can’t seem to remember where I would have heard that, though. *scratches head* What *did* they call that?

          Oh! Right! Stereotyping! That’s it!

          Now if I could just bring to mind the sort of people who were telling me that was bad…

          1. You read the part where I said it not fair to do that to the other authors, right? So, almost exactly not stereotyping?

          2. Then why are you *here* on LC’s blog talking about it, instead of being over at JCW’s place or VD?

            Look, I know people say LC is a huge mountain of whoopass, but he really has better things to do *cough*writefaster*cough* with his time than spank a couple of grown men. If you’re into that, take it up with them.

      2. A couple of things:

        1) I don’t think Ms. Wu is a “professional culture warrior” who thrives on generating controversy, which tells me that Mr. Correia (whose name I misspelled in previous comments, I see – apologies for that) and I fundamentally disagree on some core matters with regard to Gamergate;

        2) I refer you to Maximillian’s comment in response;

        3) Are you suggesting that Gamergate (as represented by persons who clearly and publicly associate themselves with that movement) was not, in fact, involved? Not welcomed by the Puppies campaign?

        This is the last comment available for me to respond to as of this posting, and I will be offline for work shortly. I think I’ve said all I originally wrote to say, anyway, and as a guest rather than a regular poster here, I’ll see myself out.

        1. 1. How much is Brianna Wu’s Patreon account worth again?
          2. Dude’s posted like a dozen times, I’ve read like 4,000 posts, and I’m too tired to care. You want to say something, say it.
          3. EVERYONE WAS WELCOMED TO THE PUPPIES CAMPAIGN. Unlike you, we don’t have political litmus tests over acceptability. I don’t give a shit if they are Gamers or Girl Scouts. Are they a fan? Do they like to read books?

          However, despite TNH’s boogieman claims to the contrary, SP3 wasn’t the work of GamerGate because most of GamerGate had no idea who the hell we were until the Breitbart article came out AFTER THE CUT OFF DATE TO BUY A MEMBERSHIP IN TIME TO NOMINATE.

          I spoke to a reporter from Breitbart. Yes. Because remember, my original public stated goal was to expose to the world the bias in the system. Duh.

          Oh, but now GamerGate is involved… Because TNH blamed it on them, and then a bunch of media outlets blamed it on them, and people they hate like Brianna Wu and Arthur Chu are blowing the war horn of social justice because they have another excuse to call a bunch of people racist, SO FUCKING DERP. You waved a red cape in front of a bull, and now you’re surprised the bull is coming for you?

          TNH’s evidence of GamerGate involvement was that Daddy Warpig is a GamerGate blogger and a fan of mine, and tweeted about Sad Puppies in time to get involved. However, his own retweets and favorites show that hardly anyone noticed. It didn’t get picked up, and HE DIDN’T EVEN PERSONALLY VOTE THE SUGGESTED SLATE.

          So if you think this year was bad, continue waving that red cape in front of thousands of Gamergaters, saying Suck it! The Hugos belong to SJWs! Racists!

          And I’ve already posted all of this on the blog before, so quit wasting my time. I’m getting really annoyed having to continually restate my opinions to people who ignore them anyway.

        2. 1. How much is Brianna Wu’s Patreon account worth again?
          2. Dude’s posted like a dozen times, I’ve read like 4,000 posts, and I’m too tired to care. You want to say something, say it.
          3. EVERYONE WAS WELCOMED TO THE PUPPIES CAMPAIGN. Unlike you, we don’t have political litmus tests over acceptability. I don’t give a shit if they are Gamers or Girl Scouts. Are they a fan? Do they like to read books?

          However, despite TNH’s boogieman claims to the contrary, SP3 wasn’t the work of GamerGate because most of GamerGate had no idea who the hell we were until the Breitbart article came out AFTER THE CUT OFF DATE TO BUY A MEMBERSHIP IN TIME TO NOMINATE.

          I spoke to a reporter from Breitbart. Yes. Because remember, my original public stated goal was to expose to the world the bias in the system. Duh.

          Oh, but now GamerGate is involved… Because TNH blamed it on them, and then a bunch of media outlets blamed it on them, and people they hate like Brianna Wu and Arthur Chu are blowing the war horn of social justice because they have another excuse to call a bunch of people racist, SO FUCKING DERP. You waved a red cape in front of a bull, and now you’re surprised the bull is coming for you?

          TNH’s evidence of GamerGate involvement was that Daddy Warpig is a GamerGate blogger and a fan of mine, and tweeted about Sad Puppies in time to get involved. However, his own retweets and favorites show that hardly anyone noticed. It didn’t get picked up, and HE DIDN’T EVEN PERSONALLY VOTE THE SUGGESTED SLATE.

          So if you think this year was bad, continue waving that red cape in front of thousands of Gamergaters, saying Suck it! The Hugos belong to SJWs! Racists!

          And I’ve already posted all of this on the blog before, so quit wasting my time. I’m getting really annoyed having to continually restate my opinions to people who ignore them anyway.

          1. I’m ignorant of the significance of a patreon account. What does Wu’s large patreon account have to do with her being or not being a SJW?

          2. A Patreon account is where people can donate money to support artists who produce works that they like and would like to see continue. It is especially useful for art that is difficult to monetize ( I understand it is a godsend for web cartoonists).

            Wu is a professional victim. Her Patreon is people giving her money for “punching up” against the evil boogieman that is GamerGate. It is basically money for nothing. Actual producers of video games get paid when the market purchases their product. She gets money for being Wu. She picks fights, calls people racists/sexists/homophobes (like me for example) and eventually somebody she attacks gets pissed off and responds. Then she screams about the trasphobic hate attack, and more people donate to her Patreon, because that makes them good people, absolved from their white guilt.

            It is a scam. At the height of GG when all the national media attention was on it, she was raking in $13k a month from people like Aspen.

          3. …wow. That’s just… wow.

            I was familiar with Patreon via several webcomics. (and there should absolutely be a webcomics section in the Hugos. They’ve gotten larger than some of the other Hugo sections out there.)

            I had no idea Patreon was used in internet trolling like that. Naive of me, I guess.

          4. It is especially useful for art that is difficult to monetize

            I know I’ve seen it from several people who run podcasts that I listen to.

            But it makes no sense for someone who is actually selling a product, like books or games. Because then someone can just buy those.

  52. “Mary Robinette Kowal retweeted
    Michael Curry @mkcurry · 28m 28 minutes ago

    “Michael Curry retweeted John Scalzi GRRM dismantles the Puppies ‘oppression’ argument with facts. https://twitter.com/scalzi/status/586299795586883586

    “Michael Curry added,
    John Scalzi @scalzi
    GRRM is doing yeoman’s work dismantling the Puppy argument that their kind of writer/writing is excluded from Hugos: http://grrm.livejournal.com/418285.html

    Considering these are writers, I find their level of sheer brainlessness and inability to understand their own participation in their own ideology captivating.

    1. I rather think grrm confirmed several points about campaigning he’s just sad about it and wishes it weren’t so.

  53. The Locus Recommended Reading List part in both your response and GRRM’s original caught my eye and so I eyeballed the Locus lists from 2004-2014.

    A total of two Baen novels, period. (And a handful of shorts from JB Universe, years ago.) Both of the novels from LMB.

    I’m a Baen fanboy since the early days of the Free Library; a fair number of my reading comes from the fact that a book has the Baen imprint.

    The fact that Locus critics have found nothing (nothing Baen) from Drake, Weber, Ringo, Correia, Kratman, etc. as worthy of being recommended over the last decade smells of bias in a nasty way.

    I’m curious if there was a similar bias trend when Jim was helming Baen, but I’m too damn tired to look it up.

      1. Anti-veteran too (at least, I presume the ‘anti-military SF’ stance means there aren’t many vets on the SJW’s lists of previous nominees.

        Anti-union for screwing Flint? 1632, excellent. There might be members of the paper-pushers unions, but I haven’t heard any support something like the United Mine Worker’s Union.

        The entire reason “One or two would have been ok” is the silent subtext “Because then we’d have been able to gin up enough hatred to out vote you the old fashioned way.”

    1. Well, Drake has written books that deserve at least a nomination (Redliners, for ex), and I personally love Weber, but c’mon, the rest of those guys?

      They compare themselves to Heinlein and say he couldn’t ein today either, but he didn’t win for shoot’em up adventures like The Door Into Summer. He won for Double Star, Troopers, Harsh Mistress, and Stranger. None of those guys are writing books like that. They aren’t writing The Mote In God’s Eye or Footfall.

      But yes, I’ll put my hand in the air and swear that Redliners and the entire RCN series are way better than Redshirts. I’m not sure how that one got a Hugo, but I think it was a fluke.

      1. Replying to myself, sorry:

        Note that I’m glad to see different names in the SP3 slate for Best Novel. Butcher certainly deserves an award for the recent Dresden books, Kloos is good, and The Goblin Emperor was excellent.

        So, thank you for those.

          1. Oh, my bad, thanks. Okay, the other two still stand. Can’t remember the third of the SP’s and the fourth is by a guy I have not read, so no comment.

    2. Or Wen Spencer. Wen Spencer rocks. Tinker is fabulous but 8 Million Gods blew me away and warmed my fan-girl heart with all it’s amazing Anime’ glory.

      Wen Spencer writes *tight* plots. I won’t say she never writes herself into a corner but dangit, 8 Million Gods was GOOD and it was very unlike anything out there anywhere. (It also had alternative lifestyles, mental illness, and enough “proper” message for anyone who happened to care about those things.)

      1. She favors some messages that I find obnoxious, but I can tell she cares more about making the story work.

        1. Watch her writing process on FB. She works REALLY hard to link the little details, even if some of it comes down to Retconning….

          Love her books too. Beginning to get antsy about her beliefs, but love her books. And unlike some of the SJW, even if I hate her beliefs, if she exercises the least bit of discretion, I’ll still buy her books.

          zuk

  54. “I’ve had a bunch of well-meaning SMOFs telling me that they nobody would be upset if we’d only gotten one or two things into each category, but that’s exactly what we accomplished last year, and they still freaked out at us. ”

    Two thoughts:
    (1) Anybody with a clue about how the politics of fandom works would know better than this.
    (2) I can think of dozens of SMOFs who would say exactly this, because they live in a damned fantasy world where real people neither do nor can live.

    Actually, one more thought: Everything that’s happened, everything that’s being said, pretty much jibes with what I saw 20 years ago, _running_ a worldcon. They were a set of aligned in-group clubs then, and they haven’t changed their ways.

    More motivation to write up/tell some of the stories from 1993 and thereabouts, that illustrate just how much shit is in the sausage.

  55. It is the most prestigious award which represents the best works in all of fandom.

    It is a little award, for one little group of people, at one convention.

    Every book which is emblazoned with a big seal that says “Hugo Winner” is banking on it being the most prestigious award that represents the best of all SF (not fandom as such). Of course the award actually belongs to the Worldcon, but the whole SF world at one time trusted the Worldcon to represent the whole SF world on their behalf. I try to take that trust seriously; so does Brad, though it may be too late. Yes, Hugo belongs to the Worldcon, and everyone who buys a supporting membership is part of Worldcon, whether or not they turn up in Spokane.

    If the Neilsen Haydens think that the Hugo is only for a small core of people to care about, will Tor stop doing Hugo vanity advertising?

    Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 2014, could he get on the Hugo ballot now?

    That book is of its time. Heinlein was a commercial author, who would write a different book in 2014. I think it is fair to say that if Heinlein brought out a book now that was as much at odds with TruFan thinking now as Starship Troopers was in 1959, it wouldn’t get a nomination. Quite a few fans thought that Heinlein was warmongering in 1959.

    I’ve been exposed to the Phantom Duplicator, or part of it anyway. Snooze.

  56. I can’t disagree with much of what you said. I’ve seen a lot of clicque-ish drama at and surrounding WorldCons and smaller regionals for the last 15 years. But what I haven’t seen is this translating to the Hugos, for the most part. It seems odd to take the battle there. In fact, it seems really odd to want to escalate the battle *at all*. There will be no winners here. Someone is going to have to be the bigger man eventually–why not the Sad Puppies? Don’t encourage the Rabid Puppies, appeal to the moderates (just not with a “we’re going to take WorldCon back…by force!” approach) and see if we can’t once again make the community accepting of a little more variety where possible.

    1. Why wouldn’t it translate to the Hugos? What magical process or Wham-O-Dyne transmorgrifier would prevent a group who you admit engage in cliqish behavior from maintaining that behavior in the Hugo process.

      Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: Nobody is talking about taking back the Hugos by force. For decades the Hugos have held a great deal of cache because anyone willing to pony up the money could have a say in the award. Now that those of us who have found recent winners lacking have decided to take WorldCon up on their offer the old cliques are acting as if the world is coming to an end. We’re not taking the Hugo’s back, we’re just not going to permit those bigots to bully us anymore.

      And that’s the key. There are no moderates. There are the bullies who dominated the Hugos until this year. There are the bullied, who are no longer going to agree to being marginalized. And then there are those moral degenerates who stood aside and allowed the bullies to drive out countless talented authors and devoted fans. Forgive me for not reaching out to spineless cowards.

  57. When I was younger (early 80’s) I went to several cons both SF and gaming. I felt like finally I had found my people and it was one of my favorite things in life. Then I joined the military and after that went to college and grad school. I simply didn’t have the time or money to be involved in cons anymore of either type.
    Finally my life settled down and I had money to go to cons again. Twenty some years later I felt like a pariah at every con I went to. Suddenly everyone hated all the authors I loved and it felt like I had wandered into a political rally. I was actually spit on once when I got in an argument about Heinlein not being a fascist when I admitted I had joined the military partly because of reading Starship Troopers as a kid. Literally spit on.
    I’m just a fan so I quit going after that. These places were like enemy territory and I wasn’t going to waste my vacation and my money on that.
    Well I’m going to start going again and to hell with these people. They have driven plenty of us out but I think people like me have had enough. Fandom doesn’t belong to these liars and political revolutionaries. It belongs to us just as much and I hope to hell they are ready for us to invade their sad little party and reclaim what is ours as much as anyone.
    I salute you Larry and everyone else brave enough to fight these people. I for one have hope again.

    1. Seriously? Spit upon? Oy… now I’m *really* wondering if there’s any point in going after all.

      1. I’ve met some jerks at cons, especially in the early 2000’s, but that’s worse than anything I’ve ever seen happen, even from crazy people or persons of really rabid politics. So I don’t think that’s usual.

        Everyone at a convention wears a numbered ID badge so the con staff knows you’re not sneaking in, and most people put their names or fannish nicknames on them (“Hello My Name Is” type thing).

        So if anybody does something serious like that, and you don’t get helped or apologized to, you get his name and badge number and tell the convention committee folks on duty in ops, or you tell convention security or a gofer. Any decent concom will get on the matter right away; and anybody acting ridiculously badly like that should get thrown out of the con, and put on the list of people who can’t come back.

        If it’s something illegal and seriously bad, of course you should call the police and let concom know, in whichever order you wish.

    2. I bound “early 80s” to “younger” rather than “when” the first time I read this. Duuude! Spry!

  58. RE: No Award

    I can’t remember if I voted No Award or if I just abstained from voting in a lot of the categories last year, for the simple reason that I hadn’t read any of the works (in the short fiction categories) or I had no idea who any of the editors were (in the editorial categories).

    My problem with what you’re doing here is that–and people can please correct me if I’m wrong–I don’t think most people who went with your slate actually read all of the works that they were nominating. That’s completely within the rules, but it leaves the impression that these are really Larry Correia’s nominees rather than the collective nominees of a like-minded group of individuals. And that’s pretty much a set-up for No Award in a number of categories.

    Most of the blog comments aren’t doing much to change my opinion on this. A lot of people are talking politics, but I don’t think I’ve seen a single person say anything like, “I read all five novellas that were on the slate, and they were all fantastic sci-fi!”

    1. CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE: I just realized that you posted the slate for SP2, but the slate for SP3 was posted by Brad Torgersen. I apologize for the error, but my point still stands: Is this the slate that Brad Torgersen wanted, or is it the slate that he suggested, and a group of like-minded individuals went out and read the suggested works and then nominated them?

    2. Nope. I will correct you if you are wrong.

      Check our Book Bombs. In the short fiction categories we Book Bombed all of our nominees, selling tons, and probably making them the most widely read items to show up in the smaller fiction categories in a very long time.

      In fact, Mike Glyer of File 770 reported on this, when he first saw our slate he made the same accusation, that we were trying to get people to vote without reading. I very clearly stated to the people involved that we expected them to do whatever they wanted, these were our suggestions, and we wanted them to read the works so they could vote intelligently. And when I posted that we already had the Book Bombs on the calender for each week leading up to the close of nominations.

      For example, our 3 plugged novellas? We sold over 2,000 of them that week, bumping each one to the top of its category on Amazon. If you know publishing numbers, you will realize that for novellas, that is a huge number.For many of our authors, it was the most sales they’ve ever had at one time.

      As for our novels, Kloos, Anderson, and especially Butcher are all wildly popular and my fan base has huge crossover with them already. Butcher is probably the most popular and widely read author to show up on the Hugo ballot in a long time.

      Also, the reason in these comments that you are seeing politics, is because all week long my people have been getting bombarded with politics attacking us. So talking about that is a normal human reaction. When the news is all OMG! RACISTS!!!! NO AWARD EVERYTHING, that is going to kind of suck up your attention.

      1. Thank you for this. I stand humbly corrected, then, and I would encourage you to put this information at the top of every post you make on this, because I think it’s pretty important. If a small group of people wants to nominate works that they all liked, I really don’t have a problem with it. I think you really need to (figuratively) beat people over the head with this information. Most of the short works are given in their full form to all Hugo voters. Now that I know that you were campaigning for people to read the things that they were voting for, I’m much more likely to read all of the entries for all of the categories rather than simply “No Award” them. And if I don’t get a chance to read the entries for a category, I’ll abstain from voting rather than voting for “No Award”.

        1. Frank, thanks, we have repeated it a lot, but it has been ignored. Our current problem is that everybody gloms onto different reasons to hate us, so we correct those, and then they spread a new narrative, and we respond to that one, but they’ve already started a new narrative. Correcting them becomes absolutely exhausting. And the next thing I know I’ve written like 20,000 words on it THIS WEEK, and already they are hitting with another narrative.

          The thing is, we’ve been doing this in the open the whole time. A lot of people who are angry at us, if they’d just go through and read our actual posts, and not the narratives being set by people who hate us, they’d realize that we’re trying over here.

          1. I would suggest having some sort of sidebar on your blog posts, perhaps briefly replacing your current sidebar on the left, that provides a short explanation of the situation. I know you’re getting hit from every direction right now, and by next week you’ll probably be expected to provide proof that you aren’t the anti-Christ, but there are a lot of people like me (i.e., voting members of the con) who just want to know that people read the works that they were nominating. Most of us didn’t know there was a “controversy” until this week, when it started showing up in the mainstream press.

          2. Larry: I hope I’m not telling you something you already know, but this is what Stephen Hunter (who spent 37 years working for big-city newspapers) had to say about The Narrative(tm)

            You do not fight the narrative. The narrative will destroy you. The narrative is all-powerful. The narrative rules. It rules us, it rules Washington, it rules everything.

            The narrative is the set of assumptions the press believes in, possibly without even knowing that it believes in them. It’s so powerful because it’s unconscious. It’s not like they get together every morning and decide “These are the lies we will tell today.” No, that would be too crude and honest. Rather, it’s a set of casual, nonrigorous assumptions about a reality they’ve never really experienced that’s arranged in such a way as to reinforce their best and most ideal presumptions about themselves and their importance to the system and the way they’ve chosen to live their lives. It’s a way of arranging things a certain way that they all believe in without ever really addressing carefully. It permeates their whole culture. They know, for example, that Bush is a moron and Obama is a saint. They know communism was a phony threat cooked up by right-wing cranks as a way to leverage power to the executive. They know that Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, the response to Katrina was fucked up….

            Cheney’s a devil. Biden’s a genius. Soft power good, hard power bad. Forgiveness excellent, punishment counterproductive, capital punishment a sin…

            And the narrative is the bedrock of their culture, the keystone of their faith, the altar of their church. They don’t even know they’re true believers, because in theory they despise the true believer in anything. But they will absolutely de-frackin’-stroy anybody who makes them question that….

            I, Sniper, pp 231-232

            I would add my $.02: Progress is one of the central myths of progressivism. What they want (or advocate) this week is progress, no matter how wrongheaded. Anything they don’t want or disagree with is a reactionary attempt to return to an evil, benighted past. And if they have to change their story to convince themselves they’re still winning, you’re still losing, and that Progress(tm) is still occurring, they’ll change it.

      2. Would you mind if I posted your answer to my statement over at George’s website? I think it’s a key element to the discussion, but I don’t want to post it without your permission. Thanks!

        1. As long as people use my quotes honestly and don’t take them out of context, I’m always fine being quoted.

          Thanks.

      3. Yes, it’s true. Not everyone read all the works on the suggested slate. I didn’t. I also didn’t vote in some categories, because I didn’t have time to read the works.

        The fact is, we have never known how many people who vote in a category, or nominated stories, actually read all of what they voted on/nominated. Back around 1980, I suggested that the Worldcon distribute copies of the fanzines nominated to all the Hugo finalist voters, so we could vote more intelligently. The response was, basically, ‘Can’t be done in a timely and affordable manner,’ which was probably correct then. But it’s a problem we’ve always had.

        “Sad Puppies” has really tried to get the suggested works in front of the potential nominators. I don’t see how the efforts can be improved on.

    3. I didn’t vote for nominations, because $40 was well beyond my budget.

      If I had the money, I would have, for example, bought Anderson and Kloos, IIRC the only novels on the Sad Slate that I had not already read. I ended up reading Anderson’s book anyway, but money would have made it quicker.

      I wouldn’t have voted for several categories, because I don’t read comics or watch movies much, and didn’t know that manga and videogames would have qualified.

      It was well understood here that the suggestions were suggestions, and we would be expected to read anything we nominated. The first time someone came here on this issue, we were joking for some time that ‘Larry did not tell me to look before crossing the street, so I was hit by a car’.

      1. I didn’t vote either, but I had already read Butcher (because I do that always) and seen most of the tv and movie categories. I would probably not have voted in any fanish stuff and maybe not in editor type categories. Reading a few more books would have been easy, though.

        I have no idea if people read everything, or nominated everything although I’ve always assumed the ballots would vary in many ways from each other because that’s just how people operate. But no one has any knowledge of whether the other nominators nominated things they read either. So accusations are just unfounded suppositions.

    4. Frank –

      “I don’t think most people who went with your slate actually read all of the works that they were nominating.”

      Sweetheart, darling, beloved fellow-fan-I-have-yet-to-meet-yet…

      WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT? WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT?

      Why would you say to *any* fan “oh, I don’t think you really like that, you’re just pretending”? Why would you believe anyone when they said that about someone else?

      I don’t know anyone who only fakes loving something – I know a lot of people with weirdly narrow interests (ie, the manga they love starts and STOPS with “Lone Wolf and Cub”, but they have the whole damn series memorized and can tell you the few places where Kioke screwed up something historically, hate most of the movies, and talk all sorts of smack about Miller’s ‘misinterpretations’.

      Yeah, they have no clue about Sailor Moon or AC, but that doesn’t mean they are ‘fake’ fans of LW&C.

      And this was voting for awards! Why vote for something you didn’t know anything about to judge for yourself?

      This whole thing of “you’re not real fans, you’re just faking it” – please, please, tell the people on your side to stop it. It’s hurtful, it’s enraging, and it only increases the perception that the other side a) thinks we’re liars and b) erases our voice as fans.

  59. Hi! I’m Warren. I’m a long time reader and first time commenter. I actually might be called an up-and-coming author, having just had a short published in an anthology. Woot. Anyway…

    You know what bothers me the most about people in the SJW mold? They will have no qualms about telling you how wrong you are for liking certain authors/movies/comics/etc but get upset if you point out that the stuff they like isn’t very good.

    As a Conservative Christian, one that grew up in a Pentecostal church, I’ve dealt with this my whole life. Inside and outside of the church. I’m an Evangelical Christian genre fan that loved reading, movies and video games! I also listened to Rock (Both secular and Christian) In the mid 80’s…sheez. I’d get attacked by people in the church for liking the wrong things and I’d get attacked by people outside of the church for…liking the wrong things.

    I grew up being attacked by SJWs of all stripes and from various groups. And it’s only become worse since the rise of the intertubes. Despite my Christian faith, I often just want to flip the bird at the whole lot of them and go live on an island.

    I grew up reading Magazines that made the Hugos sound like the Holy Grail. If you were even nominated for a Hugo, it meant you were *in* as a scifi writer. But that was in the 80’s and early 90’s. As the 90’s progressed, I started seeing more and more of what is now termed “SJW” influence on the scifi genre as a whole. I seemed to not be able to get a hold of Science Fiction that didn’t have some type of message attached. I gradually stopped reading pure scifi in the early to mid aughts because of this. (And because of Personal Life Crisis (TM) but that is another story.) By that point, I lost all respect for any of the big awards in SciFi. I figured they were all just pat-yourself-on-the-back awards given to the highest bidder. I guess I wasn’t wrong on that, eh?

    It warms my heart to see this break open like it has this year. Even if WorldCon changes the rules and this type of thing can never happen again, it shows how corrupt the entire process has become. (Has become? I bet you it wasn’t exactly clean even in the grand old days of the Silver age of Scifi.)

    I’m also very glad that Self Publishing has broke the stranglehold of the so called Traditional Publishers had on the market. There is a lot of bad stuff floating around out there right now but there is also a lot of good. Cream always rises, IMHO.

    It might not seem like it to many, but this is a good time to be an up and coming author. The old ways are breaking down and new paths are being forged. It will never be easy but nothing worth its salt is. The Sad Puppies crowd are taking the bullet for us new authors and will (hopefully) make these awards valid again. If not? Well, personally,, I’d rather have fans than awards. (Call me a hack all you want but I need to make a living.) I’ve also never read a book just because it has a Hugo or Nebula award attached to it. I’ve read it because I thought it look interesting, a friend recommended it to me or I read a review I liked. Sometimes I’ve read books out of sheer boredom as well. But never because it won an award.

    I’m sure there are more like me out there. Certainly I’m not the only one.

  60. Not being a follower of the Hugo awards, despite being a (dare I say it) 50+ year SciFi and fantasy reader, I only became aware of the Hugo kerfluffle created by the SJWs. I only became aware of the SJWs pernicious influence via an article in (horrors!!) in a conservative magazine I subscribe to. Unfortunately it appears the same virus infecting our mainstream media and universities has come to infect my favorite fiction genre. Anyway, enough about.

    My taste in fantasy authors is rather narrow as I favor authors like Larry C., Jim Butcher, Rob Thurman (did she make the list), Thomas Sniegorski, and etc. whose views mirror my guns, God and America point of view. Although, I do like Chris Farnsworth’s despite what I suspect to be his liberal politics. And yes, GRRM is a whiny git, no surprise he’s on HBO with Bill Maher.

    Anyway, Hugos and other awards do not determine what books I read, the quality of the authors work does. I dislike Delaney, not because he’s gay, but because I found his work to be depressing, boring and thoroughly unsatisfying. The SciFi equivalent of Booker Prize winner.

    Some of my favorite authors have won the Hugo, Herbert, Asimov, etc., however; the Hugo has become the literary equivalent of the CMA or Grammy music awards. Just as the best and least-PC artists, AC/DC, Ozzy, Ray Wylie Hubbard, Mike McMurtry and their ilk will never see a CMA or Grammy, the best and most non-PC authors are least likely to see a Hugo.

    Please forgive my verbosity, but the SWJs seriously piss me off. This is better than therapy.

    I can’t sign off without saying something about Internet Trolls. Gotta love ’em, they are so pathetic and needy, and so much fun to play with. I know some authors and commentators fear them, but I welcome them, they are so much fun to play with. People like Vox and Yamma with their limited life experience, lack of contact with real life or people are to be pitied, not feared; recognized as puerile, adolescent and ignorant.

    1. Sir, I demand that you retract the terrible things you are saying about internet trolls. What have I ever done to you to deserve being lumped in with the sort of cretinous ilk that have appropriated and slandered the good name of agent provocateurs everywhere? If I do not receive satisfaction, it will be nerf pistols at dawn, sir.

  61. I read the comments at GRRM – 3 pages worth. what I read was sad particularly GRRM using McCarthism blacklisting as some sort of yardstick. Sheer hyperbole. As for hearing his writing block being partially attributed to political voting …. don’t have any polite words.

    1. GRRM and his use of McCarthism blacklisting is pure projection.

      He’s aware. He knows what’s been going on. His “reasonableness” was pure show and no go.

      1. Yeah, I like that he started the piece saying he had never heard or seen anything untowards and later when asked what sort of proof he’d like he gives THAT reply?
        Talk about evasive.

        1. Still, nobody has provided any sort of proof or even any details on who all of these blacklisted authors are. No names of people who were driven out of the field or prevented from getting a contract, nothing.

          Instead of complaining about one of the phrases in his question, why not try answering it?

          1. Just look at the nominees in the last ten years, count how many nominations each one has.

            Now, can you think of any authors…any authors at all…that you think should have been on there, and are well known?

            So why weren’t they?

            IIRC, 2006-2009, it took about 50 nominations for the ballot.

            And surprise! Many of the same people got approximately that number of votes each year.

            Now, this is not proof of collusion. But it’s probably proof of incest.

            This year there were 2000 nominating ballots, and the nominees are, in fact more diverse, in politics, orientation, background, ethnicity and publishing house than in those prior years.

            Unless you think more voters is a bad thing for democracy.

            WSFS is getting a crapton of money from supporting memberships, new people are getting on the ballot, and we’re all talking.

            We SHOULD be talking about the quality of the work, but all the articles (Which came out within a few hours of each other, some within minutes), are shouting, “WHITE GUY WITH A DOZEN NOMINATIONS SAYS THE SYSTEM WORKED PERFECTLY BUT IS BEING STOLEN BY RACIST RIGHTWINGERS!”

            A: we’re not all right wingers. I have no idea how many might be racist, but that’s also a judgment call and not necessarily relevant to the quality of a work–I read stuff from avowed communists without letting my distaste of their politics color the book, and

            2) doesn’t it seem selfish that someone with a dozen noms would be outraged about someone new getting one? Is that such a threat?

          2. You should read his post, don’t just believe what people here are saying about it. He isn’t outraged, he made that clear. He said he was a bit sad to see organized voting groups taking over the nominations.

            He also listed a bunch of conservative authors who have been nominated recently, going all the way up through 2012 (or so).

            All the people who are responding to that are saying that they ‘feel’ like there should have been more, or that the conspiracy only started after his list ended, or that they just don’t like him asking for proof… But nobody has offered any actual facts.

          3. I can tell the way you talk about this you don’t know what’s happening. Think of how black authors would fare in a KKK literary movement and you’ll be closer to the truth. This is an informal collusion to discriminate against straight white men. It has no hard edges to it or solid blacklists. This is about correctthink and who measures up and who doesn’t. What white men are “allies” who have confessed their privilege and which haven’t. That this gentrified KKK exists is not in dispute. This cult is obsessed with race and gender and in promoting diversity with a view that straight white men are the only thing standing in the way of that. There is a mountain of documented hate speech that goes along with that. If you haven’t read that speech, what’s that to us? I have.

          4. Sarah Hoyt was blacklisted when she got tired of biting her tongue every time libertarians were slighted.

            That’s why she changed publishing houses. She says she knows many others. Go read her blog.

          5. So your blacklist is that an author switched publishers (which they do all the time) and is still being published successfully?

            That is not what ‘blacklist’ or ‘destroyed career’ mean. Not even close.

          6. So, could you tell me what definition of ‘blacklist’ you are using? Because seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about. Wouldn’t a blacklist need to have some kind of negative effect on someone?

          7. It is evidence, certainly, but it isn’t evidence of a ‘blacklist’. The example shows that an author changed publishers and is now happily writing and publishing away.

            That isn’t what ‘blacklist’ means.

          8. @Maximillian:

            The difference between us and you is that we’ve been following this since it started.

            The evidence is there in plenty. Do your own damned work.

            Or…

            Keep pretending it’s all about nothing.

            Your choice.

          9. I have been following it since the beginning. I have not said anything about this being over nothing. You are either thinking about someone else or possibly arguing with the voices in your head.

            Also, no, it is not ‘my own work’. The way it works is when you are trying to persuade someone to support you and they ask a question, the person who is offering the argument will usually support it, with, you know, evidence. When I asked the question here I got a whole bunch of hand waving about how people feel it must be true, so therefore it is true, so no actual facts are needed. This doesn’t work for me. If you are all still claiming to be disciples of Heinlein, I think you should know that this kind of reasoning wouldn’t work for him, either.

            So far the only actual answer without hand waving and hostility was that Sarah Hoyt chose to switch publishing houses and appears to be happy with the new one. That’s not blacklisting.

          10. I don’t know how I suddenly became Wikipedia and Google for you guys.

            And then I realized that I’ve written like 20,000 words of answering stupid questions this week, trying to be diplomatic, and fifteen minutes later somebody is demanding more evidence of something else, about a complicated topic that dates back years. Fantastic.

            Mad Genius Club has had several articles on the topic of blacklisting in publishing. Here I’ve been talking about blacklisting in the awards. Related, but not the same.

            So if you are honest about learning about political blacklisting, head over to MGC and hit search. And yes, most of the stories will be anecdote, because when publishers screw with your career because they don’t like your politics, they don’t exactly put it in writing and have it notarized.

            I have found it absolutely fascinating however, how my side is supposed to know about all this inside baseball, and secret gentlemen’s agreements that we weren’t party too, and all of this ANECDOTAL information about tradition… But anything that is widely accepted, known, and talked about on my side demands presentation of hard evidence.

          11. I was replying to someone else, but thank you for the link.

            That site reminds me that I haven’t read anything by Freer for a while, it’s time to check back in. Thanks.

            Unfortunately, checking back through 2011, the posts mention fears about possibly being put on a blacklist, but not even an anecdote about someone that it happened to. There was a post where Freer suggested that statistically there should be more straight white males being published, but (anecdotally, sure) almost everything I read is already written by a SWM. Or Lois Bujold.

          12. Instead of complaining about one of the phrases in his question, why not try answering it?

            Look at all of the successful Indy authors.
            Interesting, isn’t it, that none of them could get published, yet they are selling tens of thousands of books.

            Those are your blacklist. They never made it past the editors, and if it wasn’t for Bezo letting them selfpub on Amazon, you would never have heard of any of them.

          13. Thank you, I appreciate a reply on this.

            Why do you assume that all of those people, or even many of them, were blacklisted for being conservative? I’ve read a lot of self-published stuff lately (the closest I can find to some Tom Clancy or Larry Bond), some of it is good, if a bit rough, some is okay, and a lot of it is just crap that needs spellcheck and a high-school English teacher.

            Isn’t it just as likely that these are all the people who would have been in the slush pile back in the golden days before SJWs took over?

          14. I never said they were passed over for being conservative, they were passed over for not sticking to the left wing narrative.

            There is a difference.

            As to how I know? Because I know quite a few of those people and I know why they were refused. We do talk to each other you know.

            As for the ‘quality’ of their writing, have you seen the quality of most authors before their editors go over it? Especially when they’re first starting out?

            And didn’t you notice it when ‘strong male characters’ almost completely stopped being published? That suddenly only strong female characters were allowed and male characters had to be deeply flawed and self-doubting?
            That was because the editors decided that they had to ‘help’ women become more confident by focusing on works that made women look powerful.

            While there was nothing wrong with that, the idea that strong male characters were no longer necessary and in fact should be avoided meant that if you wrote books containing them, you would not get published (unless you were already established).

            Which is why a lot of men stopped reading scifi, it was no longer being written for us.

          15. I would also like more hard data on whether conservative writers were underrepresented in the Hugo awards. It is tough to find hard data on that, though, as we don’t really have fixed definitions of conservative and liberal. We could determine based on votes for president, but we’re missing a lot of data for various authors.
            We do have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that conservative writers are not well liked by the big new york houses.
            However, regardless of whether that specific bias is a reality, there are a number of biases in the Hugo awards that do have data supporting them. Chaos Horizon: https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/
            documents many of those biases well. The Puppies have successfully combated some biases, such as the bias against media tie-in fiction.
            In short, a statistical analysis of the politics of Hugo award winning and Hugo nominated authors hasn’t been done yet (possibly because we don’t actually know everyone’s politics). But there are authors who have been heavily bashed for their views when those view match those of the right. Card, for example, is not a conservative, but he supports the conservatives on a specific policy, and some people have written letters to his publisher about how awful Card is for quite a while now. Tor didn’t drop him, despite these attacks, but Card is an author who sells extremely well.
            In short, we don’t have statistical evidence of whether the Hugo nominees and winners skew right or left (as always, correct me if I’m wrong). But one can support the Puppies without evidence for that specific claim, as the Puppies have helped increase voting in the Hugo awards and increased the representation of media tie-in fiction in the Hugo awards.

          16. Maximillian and Martin cannot connect dots and understand how one makes a case. This is not like a movie where the criminal makes a confession at the end. It is a preponderance of the evidence, which is in this case is massive.

            Martin needs to read this: http://www.jamesmaystock.com/essays/Pages/SFFRacistQuotes.html

            Multiply those remarks by 10,000.

            Add in boycotts of all-white, all-male convention panels, constant requests to “de-white” a library, calls to take a year off of reading straight white men and on and on and on. It’s been daily and is now running into a years-long campaign of non-stop racial and sexual defamation.

            If Martin’s looking for a solid blacklist or thinks we need to toughen up then A.) there is no such convenient blacklist and B.) we are responding and we are not asking permission, nor are we asking for a referee. We asked for that for months on end as individuals and so-called moderators or blog owners banned and deleted us. The only way to NOT be banned at Tor is to bow your head at the regular racially defamatory posts.

            We have been documenting these remarks for months going onto years. If people want to suddenly jump in and say what the big deal is then they need to do some reading and educate themselves or butt out. Most of all they need to stop setting up straw man arguments we are NOT saying and then knocking them down.

            I am constantly amazed a community of writers doesn’t understand what this thing called “quote marks” is. For a lesson in that, read Hurley’s latest piece of propaganda at The Atlantic, multiply it by 10,000 and then fuck off and stop asking us to not say impolite things like “fuck off.”

            Plus: fuck off.

          17. @ James May:

            “Maximillian and Martin cannot connect dots and understand how one makes a case. This is not like a movie where the criminal makes a confession at the end. It is a preponderance of the evidence, which is in this case is massive.”

            I’m fair sure you’re aware of this. You’re not new to this type battleground. But, there are folks here who are so I’ma gonna use this spot for a bit o’ instruction.

            I don’t know Maximillian’s motivation, he might be a good guy, might not. But, his comments in this reply line serve a good purpose in illustration.

            The technique is called “repetitive question” in interrogation. It’s used to wear down resistance.

            The SJW and all their assorted fellow travelers love to use that technique in forum “debate” (debate in quotes because the last thing any SJW intends is legit debate).

            The same questions, or an ever evolving series of ridiculously obtuse questions, will be asked and answered over and over ad nausea. When one troll gets tired of the game, another pops up to replace it.

            This goes on until their target gets fed up and quits the field. Their goal is to inflict “argument fatigue” upon their target(s) and drive them not just from the current topic of “debate” but from the field of contest completely, through built up frustration.

          18. Good luck with that technique. Check the Top 100 Amazon and imagine who’s being driven from where. No one’s going to read these feminist asshats and racists.

          19. @James May
            Apparently I underestimated the amount of anecdotal evidence there actually was. Wow.
            (Note: I’m not saying anecdotal to mean anything bad about the evidence. It is still evidence, and can be used in support of an argument. I just used the term “anecdotal” to distinguish it from statistical analysis)

          20. @James May:

            You’re confusing short term tactical for long term strategic.

            Today, yes. You are correct. Amazon sales numbers shows that the SJW only have a beachhead established. This gives the illusion that the invasion can be contained indefinitely.

            The long term problem is that there’ll be no long term defense against the invasion. The defenders will tire and go back to living their lives.

            The invaders don’t give a damn about facts, irl cause and effect, or integrity of any sort other than to their chosen destructionist dogma. They don’t tire or quit. And, when the destructionists run up against a well defended strong point, they simply shift access of attack, by-pass the strong point and rampage through the more lightly defended areas.

            An example is the Chick Fil A event.

            The SJW took on a corporation that had the resources to defend itself successfully. What did the SJW do then? They shifted axis of attack to small businesses that don’t have the resources to defend themselves.

            And, in the process, are bringing more and more corrupt, incompetent and otherwise degenerate politicians into play in support of the acts and actions of the SJW.

            Any attempts to produce legislation to defend against the predations of the SJW are torn apart in the SJW supporting national media and through social media campaigns. And, through this, legislation will be passed, eventually, that fully supports the acts and actions of the SJW.

            I’ve been watching this play out since I became aware of the Politically Correct bullshit as it began to infest our education system in the mid ’80s.

            There has never, in the span of time I’ve been watching this shit happen, been a successful long term victory against the SJW. Not. One.

    2. Gotta love the “progressive” response here is that there is no proof of a blacklist. What is implied is that it’s just that conservatives/libertarians aren’t really good enough writers to win, so get over it stupidheads.

      1. doc wrote:
        “What is implied is that it’s just that conservatives/libertarians aren’t really good enough writers to win, so get over it stupidheads.”

        That’s become quite common on the left. There have been a couple of articles recently explaining that liberals/progressives aren’t ideologues, they’re pragmatists. One article said that if God spoke from on high, and said that the conservatives were right in all liberal vs. conservative policy disputes, the liberals would be astounded, but they’d all quickly support conservative policies. On the other hand, if God spoke from on high and said the conservatives were wrong, and the liberal policies would deliver their promised benefits in each and every case, the conservatives would continue support their present policies, because they don’t care about results.

        Then there’s _El Presidente_, who recently pontificated said we need “a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives—from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry—an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.” Ideology is linked with prejudice and bigotry.

        And of course who can forget the famous speech when the TOTUS was merely candidate Empty Suit, and said: ” And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

        Or there’s this talk by Jonathan Haidt, about the need for post-partisan social psychology: https://edge.org/conversation/the-bright-future-of-post-partisan-social-psychology. Haidt notes the distribution of self-identified conservatives vs. liberals is 40% to 20% in the general population. In social psychology, it’s more like 0.5% to 99.5%. When he asks a room full of around 1000 social psychologists how many would identify themselves as conservative, three hands go up. When he surveys his colleagues for the names of conservative social psychologists, he gets two, and of the two, one says he’s not conservative.

        Consider this poignant narrative of sexual discrimination from thirty years ago:
        “Until about a year ago, I was very quiet about my sexual orientation… I often didn’t understand the sexual jokes made by my colleagues… the people making the jokes thought that we all felt the same way, and I certainly wasn’t going to reveal that I disagreed. That would have been much too awkward.

        “JB was really the first person I talked to about my sexual identity. He made me feel more comfortable and seemed to want to hear other perspectives…. Since then, taking PT’s class opened up a dialog and others have shared more as well. Before I thought that I was completely alone and was afraid to say much because of it. Now I feel both somewhat obligated to speak up (don’t want others to feel as alone as I did) and also know that I have more support than I originally realized.”

        Well, Haidt lied. That’s actually the response of a non-liberal (note: NOT conservative, just non-liberal) grad student, where he changed only five words: e.g. political became sexual.

        In a post on his web site, http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html., Haidt surveys responses to that talk, noting how often people said, effectively, ‘Oh, there’s no bias in academia. It’s just that conservatives are stupid and narrow minded, so they don’t become academics.’ He goes on to note a bunch of experiments showing that, e.g., otherwise identical studies showing that liberal programs work are evaluated more favorably than ones that show liberal programs fail, right down to judgment about the adequacy of the statistical work. And consider this abstract of a forthcoming article by other psychologists:

        “A lack of political diversity in social and personality psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. In two studies, we investigate the actual and perceived political ideology of a large sample (Study 1: N = 508; Study 2: N = 292) of social and personality psychologists. We find that there is more diversity of political opinion than is often assumed; conservatives are a substantial minority among social and personality psychologists. Second, we find that respondents significantly underestimate the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, we find that CONSERVATIVES FEAR NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. FINALLY, WE FIND THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT TO DO SO. In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate.” {EMPHASIS added by me.}

        Liberals have a self-image of themselves as good people who live up to liberal ideals. That’s what you’d expect from human beings. And like all humans, they’re awfully good at seeing the mote in their neighbor’s eye, while ignoring the beam in their own.

  62. A vital point that’s been overlooked in the excitement: every CHORF disqualification argument (which all of them really are) assumes a division between “Sad Puppies” and “Worldcon.”

    Buying a supporting membership makes you a member of Worldcon. Sounds like a taultology, I know. But every SP 3 voter needs to realize the full implications of that fact.

    GRRM is right. The Hugos belong to Worldcon, and this year, that includes SP. Time we start acting like it.

    The proper response to temper tantrums, fraud accusations, whining about voting blocs, appeals to tradition, passive-aggressive advice, victim blaming, and tone arguments is this:

    “We paid the same $40 you did.”

    There is now zero reasonable doubt that this is a popularity contest. The sole participation requirement is shelling out forty bucks. Whichever group has more people shelling out forty bucks (i.e. is the most popular) wins.

    SP 3 brought the most people. We won the popular vote. No one’s obligated to like it, but even if you don’t, perhaps a little decency and good sportsmanship would serve you better than sulking and whining.

    To my fellow Sad and Rabid Puppies voters–we won the keys to the kingdom fair and square, and we’re throwing the gates wide open. Let the CHORFs seethe in their irrelevant ghetto, and let’s be about the business of rewarding the year’s best SFF.

    1. Sad Puppies did not bring a strict majority (greater than 50%). With the way nominating works, works only need a minimum of 5% support (though it can be a higher minimum threshold).

      1. Winning, of course, may be another matter since they will concentrate on No Award.

        After that, of course, we can point out they nuked the award to save it.

      2. Over at Chaos Horizon, there’s a pretty good analysis showing that the Sad Puppy/Rabid Puppy voters collectively numbered about 360, up from about 180 last year.

        The analysis also shows wide variances in voting by category. Puppy ‘slate’ voters took the lists as recommendations.

  63. Valar Scribere George. All Men Must Write! Shut up and finish the Damned Books. Don’t like the term SJW? Call them what most of then really are: SWJ’s . Stupid White Jerks.

  64. Larry, consistently through this whole ordeal (from SP1 forward) you’ve demonstrated the phenomenal caliber of your character.

    It is admirable, it is outstanding, and it is to be celebrated.

    If ever you and I are in the same spot, I’ll stand you a meal and a cold beverage. And I’ll toast your character.

    Thanks. Really. It’s a good fight.

  65. Don’t expect too much from Martin, Larry. Back when he was being plagiarized blatantly by Star Trek: TNG, he may have been down with principle and decency, but now that he’s the big deal HBO star himself there’s no “get” in it for him to acknowledge any validity to your position…and a significant risk to his pocketbook if he pisses the SJW’s off.

    1. Errr, I doubt there’s any risk to him. The number of people he could offend with any comments he might make are much less than the average number of people watching GoT reruns on any given night.

        1. I read the first book when it came out, realized that there wasn’t a single character in there I liked, and didn’t touch it again until the TV series started up.

          1. I love Arya and Tyrion (and Jamie sometimes), but the last two books kind of bogged down with moping and travelogues and ironborn. I hope he can get things going again.

  66. While I appreciate you wanting to respond to George R.R. Martin, it’s way too long, I don’t have time to read all that, and I’ll bet neither does he.

    I could be wrong, but a world-famous author is probably not going to read anything that long.

    Once upon a way back when, I wanted to interview Bob Dylan, and his then manager, gave me a very useful piece of advice, which I have followed ever since. “Bobby” he said “stops reading after a page.”

    In other words, if you can’t get it down in a page, don’t bother. And you know, it’s true, people don’t like reading things that are very long. I don’t. And nor probably does a world-famous author.

    Just a thought.

    1. Yeah, he read it. Blew it off, but he read it.

      And thanks for the advice, but what I do seems to work for me. We all have our methods. 🙂

      1. To be fair, you did ignore the entire section of his post where he listed a large number of conservative authors who were getting nominations. You didn’t list any of the people who were kicked out of sf or show that he was wrong about the list. You didn’t give him anything to respond to other than asserting that he was wrong and that you were treated poorly at a con. We already know he thinks that people shouldn’t be treated poorly, so what other response should he give?

        1. No, I didn’t ignore that. The last part going through the nominees was posted after I wrote this.

          And I’m terribly sorry that this one blog post, that is already at like 6,000 words, didn’t cover every possible question in this entire debate.

          I didn’t give him anything to respond to?

          What about the direct questions?
          Does he want those kind of fans to vote, yes or no?
          Does he want the Hugos to be A or B?

          I’m so terribly sorry that I was not able to travel through time and respond to stuff that I’d not read yet. I will get right on it.

          But in brief, his list of conservatives are old, his interpretation of modern politics is questionable. When he lists of a whole bunch of people, and my people are all like, snow, snow, snow, snow, snow, and then he declares no snow there! I don’t really know if there is a common point of political reference between us at that point.

          1. Not to mention he dismissed the “being treated poorly at the con” but skipped over all whisper campaigns and malicious sabotage, based on a political philosophy that is apparently totally invisible to him.

            But hey, whatever. I tried.

          2. Well, he did answer those questions. He would prefer that the award(s) remain for the best writing, and not go to whoever organized a slate and gets a whole bunch of people to vote for them. Like a lot of people in the middle, he appears to feel that the first two slates and a lot of the shorter fiction noms on this one are the equivalent of a whole bunch of people joining the Academy and trying to vote for Transformers 4 to win the Best Picture. Sure, it’s a lot more popular than Birdman, a lot more actions and explosions, but why would you expect people who won the awards before to enjoy having it changed like that?

            And since I can read your mind, no, these slates are not the equivalent of Heinlein writing something new and trying to win a modern award. The man was a genius. If he was taking part in this analogy today he’d be making Pacific Rim, Godzilla, or at least Avengers.

          3. That wasn’t the question. A or B. No need for blah blah blah evasion, A or fucking B. Big award that represents all of fandom, or little award that represents one convention. No, you can’t have C. Best of Both Worlds, because Martin admitted that was as likely as world peace. Ship done sailed years ago. A or B.

            I didn’t say Heinlein writing Avengers or Godzilla. I said could Starship Troopers, one of the most famous works of scifi in history, get a nomination today? And if so, what would be their reaction?

          4. I answered that question. Of course Heinlein would get a nomination. In fact, I’m pretty sure those were my exact words.

            I doubt he’d write the exact same book again, it’s been more than fifty years of history and science since then, but the man was a genius, he could adapt. Hell, I would have happily kicked Redshirts off the list for a Heinlein novel. (Maybe not one of the time-traveling Lazarus Long having sex with himself ones, though)

          5. If the award is an award given by fans, and voted on by fans (which Martin is saying it shouldn’t be), then the fans get to decide what they think is best. If what fans today think is the best writing is something that would be shuddered at in the 1950s, that doesn’t matter.
            If Martin thinks the Hugos would be better off not as a fan voted award, that is his right. I hope Worldcon is unconvinced, and I think they will be because they’re getting all the money they could possibly want to run their con from Sad Puppies.

          6. Maximiilan wrote:
            “I answered that question. Of course Heinlein would get a nomination. In fact, I’m pretty sure those were my exact words.”

            I am doubtful. People like N. K. Jemisin call Heinlein racist, e.g., and a great many modern fen openly say that they won’t read his works. STARSHIP TROOPERS was highly controversial in 1959. Today, I think an anti-Heinlein slate would have been formed to stop it.

        2. Martin doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Mary Robinette Kowal did in fact announce the successful exclusion of men from last year’s Nebula’s and 100% of both the Nebula and Hugo winners were supporters of intersectional gender feminism. That’s significant because that weird cult is almost unknown in larger American society. It’s like Scientology sweeping the awards.

          Alongside that I’m talking about racial defamation, incitement, and collusion to discriminate, which is laid out in black and white for anyone who wants to read it. The idea people doing all those things in addition to their mindless addiction to diversity are not acting on their own words is more than ridiculous – it’s pathetic.

          Martin ignores the fact this is a brand new movement and gives us a list 2010 and before which is then completely irrelevant. 2012 to date has been the worst of it and last year the worst of that.

          But then Martin says okay, looks at 2012 and proceeds to misread the results, and here’s why: “look, I know Scalzi is liberal, and I know that the Puppies seem to hate him, though I can’t for the life of me understand why…”

          Well, I’ll tell you why: it’s not because he’s a liberal. It’s because he’s pushing these weird gender feminists on us and has given them a platform and credibility. No matter how insane they behave, he never says “no.” It’s him guest hosting Mary Ann Mohanraj’s two part racist idiocy about white privilege followed by his own that’s the problem; not liberalism, but racial bigotry. That’s not enough – Scalzi asks us to “bone up” on “intersectionality” and links us to a moronic PDF which talks about “the multiplicatively privileged,” the “‘white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, Christian, and financially secure'” as if it’s the Spanish Armada.

          Martin lists 5 novels, two of which have dicked women, one by a nutty gender feminist, one which is an intersectional diversity pick and anti-white Ahmed and last, intersectional circus ringleader Scalzi.

          What does Martin think Sunny Moraine means when she writes “If your writing is full of white men, it’s shitty writing” and that is bolstered by literally hundreds of comments about pushing “diverse” authors.

          Martin is seeing what he wants to see by straw-manning us with absolutes like “One of the other nominees was by Aliette de Bodard, who many Puppies seem to count as one of the despised SJWs, but if the secret cabal was working for her, they fucked it up, because she lost.” Martin doesn’t seem aware of the status in feminist-race terms of who Pat Cadigan is, or who Seanan McGuire, Valente, Ken Liu and Olde Heuvelt are and how they promote their sexual expression and oppression alongside their work.

          Liu recently Tweeted “‘authentic’ seems often to mean ‘what white people would approve'” and de Bodard is an endless font of such quotes.

          Considering all that, Martin writing “that’s twice they left de Bodard lose” show’s his own ignorance, not ours. Lose to who? Martin’s saying if intersectionalists don’t win 100% of everything the whole thing just disappears? Has David Duke ever lost an election?

          There’s more but you get the point. Martin writes “oh, look, Mike Resnick, however did the liberal cabal ever let HIM sneak in?” amid a sea of fanatic SJW names like Paul Cornell, Charlie Jane Anders, and Rachel Swirsky. If Martin were a lawyer and I could present the other side he’d lose his case and the simple reason for that is he’s not telling the whole story but cherry-picking.

          Martin sinks further by mentioning Vox Day, N. K. Jemisin and the words “poisonous screed” in a way that shows he either has no clue as to Jemisin’s obsessive hobby or no neutral definition of “poisonous screed.”

          Martin should’ve titled his post “I honestly do not know” and left the page blank.

          1. Good lord.

            You realize that this is exactly the kind of thing one of them would type out as a reason why you are horrible? All you did was change the sign from ‘pro-SJW’ to ”anti-SJW’.

            I’ll tell you what I tell them. There is no overarching conspiracy or secret cabal, and you’ll be much happier if you don’t go around pulling quotes out of context and try to understand why people might disagree with you.

          2. Tell that to TNH, who explained how all 60 of us might secretly compare notes with each other, Vox, Gamergate and the Illuminati.

            Which means she thought about it.

            And has probably done it.

          3. You don’t have a single clue as to what you’re talking about.

            I’ll say this again so you can’t claim otherwise: there is no secret cabal or conspiracy in that usual sense of the term. This cult of idiots is above board and public with their collusions to discriminate and their incitement to hate. The fact you are unaware of that means nothing to me. I have the quotes and there are literally thousands of them.

            Secondly, I didn’t quote jack shit out of context. That post is right there for all to read. Martin on the other hand – probably unknowingly – has presented events completely out of their true context by not understanding the history of the non-fiction writings of these people. Well, I do understand that history.

            I don’t give a shit whether you or anyone else thinks I’m horrible. At the end of the day no one can fisk their own quotes so there is nothing to disagree with. I have those quotes for them and they don’t for us. That’s why they lie and use scare quotes. This is not a case of anyone disagreeing with me but with actual and real quotes.

            You may have noticed the worst of these people don’t come here and debate. There’s a reason for that. And what makes you think they are not proud of their quotes. They’re doing it on Twitter right now. There’s nothing secret about it.

          4. Dude, I didn’t say that you were horrible, nor that I thought you were. I very carefully wrote that your post looks exactly like something they would write(not me) while explaining how their opponent is the worst ever.

            I try to avoid those sites, I read the moderates like GRRM and Scalzi (he doesn’t hate you guys nearly as much as you hate him), but I have seen them. If you changed some of the names and said ‘racist’ instead of SJW that post would fit right in.

          5. If you consider Scalzi a moderate you have either not paying attention, or are being dishonest. He is every bit as biased as I am, and every bit as involved.

          6. >If you consider Scalzi a moderate you have either not paying attention, or are being dishonest. He is every bit as biased as I am, and every bit as involved.

            Or, C) Disagree with you. It is possible.

            Among other things, he’s been agreeing with Martin that people shouldn’t blindly downvoted the slate, and was saying that in previous years as well. Nor has he set up an opposing slate, which he would have done if he really was your opposite number.

          7. If you chose C, then you would be incorrect, but nothing I say will sway you. He manages to get in most of the slander of the really insane hit pieces, only without as many exclamation points. He has convinced many that he’s the voice of reason in all of this, but all I can do is invite you to watch carefully.

            You don’t see it, and Martin doesn’t see it, but there is a reason that man is so universally disliked by so many people on my side.

            Of course he doesn’t want to No Award the slate, that isn’t political, that just requires not being suicidal. I don’t like Scalzi on a personal level, but he’s smart. He and Martin both realize that if the TNH crowd successfully rage NAs the awards, then it will make the Hugo into a giant joke to the rest of the world… Not to mention they know that then the really, really, pissed off Vox crowd will go full on Mutually Assured Destruction next year.

          8. Possible, I suppose, but I have read a few of those pieces (not many, they make my skin crawl, just like reading blogposts from The Author You Have Asked Me Not To Name). They really are on a whole ‘nother level of nutty.

            I probably won’t be able to change your mind on Scalzi, but consider that people really can just disagree with your opinion and still be honest, sane, and not malicious.

          9. You’re straw manning me again. We are not saying Scalzi hates us – at least I’m not. However he is promoting a hateful ideology. Obviously he thinks of it as promoting social justice.

            Radical intersectional gender feminism is a racist, sexist, supremacist cult. I cannot explain it in a comments section. There is a history to it with many iconic names. if you haven’t read Simone de Beauvoir, Monique Wittig, Kate Millet, Audre Lorde, Andrea Dworking, Susan Brownmiller, Charlotte Bunch, Shulamith Firestone and many others, it is impossible to understand what this ideology is. It’s hatred and phobia of men and whites is feral.

            For one short taste, Google The Furies and Charlotte Bunch. It’s a not very long newsletter. It is completely batty.

          10. Dude… That isn’t what straw man means. Do you seriously not understand what I mean when I say that reading your posts reminds of reading their posts? That isn’t an argument, it is a statement about an opinion and therefore cannot be a ‘straw man’.

            Or were you trying to say that you understood and disagreed with me? That calling someone a racist supremacist is merely the voice of sweet reason, unlike the way those horrible SJWs talk?

            And yes, I’ve seen his tweet feed. I believe you when you say you don’t hate him, but there are a lot of SP folks who think he is the third coming of Satan, after Obama, and remind him about it almost every day. They also will often tell people to google “obscure hing that nobody pays attention to or cares about to support this conspiracy theory”.

          11. Biggest difference? When May calls them racist, he quotes them.

            Meanwhile, my whole side, hundreds of us are called racists using “scare quotes”.

            There is one person not part of my organization, not on my slate, doing his own thing but sort of on my side (though really, Vox Day is on his own side), and the same five or six quotes from him have been flung at us over and over for years.

            The fact that May has gathered hundreds of racist quotes from the same group of people, and I’m up to like 20 media outlets calling me racist without any evidence, aren’t exactly morally equivalent.

          12. Not exactly what I was getting at, but I see your point.

            Oh, and sorry, I thought you had chosen VD for the slates you set up. That’s what people are suggesting in other blogs.

          13. I just googled it, and his slate from 2014 has VD’s name on it, clear as day.

            Did you mean that VD wasn’t on the slate that Torgerson did for this year?

          14. Vox was not on our slate this year. Vox’s nominations did not come from Sad Puppies. Vox did his own thing. I do not share Vox’s politics. I do not endorse Vox’s politics. Vox doesn’t represent me any more than Tempest Bradford represents you. I did like and plug one of his short stories in 2013, but only because Satan didn’t have any eligible works.

            Clear yet?

            People are suggesting lots of things in other blogs. I also don’t hit my wife. I support female writers. I am not racist. I don’t care if gay people get married. I’m not the one trying to keep anyone out. I’m the one trying to bring more people in.

            So there you go. That should take care of many of the suggestions on other blogs. Feel free to pass that on.

          15. “Martin should’ve titled his post “I honestly do not know” and left the page blank.”

            To be frank, it read more like “people I trust and admire told me X”.

          16. Hello Twitter:

            SFF fan and writer Sunil Patel: “Curious: how many of you refuse to watch/read something if it’s about Yet Another Straight White Man?”

            Reply from SFWA member and Nebula nominee Kate Elliott: “Same is true of books. I’m increasingly less likely to pick up a book if it is another straight white dude story.”

            Second reply from another SFF fan: “I’m taking a yearlong break from books by men, full stop, and dramatically scaling back on stories about them.”

            Last reply from SFWA member and review editor of SFF at Publisher’s Weekly Rose Fox: “Alas, my job doesn’t let me refuse.”

            Is that a blacklist? You tell me. It ain’t pretty whatever it is. Now… multiply that by 10,000.

            “White male privilege cares ONLY about white male privilege, and there is no goal except maintaining that position of power.”

            That is not me making stuff up about racial supremacy but an actual example of racial supremacy, and by a N.Y. Times best-seller and Marvel Comics author no less. Multiply it by 10,000. I’m not asking anyone’s permission to respond to that flood of garbage.

          17. >Is that a blacklist? You tell me.

            No, you are thinking ‘boycott’, not blacklist.

            Truthfully, I wasn’t taking any of that seriously, I don’t think the people talking about it have enough numbers to make any noticeable difference, but that’s just a guy feeling, no data here.

          18. I love being lectured on “white privilege” by a lawyer with a degree from an exclusive and expensive private college.

          19. There’s no more ardent foes of “white privilege” than LW persons of pallor. It’s some combination of oikophobia and fear, like the being the Jews that turn in the other Jews to the SS.

            (spot the Taranto references above! win valuable prizes!)

          20. So you don’t take words by certain people seriously even though they fill SFF’s core institutions in ways they can make it stick but you do take the words of Vox Day and John Wright seriously because by imagining each man is equal to 50 social justice warriors everything comes out right. Is that it?

            Look out! Orwell’s standing behind you. He’s about to slap you!!

            Just kidding. He’s still dead.

          21. The threading isn’t eorking right for me, but in case that was to my address-

            I don’t take seriously the people who suggested “don’t read white males for a year” because I have no idea who they are, they aren’t authors I think I would be interested in, and the most enthusiastic response I heard from an author I like was along the lines of “Interesting idea, but I’m not going to do it.”

            So, whoever Tempest Somebody is- She is not someone who has any particular authority in the field and does not have any ability to enforce her suggestion. I am and will continue to ignore it. This is not a real threat for anyone.

          22. I like how people who haven’t had their careers threatened are quick to point out what is and is not threatening.

            So, Maximillian, how many twitter mobs have tried to ruin your fledgling career? How often have one of these nonthreatening people made a slanderous, career damaging allegation against you and had it retweeted a few hundred times to other nonthreatening people who also jump in to make sure that your name will be tarnished to your potential consumers?

            Just curious, you know, so new authors can know what the acceptable level of harassment is before they have your permission to feel threatened.

          23. You are a Grade A bullshit artist. One racism is nothing and another is horrible. You do what all SJWs do: you have shifting standards that always absolve one group and pillory the other.

        3. Max, apparently you have basic reading comprehension issues.

          “correia45, on April 10, 2015 at 3:05 pm said:

          I didn’t say Heinlein writing Avengers or Godzilla. I said could Starship Troopers, one of the most famous works of scifi in history, get a nomination today? And if so, what would be their reaction?”

          and your reply:

          “Maximillian, on April 10, 2015 at 4:53 pm said:

          I answered that question. Of course Heinlein would get a nomination. In fact, I’m pretty sure those were my exact words.

          I doubt he’d write the exact same book again, it’s been more than fifty years of history and science since then, but the man was a genius, he could adapt. Hell, I would have happily kicked Redshirts off the list for a Heinlein novel. (Maybe not one of the time-traveling Lazarus Long having sex with himself ones, though)”

          Except the question wasn’t “Would Heinlein be nominated’ (because the author isn’t nominated, a WORK is nominated). The question was “Would ‘Starship Troopers’ be nominated?”

          Not “would a new book by Heinlein, were he on the green side of the grass to write it” be nominated. Don’t evade the fucking question then have the gall to lay claim to a halo for evading it.

        4. Correia45 said:
          “Not to mention he dismissed the ‘being treated poorly at the con’ but skipped over all whisper campaigns and malicious sabotage, based on a political philosophy that is apparently totally invisible to him.”

          Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in a talk in 2011, said the number of conservatives in social psychology was so low as to be statistically impossible. In a country where 40% of adults identify as conservative, vs. 20% as liberal, the field is more like .4% conservative, 99.6% liberal. He pointed out that in any protected group like blacks, a disparity like that would lead to an automatic presumption of discrimination or hostile environment.

          The response to Haidt’s talk was, overwhelmingly, ‘Conservatives are stupid, that’s why they’re not in academia.’

          And then there’s this: “A lack of political diversity in social and personality psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. In two studies, we investigate the actual and perceived political ideology of a large sample (Study 1: N = 508; Study 2: N = 292) of social and personality psychologists. We find that there is more diversity of political opinion than is often assumed; conservatives are a substantial minority among social and personality psychologists. Second, we find that respondents significantly underestimate the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, we find that CONSERVATIVES FEAR NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. FINALLY, WE FIND THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT TO DO SO. In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate.” The paper of which the foregoing is an abstract is available at http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf.

          It reminds me of an old joke: A black man in Jackson, Mississippi in 1956 goes to the polls to vote. They tell him he has to pass a literacy test. To prove he can write, sign his name. To prove he can read, they hand him something in Chinese characters. He says he can’t read it word for word, but he can make out the sense of it: ‘No nigras voting in Mississippi this year.’

          Karl Popper nailed this a century ago. Pseudo-scientific ideas are distinguished by the fact that no evidence can possibly falsify them.

      1. Which is why each volume in A Song of Ice and Fire is so very short.

        Ha. My thoughts exactly.

        GRRM is not Bob Dylan. He can manage to read more than a page.

  67. Very interesting about the Locus lists.

    LASFS Recommended Reading List for Children and Young Adults
    http://www.lasfsinc.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=260
    Last revised in 2007. I don’t recall there being one for adults. However the LASFS library tries to be completist. (Longtime attending member and former assistant LASFS librarian here.)

    An interesting article relevant to all this:
    “Where are the conservative social psychologists?”
    http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/74794.html

    1. Reziac: Having brought the info into this context, you should clarify that the LASFS list was never aimed at influencing awards.

      It was intended to be placed in libraries, where it would serve the dual purpose of popularizing sf and getting the club’s name in front of local sf readers.

      1. Good catch, sir. I would think that an annually updated list of a major club would have an impact, particularly if distributed among fans while nominations are in play, but…the contents of such a list would be the affair of the members of that club.

        I also would not discount the effect of libraries – a person can only read the books they find, and maintaining a respectable cross section of the field would be an important part of avoiding biases.

        However, as you say, not an awards list, and imo the contents are the responsibility of that society, of which I am not a part.

      2. Yes, you are right. I mentioned it because someone asked if a LASFS list existed.

        About the most political thing you could say about LASFS’s reading list was that it largely reflected the initial compiler’s reading experience. Suggestions were actively solicited, and I don’t recall any ever being turned down.

    1. You don’t have to wonder, he said that he wanted people to stick to talking about the Hugos and not troll.

          1. LiveJournal glitches and returns to earlier states–so it will jump back and forth between listing “50 comments” and “100 comments” but you may need to refresh on various pages to actually see all of them.

          2. Want to know the easiest job in the world? Moderator of MonsterHunterNation. Unless it’s pushing Viagra or explaining how to make $1000/wk working from home, we leave all posts intact with no moderation required. Larry is big on the whole ‘free speech being necessary for good debate’ thing

  68. > (1) some say the exclusion is political in nature, that conservative and libertarian writers are being unfairly shut out,
    > (2) others charge religious discrimination, insisting the Christian writers and “writers of Faith” are the ones being excluded,
    > (3) there’s a racial component in some comments (not from the Puppy leaders, but from their followers), wherein we are told that “straight white men” are the victims here,
    > (4) and finally, there’s the literary argument, wherein we are told that the ballots are full of bad boring crappy stories that no one really likes, placed there in some nefarious manner by the secret SJW cliques, whereas good old-fashioned SF and fantasy, the stuff the readers really love, is shut out and ignored.

    GRRM is at least trying to understand. (4) is closest to the actual reason. I would say that the stories nominated almost always:

    A. Include a “strong” woman character.
    B. Shed any/all minorities in a non-stereotypically good way.
    C. Spout liberal talking points (diversity is good! conservatives are bad and racist! guns are bad!)

    I would be interested in an analysis of nominated works/authors from 2010-2013 based on this criteria.

    1. I write the shit out of A and B. Many of us do. That has nothing to do with it. But I’d invite you to pick through them looking for C, and also add D. Putting C ahead of the story or reader enjoyment.

    2. Here is an analysis regarding last year’s Hugo winners. Intersectionalism is a self-described “radical” feminist lesbian-centric race-sex-gender ideology based on a presumed oppression by straight white men. In larger America Intersectionalism is extremely rare. In this list below you see 100%. If any of them wish to disavow their adherence to this ideology, they will have to delete a massive amount of documentation by way of their own words. Self-defined intersectionalists such as Anita Sarkeesian and the movement’s most iconic figures repeatedly say they have no interest in equality in the current patriarchal, capitalist and racist systems. The whole thing needs to come down (the cis-normative “family… its art, its churches, its laws…” [Andrea Dworkin] for example). The central tenet of this ideology is that masculinity is a fake and “toxic” (Sarkeesian) social “construct” (Judith Butler) which has served to effect “the domination of women” (Charlotte Bunch) for thousands of years. The resulting “sexism is the root of all oppression” (Bunch). For these reasons this ideology sometimes refers to itself as gender abolitionists. This is NOT an equal rights movement and generally considers equal rights “white American feminist theory” (Audre Lorde) to be “racist feminism” (Lorde). Though devoted to race, this is mostly about gender equality, thus the constant flood of remarks about homophobia, transphobia, etc. Considering this is SFF, it is a bizarre obsession in a weird place. Third Wave Intersectional Gender Feminism is the default orthodoxy of SJWs and their passionate crusade.

      BEST NOVEL Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie – a manic intersectional gender feminist
      BEST NOVELLA “Equoid” by Charles Stross – a compassionate supporter of intersectionalism
      BEST NOVELETTE “The Lady Astronaut of Mars” by Mary Robinette Kowal – an avid intersectionalist
      BEST SHORT STORY “The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere” by John Chu – a staunch intersectionalist
      BEST RELATED WORK “We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative” by Kameron Hurley (A Dribble of Ink) – a manic gender intersectional feminist
      BEST SEMIPROZINE Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams, Rich Horton, and Stefan Rudnicki (No doubt because of their “Women Destroy Science Fiction” Issue) see Hurley – this is intersectional central
      BEST FANZINE A Dribble of Ink edited by Aidan Moher (No doubt because of Hurley’s piece) Moher is an intersectionalist
      BEST FAN WRITER Kameron Hurley – see above
      JOHN W. CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER Sofia Samatar – a devoted intersectionalist
      BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST WHO PAINTS POC Julie Dillon – a staunch intersectionalist

      “One is not born a woman, but rather becomes one.” – Simone de Beauvoir

      “Strictly speaking, ‘women’ cannot be said to exist.” – Julia Kristeva

      “Woman does not have a sex.” – Luce Irigaray

      “The deployment of sexuality . . . established this notion of sex.” – Michel Foucault

      “The category of sex is the political category that founds society as heterosexual.” – Monique Wittig

      Quotes from the beginning of Gender Trouble, a critique of “French Queer Theory,” Judith Butler, 1990

      “Do we really need more men explaining feminism to women? Do we need ANY? Go explain it to other men if you’re so inclined. #OrJustListen” “Hard as it to believe, somewhere right now, a white, straight male is explaining to a woman or POC what they =really= meant.” – Steven Gould, president of the SFWA

      1. BEST NOVELLA “Equoid” by Charles Stross – a compassionate supporter of intersectionalism
        BEST NOVELETTE “The Lady Astronaut of Mars” by Mary Robinette Kowal – an avid intersectionalist

        I thought the point was that bad message fiction makes puppies sad, and that Sad Puppies stood for fiction that doesn’t put message ahead of story, though it might, in fact, have a bit of message in it. Sad Puppies makes a point that the political beliefs of the authors isn’t the point, and that while it is fine with Baen authors who are card-carrying communists but write good books, it’s the SJWs who want to exclude people on the grounds of bad think.

        So what’s in Equoid and the Lady Astronaut of Mars that offends you so?

        1. “So what’s in Equoid and the Lady Astronaut of Mars that offends you so?”

          For me, “Offends” is too strong of a word, when speaking about either of these 2 specific works. I don’t think either one was particularly great, and there were other things eligible or even nominated for the 2014 Best Novella & Novelette Hugos that I think were better, but I can & do recognize them as valid works of SF&F. And these ones aren’t even bad, they’re just not really all that great. But tastes differ, and the majority of Worldcon voters disagreed with me, so I’m OK with them winning the Hugo in their categories last year.

          What *does* offend me is the inclusion of non-SF&F works on the final Hugo ballot, that were only included because they preach .

          On last year’s final ballot, in the Short Story category we had:

          “The Ink Readers of Doi Saket” – this one, similar to “Equoid” & “The Lady Astronaut of Mars” above, I can at least recognize as legitimate SF&F. Again it wasn’t my first choice (at least, not of all eligible SF&F short stories from 2013; it was my first choice on the final ballot – but that’s the problem), but at least it was SF&F.

          “Selkie Stories Are for Losers” – Not SF&F. Preachy message-fic about run-away lesbians suffering from parental abandonment. The closest it comes to SF&F is referencing Selkie Stories in passing – and calling them “for losers”.

          “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” – Not SF&F. Preachy message-fic about an in a coma from a beating. The closes it comes to SF&F is referencing Dinosaurs (the person in the coma is a paleontologist).

          And the Hugo winner: “The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere” – Not SF/F. Preachy message-fic about gay marriage & homophobia. The closest it comes to SF&F is having a bizarre premise (Water falls from Nowhere when someone lies), that is never explained or explored, except to preach about gay marriage & homophobia.

          With all the anti-Puppies talking about No Awards this year, I’m reminded of discussions here on MHN last year, with other Sad Puppies 2 participants.

          On my ballot, I put “Ink Readers” above No Award, because even though I didn’t like it all that much, I at least considered it valid SF&F. I did put No Award second, because I did not feel that the others were even legitimately SF&F. Some other commentators said they had put No Award first, because while “Ink Readers” may have been valid SF&F, it wasn’t good enough to deserve a Hugo.

          I contrast that with what I see people saying now – it doesn’t matter how good a work is; if it was on the SP3 balltot, it goes below No Award. Yes, we used No Award last year (unsuccessfully, of course), but our stated criteria was “valid SF&F” (me) or “Award-worthy”. Their criteria now is “block voting bad!”.

          Which is something I never really understood, despite having heard long before Sad Puppies. What type of voting *isn’t* block voting? That’s what voting is – the biggest block wins. I guess block voting is supposed to mean uninformed voting, where the voters only know the political party (or Sad Puppy slate), and vote w/out knowing the actual positions of (or w/out reading) the candidates; and I agree that (uninformed voting) is bad. I even agree that it does happen (both w/ real politics, and the Hugos, and maybe even SP). But it’s stupid – so stupid I like to think that it only happens very rarely; I don’t like to think that many people are that stupid. And that’s not what “block voting” means in my head – in my head “block voting” is a group of voters voting as a block. Which is *all* voting, if the set of voters are divided into groups based on who/what they voted for…

          1. Looks like WordPress pulled out my use of angle-brackets… trying again w/ HTML entities…

            What *does* offend me … preach .

            Should have been:

            preach <SJW message-of-the-day>

            And

            “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” – Not SF&F. Preachy message-fic about an in a coma from a beating.

            Should have been:

            Preachy message-fic about an <unspecified SJW championed minority, possibly (but probably not) a gay-Arab-transgender-effeminate-Hispanic> in a coma from a <homophobic/racist/transphobic/sexist/racist> beating.

          2. Well said, and I largely agree.

            I think that uniformed voting was very rare, and I think that ‘lockstep’ voting has been grossly overstated, at least for SP. But I’m not in any one else head, just mine.

            I found the *premise* of Equoid interesting, but the execution was not.

            I cared very little for the Selkie story, but thought that ‘The Water’ was very well written, with engaging characters, and should have been an award winning coming out story in a literary field. Not SF.

          3. Beolach said:
            “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” – Not SF&F. Preachy message-fic about man in a coma from a beating. The closes it comes to SF&F is referencing Dinosaurs (the person in the coma is a paleontologist).”

            I may be the only person here who actually liked “IYWaDML”, as I found it emotionally effective and well written. But it certainly isn’t SF & F, and I find it hard to even call it a story.

            Note something else. This is, ultimately, a revenge fantasy: ‘If you were a dinosaur, you could have ripped those people who attacked you apart.’ To which one might respond ‘There’s no way he could be a dinosaur, but he could have carried a pistol, and probably blown away those who attacked him.’ I wonder how a ‘If You Were a Gunslinger, My Love’ would have been received?

          4. The closest it comes to SF&F is having a bizarre premise (Water falls from Nowhere when someone lies), that is never explained or explored,

            It wasn’t the greatest, but had interesting characters, was recognizably a story, and water falling from nowhere when people lie is undoubtedly a fantasy element. It was first on my ballot. The field was very weak.

          5. Well, “Secret Snow, Silent Snow” has often been put in horror/fantasy anthologies and that’s in the kid’s head. It was made into an episode of Night Gallery hosted by Rod Serling.

            We never learn if the governess in “Turn of the Screw” is nuts or not.

      2. Nothing. My beef is with non-fiction comments. I could care less what people put in their books. I often use fiction to highlight how it fits in with non-fiction hate speech but on its own I don’t care.

        No one’s going to confuse fiction with reality. However non-fiction racial incitement got two cops killed. SJWs in SFF have blood on their hands for that mess as well.

        The thing about fiction is, no one’s forcing me to read it. But you put a target on my back via obsessive Twitter feeds and blog posts and I’m not having that.

        This obsession with diversity is never presented without contrasting it with the moral failure of straight white men. Even without that latter, it is having the same effect on literature it would with architecture or baseball. Buildings are falling and the talent is being shoved aside. Still, none of that will affect me personally. The creeping conformism is bad enough, but the affirmative action stuff is killing the core genre.

  69. Mr. Correia:

    I wrote a short reply on G.R.R. Martin’s “Not a Blog” post and would like to know if I correctly summed up the Sad Puppies core issue.

    I know you are a busy man and if you do not have the time or inclination I understand you cannot read every little thing on the internet. I just thought that you, as the progenitor of Sad Puppies, should have the right to tell me if I am mistaken or not.

    http://grrm.livejournal.com/418285.html?thread=20765933#t20765933

    Regardless, thanks for the great books and I hope you continue writing as long you you can find the inspiration.

    I invite anyone else to read the comment as well, please let me know what your thoughts are.

  70. This is the least self-aware and whineyest thing I’ve ever read. If you don’t see that, I can’t really take your opinions on writing very seriously.

  71. I’m thinking someone should write a book about this whole thing so it can be submitted in the ‘Best Related Work’ category. But it wouldn’t really be fully writable until at least after this years awards, and probably not publishable until 2016. Thus eligible in 2017.Maybe slip another year or two depending on the fallout after this year….

    1. It’s the age of instant indie publishing. And for some people, non-fiction writes much faster than fiction.

      1. Non-fiction writes much, much, much faster than fiction if you make it a collection of interesting blog posts on the topic over time.

        🙂

    1. That con report does sound like a fun trip. Sounds like a lot of nominations for people from Utah! I suppose this must have been a long, long time ago before the Hugos were taken over.

      I didn’t know that the writer of “I am Not A…” Went to scifi cons. That trilogy kicked ass. No sparkly vampires or moping around. Someone high-five Wells for me, please.

    2. “So why didn’t you write about how badly you were treated at the time?”

      But back then I was still trying to play it cool, and didn’t think I could have a successful career if I made the wrong people angry.

      “This dude, he sounds like he had fun”

      There was a very distinct divide between what I’ll call the academic writers and the commercial writers. (yeah, you get one guess where I fall in that continuum). I participated in a few panels and observed a bunch of others, but that topic needs its own blog post.

      Looking at the results afterward, I got my ass handed to me. It wasn’t really a surprise, since I knew going in that my odds of winning were really low. (I’m not exactly the sort of writer most of the WorldCon voters root for, but more on that in the next blog post).

      1. Steve nailed it.

        In 2011 I was still playing it cool, under the delusion that I could/should keep my head down as much as possible. I didn’t think I could afford to piss anyone else off.

        And I still had fun. I make my own fun wherever I go.

        If you want to scroll through the years of posts, you’ll find that the more I got attacked (and my career remained standing) the less I gave a shit what negative things people like Daveon and Maximillian could dig up about me to report back to the assholes, in the hope that the gatekeepers would pat their tender little heads and speak great blessings onto them. 🙂

        1. Another thought… Thinking back, note how I said I would talk about it in my next blog post, but then I didn’t?

          That’s because I got scared. I’ll admit it. I chickened out then. I was nice, professional, only talked about positive stuff. I was a new guy, and I didn’t want any more people angry at me. I already had people angry at me and I hadn’t even done anything yet, and my friends and peers all warned me to be nice. So I was chicken, and I think in 2011, part of me thought that if I was nice, maybe I’d eventually get accepted too.

          If you were honest people, you could scroll through the blog and watch the evolution of me not giving a shit. I know all these regular readers certainly have.

          1. “”But it turned out that Saladin [Ahmed] is a super nice guy, which kind of sucked, because all of the nominees were like that. It would have been so much easier if they had all been big mean jerks because then I could have just hated them, but they had to go and be all friendly and stuff.””

            So that was all a lie was it?

          2. The evolution of somebody not giving a shit would be ‘I wasn’t nominated for a Hugo because they’re crap… I’m going to go and roll around in my pile of money from my best selling novels and say ‘screw you to the lot of them’.

            Money is really the only validation that bloody matters isn’t it? Well, it pretty much is to me. I might be shallow.

            Evolving is not doing this. This is throwing a tantrum. That’s it. I’ll be off. My view of you stands. You’re a tit. You deserve all that you get from here on it and if it’s hurting your ego, as this post suggests, then good.

          3. Duly noted. Luckily I have lots of money now, which is why I can speak freely without having SJWs ruin my career. It is pretty awesome.

          4. For the gentleman calling Mr Corriea a tit and saying he’s making it all up: My own experience, as a left-leaning person in SF, mirrors Mr Corrieas, so I’m inclined to believe him. And yes, you do cover it up, you try to put a brave face on things can carry on.

          5. Thanks for mentioning there was no follow-up report, I was going a little crazy trying to find it (your blog is REALLY hard to navigate past a month or two BTW, maybe I’m missing a navigation widget somewhere)

            I was looking for the historical evolution of this and that was the first report I found. My take on it was that it was a “don’t want to sound like a sore loser so I’ll be very positive” kind of post with hints of more interesting details in the follow-up that never came.

          6. When has Larry ever said anything negative about Saladin Ahmed? Perhaps a lot of OTHER Sad Puppy supporters have, (and even when they do, they’re not saying he isn’t a nice person they’re saying that he a) has bought into a fundamentally racist narrative, or b) was nominated primarily via affirmative action rather than the quality of his work. [Note: I haven’t read enough of his work to comment on B. Just pointing out that is what is being said, not that he isn’t nice.]) but I have never heard Larry say ANY of those things about him.

        2. ‘Negative’ ? You wrote it mate, I just saw it and noticed your position and recollection of events is different now.

          Funny thing, you go on and on and on about how tough you are and how you make your own fun and such, but that’s now how you’re behaving and that’s all that matters.

          As for gatekeepers – sure that’s what I live for. Yes indeedy.

          Tit.

          1. I explained my reasoning. You can find very similar stories from many conservative writers in the field.

            Now, go return and report. Maybe Teresa will give you a cookie. 🙂

          2. This is pure liberal mindset projection right here. They absolutely would make up a story or load of BS if it served their current narrative. And if caught then you would hear how objective facts don’t matter, because truthiness.

        3. I actually haven’t said anything negative about you, and the only time I’ve ever quoted you, here or anywhere, is in the post below where you were lying about my religious beliefs.

          1. I’ve read through this entire comment section, and Larry never lied about your religious beliefs. Your claim that he did so is in itself a lie.

    3. I rarely comment but I actually have read this entire blog, and if you skip forward a few posts from that one there’s an account of a different con which is much more enthusiastic, way different from the highly subdued account in that post.

  72. So I’ve been thinking about these block vote complaints that have been coming up.
    Best I can think of right now to avoid trouble in the future, say next year, might be to either create several voting blocks for SP4, still all for best book but with political/gender/racial differences of the authors to make the different blocks. Not sure if that would bother the SJW’s or not though, or be too much of a step towards them.
    Rather I think it might be better to go with several voting blocks of more than five books, say 10 each. Making it all the more obvious that you are just pointing out good writings, and gives those claiming block voting less ground if any since people would be obviously shown a larger base of books to choose from. These blocks would of course also be filled by fan suggestion like this year, it would just be more obvious to the completely dense who keep making claims of bias.
    Anyway, just some thoughts on my part that I hope will help with SP4’s direction next year.

    1. Anything along these lines would help. After all, the ‘Best Novel’ list is pretty solid this year- I think if it didn’t have all the Vox Day and Wright cooties on it from the shorter fiction sections (or the history from SP 1 & 2) a lot of people wouldn’t have realized that it was from the slate and would have just assumed that they were good books.

      1. Naw, they’d still malign us and hate us.

        Vox ran his own slate. If you think anyone has any control over what Vox Day does, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

        SP nominated Wright in short story, novella, and related. He picked up additional noms, but those weren’t on the slate. And his work on those 3 items is absolutely incredible. So really, I don’t give a shit if you don’t like Catholic cooties all over your fiction. They’re damned good works.

        It is kind of funny how he was considered such a super good author back when he was just at Tor and he kept his religious beliefs in the closet, but now he has Catholic cooties.

        Why do you hate Catholics, Maximillian?

        1. >Why do you hate Catholics, Maximillian?

          See, it’s when you start lying about things like this that people wonder if they should really take your statements about invisible blacklists on faith. You are perfectly well aware that I have made no statements against the Catholic faith here but you are willing to pretend that I have in order to try to make a point.

          If you are trying to claim that Wright speaks for the majority of American Catholics (or, you know, the Pope?) in his rants against gay people, I’m willing to sell that bridge back to you.

          1. I was being absurd. Sort of like how I tried to get ignored authors onto the Hugos, and the response is why do I hate women/homosexuals/minorities? Get it now?

            Sheesh.

            Wright is a devout Catholic. I’m sure he’d love to educate you on Pope Francis and his church’s philosophy. But I’m not Wright, so it doesn’t do you any good to complain about his supposed homophobia here, other than try to set the narrative of Wright=Homophobe, by posting about it over and over and over again. You want to discuss Wright’s beliefs, as I suggested I don’t know how many times, take it up with Wright.

          2. As I pointed out, I was answering someone else’s question. Then, you lied, and I was pointing that out. if you want to stop going down that road, feel free to not lie, and I won’t need to correct anything.

            Also, I promise that of anyone else asks, I won’t answer them.

          3. I’d be willing to bet that Wright, does, in fact, hold pretty close to Catholic doctrine in his writings on gays, and therefore is consistent with (not “speaks for”) the Pope.
            http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/04/chastity-is-thoughtcrime/

            As for the rest, my views on LGBTWXYZ people are shocking, and the dunderbrains are well advised to steer clear of conversation with me, lest any man discover what my views are, and be shocked when he finds shattered the childish narrative needed for maintaining the your proper air and tone of smug, petty, and sneering yet invincible ignorance.

            I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
            I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
            I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
            I believe everything the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church teaches.
            I also believe homosexuals who get baptized and live their lives in imitation of Christ receive His abundant grace and dwell after this life with Him in paradise, there to be arrayed in more splendor than any crowned king, transfigured in shining glory unimaginable to human eyes, and made beautiful and fair with the radiance of divine love, exalting in infinite joy forever.

            I think lust is a sin and that pride is a worse sin. Any man who demeans a homosexual for being afflicted with same-sex sexual attraction is guilty of pride. Look to your own sins, Pharisee. It is akin to mocking a drunk afflicted with alcoholism.

            OOOh, what a hater.

          4. Great, he knows what he is supposed to say, then forgets the part about ‘being guilty of pride’ and say things like:

            “You have earned the contempt and hatred of all decent human beings forever, and we will do all we can to smash the filthy phallic idol of sodomy you bow and serve and worship.”

            So yes, a hater.

          5. Dude, if you can’t tell the difference between “absurd, exaggerated strawman rhetorical question” and “lie”, then you probably aren’t capable of correcting anything that wasn’t written in crayon.

          6. Maximillian said:
            “As I pointed out, I was answering someone else’s question. Then, you lied, and I was pointing that out.”

            Except that Larry didn’t lie, he used sarcasm. And when Larry pointed that out, Max just repeated the claim about lying.

            Thanks, Max, I now know you’re dishonest, and won’t bother reading any more of your posts.

    2. Go over to Mad Genius Club and tell it to Kate. She will be running Sad Puppies 4.

        1. Yes. I mean, I don’t think help will fix much, but tell me, do you think a woman who has “The Impaler” as her middle name *doesn’t* need help?

          More seriously – my bet is yes, but you’ll have to ask her.

    3. Warning: it does not matter how you organize the vote. Any organization of any kind will be accused of being a bloc vote.

      That is because the core people who are opposing Sad Puppies have no interest in fairness or inclusivity; you are the enemy to them. As Scientologists used to put it, you are Fair Game.

      1. On “bloc voting,” the implication is that we all just copy down whatever’s on the slate, without reading it or exercising any judgment.

        In future I’ll probably do that, since I’m going to be accused of it anyway. But over at Chaos Horizon, https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/modeling-hugo-voting-campaigns/ and https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/how-many-puppy-votes-breaking-down-the-hugo-math/ show that that is not what happened.

      1. I did a list! I got up to 40 sub-lists without (I think) being stupid or insanely specialist.

        If I was Queen of the Universe, there would be fans collecting around each sublist and combing through All The Things Of Fandom for each category, pimping out all the best ones and posting a master list in January of each year.

        Alas, I am not Queen of the Universe, nor ever will be.