Monster Hunter Nation

Sad Puppies 3: Looking at the Results

As you all know by now, the Hugo Awards were presented Saturday, and No Award dominated most of the categories. Rather than let any outsiders win, they burned their village in order to “save it”. And they did so while cheering, gloating, and generally being snide exclusive assholes about it. This year’s awards have an asterisk next to them. It was all about politics rather than the quality of the work. Even the pre-award show was a totally biased joke. In addition they changed the voting rules to make their archaic rules system even more convoluted in order to keep out future barbarian hordes. They gave as many No Awards this time as in the entire history of the awards.

So like I said yesterday… See? I told you so.

People have asked me if I’m disappointed in the results. Yes. But maybe not in the way you might expect. I’ll talk about the slap in the face to specific nominees in a minute, but I can’t say I’m surprised by what happened, when it was just an extreme example of what I predicted would happen three years ago when I started all this.

I said the Hugos no longer represented all of Fandom, instead they only represents tiny, insular, politically motivated cliques taking turns giving their friends awards. If you wanted to be considered, you needed to belong to, or suck up to those voting cliques. I was called a liar.

I said that most of the voters cared far more about the author’s identity and politics than they did the quality of the work, and in fact, the quality of the work would be completely ignored if the creator had the wrong politics. I was called a liar.

I said that if somebody with the wrong politics got a nomination, they would be actively campaigned against, slandered, and attacked, not for the quality of their work, but because of politics. I was called a liar.

That’s how the Sad Puppies campaign started. You can see the results. They freaked out and did what I said they would do. This year others took over, in the hopes of getting worthy, quality works nominated who would normally be ignored. It got worse. They freaked out so much that even I was surprised.

Each year it got a little bigger, and the resulting backlash got a little louder and nastier, culminating in this year’s continual international media slander campaign. Most of the media latched onto a narrative about the campaign being sexist white males trying to keep women and minorities out of publishing. That narrative is so ridiculous that a few minutes of cursory research shows that if that was our secret goal, then we must be really bad at it, considering not just who we nominated, but who our organizers and supporters are, but hey… Like I said, it is all about politics, and if it isn’t, they’re going to make it that way. You repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it.

It isn’t about truth. It is about turf.

We saw all sorts of arguments this year. They’d nitpick everything they could to make us the evil outsiders. When it was just me, they made it all about me. When it was bigger than just me, they spread the love (though I still got labeled as a sexist, racist, homophobic, woman hating, wife beater with zero evidence which is always a treat) and went after our supporters. People who agreed with us were misogynists and our female supporters became tokens.

There was lots of virtue signaling. They represented purity and tradition, basically all goodness, and since they used up all the goodness, ergo we could only be motivated by greed, spite, and hate.  Since most of us never said anything outlandish or offensive, they picked the most controversial figure they could from an allied movement, and ascribed everything they’ve ever said about him to all of us, and if we failed to denounce sufficiently, said we must be the same.  Meanwhile, they don’t have to denounce their assholes, and instead continue to shower praise and awards on literal NAMBLA supporters.

I’ll skip over the boorish behavior from Saturday night, the SJW panic attacks from being triggered at the freebie table, and an editor cursing at probably the meekest, politest author I know, and talk about the actual categories. I’ve only had time to give the numbers a cursory glance, but it looks like you’ve got five to six hundred Sad Puppies, five to six hundred Rabid Puppies, and about 3,000 CHORFs and allied useful idiots, with the remainder being normal fans.  This year there was about 1 of us to every 3 of them.

Right off the bat you can look through our nomination numbers from all of the categories and see that the crying about our super evil slate voting was nonsense. The actual numbers between the various Puppy nominees varied wildly, with some Puppy favorites falling just outside of the short list where we can see the same thing. Yeah, I figured that. All of those charges about voting in lockstep? Nope.  The only real lockstep slate vote went to No Award.

No Award is for nominees who are not award worthy. Notice that on these nominees they railed against their identities, the philosophies of who liked them, and the politics of how they were nominated, but we seldom if ever heard anything about the quality of their work. Quality of the work had nothing to do with it. The NA crowd can cache it however they want, they’re defending tradition, this is their thing, it is special to them, they’re TRUEFAN, they’ve been attending since the ‘70s, we’re outsiders, we upset them, how dare we! So on and so forth, but ultimately all those NA categories came down to politics over quality.

Let’s look at a few of our record five No Award categories. This is where we get to the part where I’m actually disappointed. I knew there were a lot of biased assholes in fandom, but I was surprised at the depths they’d sink.

Kary English is a damned fine writer. I don’t even know what her politics are. We picked her as one of our nominees because she wrote a really solid story. She got 874 votes for best short story. I believe that is one of the highest number of votes for a short story in Hugo history. No Award got 3,000.

That’s asinine. Honestly compare Totaled to some of the short stories that they had no problem with before… That vote had nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with turf. You assholes are celebrating punishing her, and you justify it because you don’t like people like me.

But that’s not the category that is really absurd. Let’s look at Best Editor, Long Form.

Now, a little background on Best Editor, and why there is a Long and Short form. It used to be just Best Editor, only it usually went to short fiction magazine editors. Until Patrick Nielsen Hayden complained one year that he’d edited most of Best Novel nominees (well, that’s a shock) and he didn’t ever get to be Best Editor, so they made a category for him to win every other year (literally).

But there are no cliques or bias!

Editor Toni Weisskopf is a professional’s professional. She has run one of the main sci-fi publishing houses for a decade. She has edited hundreds of books. She has discovered, taught, and nurtured a huge stable of authors, many of whom are extremely popular bestsellers. You will often hear authors complain about their editors and their publishers, but you’re pretty hard pressed to find anyone who has written for her who has anything but glowing praise for Toni.

Yet before Sad Puppies came along, Toni had never received a Hugo nomination. Zero. The above mentioned Patrick Nielsen Hayden has 8. Toni’s problem was that she just didn’t care and she didn’t play the WorldCon politics. Her only concern was making the fans happy. She publishes any author who can do that, regardless of their politics. She’s always felt that the real awards were in the royalty checks. Watching her get ignored was one of the things that spurred me into starting Sad Puppies. If anybody deserved the Hugo, it was her.

This year Toni got a whopping 1,216 first place votes for Best Editor. That isn’t just a record. That is FOUR TIMES higher than the previous record. Shelia Gilbert came in next with an amazing 754. I believe that Toni is such a class act that beforehand she even said she thought Shelia Gilbert deserved to win. Fans love Toni.

Logically you would think that she would be award worthy, since the only Baen books to be nominated for a Hugo prior to Sad Puppies were edited by her (Bujold) and none of those were No Awarded. Last year she had the most first place votes, and came in second only after the weird Australian Rules voting kicked in (don’t worry everybody, they just voted to make the system even more complicated), so she was apparently award worthy last year.

Toni Weisskopf has been part of organized Fandom (capital F) since she was a little kid, so all that bloviating about how Fandom is precious, and sacred, and your special home since the ‘70s which you need to keep as a safe space free of barbarians, blah, blah, blah, yeah, that applies to Toni just as much as it does to you CHORFs.  You know how you guys paid back her lifetime of involvement in Fandom?

By giving 2,496 votes to No Award.

So what changed, WorldCon? We both know the answer. It was more important that you send a message to the outsiders than it was to honor someone who was truly deserving, and that message was This is ours, keep out. That’s why I’m disappointed. I wanted the mask to come off and for the world to see how the sausage was really made, but even I was a little surprised by just how vile you are.

Same thing with Editor, short form. Mike Resnick has the wrong politics, but he makes up for it by being a living legend, and a major part of fandom for decades. He’s super involved and has helped launch more careers than anyone can count. When they went through and broke down Hugo winners by politics over the last couple of decades, he was one of the few who was good enough and famous to still win. He should’ve won this year, big time. But nope. Brad Torgersen endorsed him. Send the message. Same category, Jennifer Brozek, have zero idea what she believes about anything, despite working on stuff that was worthy before, No Award, because Larry Correia endorsed due to her quality work on Shattered Shields. Send the message.

Resnick and Weisskopf losing is particularly galling. CHORFs don’t care about tradition. You have no honor. You only care about protecting your turf. You’re inclusive and welcoming, provided the newcomers kiss your ass and don’t get uppity. And old timers? Heaven forbid somebody with badthink endorses them, because then they either have to debase themselves and beg for mercy, or you’ll burn them too. I talked about how this poisonous culture scares many writers into self-censoring before, and you gave them a great example too. Stay in the lines or else.

Oh, and all that bullshit you spew about fighting for diversity? Everyone knows that is a smokescreen. You talk about diversity, but simultaneously had no problem putting No Award over award nominated females because they were nominated by fans you declared to be sexist. Wait… So let me see if I’ve got this straight, you denied deserving women like Toni, Cedar, Kary, Jennifer, Shelia, and Amanda, just to send a message, but we’re the bad guys? I don’t think so. Or as one of our female nominees said, this Puppy has been muzzled. http://cedarwrites.com/this-puppy-has-been-muzzled/

So who really won the Hugos this year? It was 3 to 1 in votes against the two Puppy factions, so they beat us in numbers big time. I’m not going to try to spin that (hell, after the media blitz about how you noble Fans were bravely holding off an invasion of hateful white males hatemongers of hate, I’m surprised that’s all you got) they own Worldcon. At least now they finally admit that. For the Sad Puppies, I don’t know what they’re planning to do next. I’m not in charge. Kate Paulk is. Sarah was supposed to be in charge this year but she fell ill. I wanted to wash my hands of this thing last year and Brad asked me to come back. Over three years the Puppy numbers went from a handful, to hundreds, to over a thousand. The question now is do we want to keep throwing money at a bunch of ungrateful bastards who keep changing the rules to forbid us, or change tactics. Either way, not my call, not my problem. I’m sick of this crap.

No Award is the big winner. Only time will tell, but for FANDOM and the CHORFs I think you’ve got yourself a pyrrhic victory. So many of you don’t seem to realize that this isn’t just about the awards, and culture wars are a spectator sport.  WorldCon was shrinking and greying, and now you can rejoice as it goes back to the comfy way you like it. You want to know why? Read this.

“Attending the Hugo Awards from the perspective of a 12 and 14 year old.”

I took my kids to WorldCon to expose them to Fandom and I’ve consciously shielded them from any of the politics of the kerfuffle associated with the literary “sides” that were in play.

When we attended, we had good seats and they were excited to see if some of their choices would make it.

Let’s just say that my boys ended up being exposed to some of their categories being utterly eradicated from eligibility due to this thing that I’d shielded them from.

They couldn’t understand why their short story choice evaporated into something called “NO AWARD.”

As I briefly explained, the audience was cheering because of that decision and the MC made a point of saying that cheering was appropriate and boos were not.

My kids were shocked.

Shocked not by not winning but by having an entire category’s rug being pulled out from under it and then having all the adults (many of which were old enough to be their grandparents) cheering for something my kids looked at as an unfair tragedy.

I’ll admit to having feared this outcome – yet this was my children’s introduction to Fandom.

We are driving home and they are of the opinion that they aren’t particularly interested in this “Fandom” thing.

I find that a great shame – and I blame not the people who established the ballots to vote for (for my kids enjoyed a great deal of what they read on the ballots), but as my kids noted – they blame the ones who made them feel “like the rug was pulled out from under me.”

I’d offered Fandom my boys – my boys now reject them.

And yes, the picture below is just before us walking to the Hugo ceremonies. They’re excited about it all. I just find it a pity that they didn’t feel anything other than bewilderment and bitterness toward the people in the auditorium after the ceremonies.

That’s the future you elitist exclusive snobs want. Sasquan talked about their record numbers, and record attendance, record supporting memberships, record votes (not to mention record money), but then to commemorate it, you gave them an asterisk for violating your secret gentlemen’s agreements, and told them their kind isn’t welcome in Trufandom. Thinking about the asterisk though, didn’t any of you special snowflakes watch Community? None of my people got any awards, so it isn’t our flag that’s an anus. But fly your anus high, WorldCon, because those two kids will probably be published authors themselves, having fun with other Wrongfans at other cons by the time Gerrold finishes the next Chtorr book.

The real winner this year was Vox Day and the Rabid Puppies. Yep. You CHORFing idiots don’t seem to realize that Brad, Sarah, and I were the reasonable ones who spent most of the summer talking Vox out of having his people No Award the whole thing to burn it down, but then you did it for him. He got the best of both worlds. Oh, but now you’re going to say that Three Body Problem won, and that’s a victory for diversity! You poor deluded fools… That was Vox’s pick for best novel. That’s the one most of the Rabid Puppies voted for too.

Here’s something for you crowing imbeciles to think through, the only reason Vox didn’t have Three Body Problem on his nomination slate was that he read it a month too late. If he’d read it sooner, it would have been an RP nomination… AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE NO AWARDED IT.

And if that doesn’t prove my original point about this fucked up system being more about politics than the quality of the work, I don’t know what will. One of the only two fiction works that actually received an award this year would have been a Rabid Puppy nominee except for timing, and you would’ve No Awarded the winner just to send your little message.

The outrage this summer is all about politics and protecting turf. Look at the nomination numbers. There is a significant correlation between amount of butt hurt and who was supposed to have made it.

http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf

Other than the Puppy noms, look through all the supporting categories and look how tiny their numbers are. Yeah, the Puppies crushed them and locked them out, but not through malicious slate voting. It doesn’t take a lockstep slate to beat a system that is so pathetic a couple dozen friends can swing it.

The cliques are small and inbred. Don’t believe me, think about who our biggest haters are, and then scroll through the list and see who didn’t get Hugo nominations because my side showed up for once. Check out Fan Writer. Look at the list of who would’ve made it if it hadn’t been for us. Funny. Most of those names look familiar, usually because they’re ranting about sexist/racist hate boogeymen.

Same thing with Best Related Work and the other little categories. No wonder Hines has been on the warpath. We interrupted his destiny. As GRRM said, he’s served his time, damn it! Hell, if we’d not shown up culture warrior Anita Sarkeesian would have been a nominee, and you say that we’re the ones who involved GamerGate? And for all of Empress Theresa’s bloviating about us keeping off the 2nd volume of the Heinlein dialogs, that’s a smoke screen because it wouldn’t have made it anyway.  Oh, and there’s Glyer 45 Hugos. No wonder he’s pissed. If it hadn’t been for Puppies his title would be Glyer 46 Hugos. Sheesh. Scroll down that list. Lots of familiar names with pathetically small vote counts that would’ve otherwise made it, but there are no entrenched cliques. Uh huh.

Anyways, I’m glad it’s over. I can’t wait to see what new exciting ways they come up with to slander anyone who disagrees with them next year.

Do not be alarmed. (Pt II: The Fixening)
My Official Statement About the Hugos

Leave a Reply

801 Comments on "Sad Puppies 3: Looking at the Results"


Guest
David Lang
9 months 4 days ago

everyone who voted this year has the right to nominate next year at no additional cost.

so nominate away and if you are worried about giving them your money, hold off until after the nominations to decide if you want to pay to vote.

the business meeting that voted on the rule changes had <250 people voting on the EPH proposal and <170 stayed for the next vote on the 6/4 proposal.

I hope that next year in Kansas City there are far more than 250 puppy supporters (or just sane fans) there who can walk into that meeting and vote the proposals down

Guest
Thomas Monaghan
9 months 3 days ago

EPH gets ratified at KC. 70 additional people showed up Sunday for the EPH vote they hadn’t gone to any of the other meetings. It still would have passed without them .

Guest
Tim Hall
9 months 3 days ago

Forcing WorldCon to overhaul their archaic voting system is a victory of a sort for the puppies.

On the current numbers the Puppies will get at least one, and more likely two or three of their nominations in each category under EPH. And because they can’t accuse the Puppies of unfairly crowding everything else off the ballot, the Hugo in-crowd can’t No Award puppy nominations without making their agenda so obvious even Arthur Chu would notice.

Guest
SJW75126
9 months 2 days ago

Well – probably one. And that’s correct. You get someone on the ballot. That’s a good thing.

Guest
Stacey
9 months 2 days ago

It’s not the voting system where changes were proposed, the voting system would stay exactly the same. It’s the *nomination* system that they want to change.

Guest
Wild Ape
9 months 2 days ago

Good point David.

Guest
Book_Girl
9 months 4 days ago

I am not walking away. I am more committed to destroying the SJW factions than ever before. They marshaled their forces and only came up with about 3,000 or so. Hell, give us 2 or 3 more years and I think we can double that number, if not triple it. This isn’t a one year battle. This is a war, and it will takes years. No surrender, no retreat and NO PRISONERS.

See you guys in the foxhole.

Guest
lin
9 months 3 days ago

What you have to remember, though, is that all the SJWs vote for No Award, whereas the Puppies split their vote among however many nominees. So you could still lose even if you outnumber them by 2 or 3 times.

Guest
Nathan
9 months 1 day ago

Not under Instant Run-Off voting. If all the Puppies rank Puppy nominations above No Award, and all the SJWs put No Award over all Puppy nominations, then it’s a straight fight over which side has the greater numbers.

Guest
Micah
8 months 29 days ago

I’m so glad that Sad Puppies are fighting hard for everyone to vote independently and individually based on their own personal beliefs of merit rather than for some sort of tribal political goal. /sarcasm

Guest
Doug Loss
8 months 29 days ago

So you ignore everything the SPs said and did, and just go with what you’ve been told by the CHORFs, eh? Gotcha.

Guest
Patrick Chester
8 months 28 days ago

Thinking outside the hive mind is haaaard, Doug. 😉

Guest
Bewildered
8 months 28 days ago

I read a lot but I’ve almost no clue what the Hugos are. Similarly the whole Sad Puppies v Chorf thing really isn’t on my radar. Burning the award ceremony out of spite seems counterproductive to me – shouldn’t it be a case of may the best book etc win? If it turns political then either the Hugos die or it becomes a war and folk have to join a side. I think I’d be more puppy than chorf but I’d much rather work it out myself.

Guest
Nighthawk
8 months 27 days ago

Well, you’ve got a whole year to figure it out. And I don’t think you are a CHORF or you would already be aware of that.

Guest
Matthew
9 months 4 days ago

“I can’t wait to see what new exciting ways they come up with to slander anyone who disagrees with them next year”

They won’t. We’re talking about people who haven’t had a new idea since 1960, after all.

Guest
Karl Peterson
9 months 4 days ago

SPOILER ALERT: We’ll be called racist, homophobic, misogynists who want to keep minorities out of Science Fiction!

Guest
Patrick Chester
9 months 3 days ago

Who “crowded the ballots” with “right-wingers” and so on.
(Or some fool on Twitter claimed. RT’d it, and he kind of handwaved by pointing and shrieking at John C Wright as “proof”.)

Guest
Bob in Houston
9 months 4 days ago

Vox should change his name to “No Award” and then when the SJWs do it again, he can go striding down the aisle and collect all his Rockets!

Guest
roy in nipomo
9 months 3 days ago

No, no. He should change it to Noah Ward, just to add confusion.

Guest
viktor
9 months 3 days ago

David Gerrold has registered Noah Ward already in some official way.

Guest
TallDave
9 months 1 day ago

So… now we know who the real winner was.

Guest
perlhaqr
9 months 4 days ago

Strong work, Trufen. *headshake*

Guest
TallDave
9 months 4 days ago

Great point about Three Body Problem. I voted for it, along with much of the the SP slate, and I bet a lot of SP did. Also for GOTG, which was great fun.

So… reactionary much, CHORFs? Lawl.

And even if it may not be obvious for a few decades that The Golden Age series is the preeminent literary work of our time, Wright being deliberately frozen out of the Hugos just further undercuts the awards’ sagging credibility. “One Bright Star to Guide Them” won that category and we all know it… and we can even say it’s “the story receiving the most 1st place Hugo votes in 2015” and the CHORFs can’t stop us 🙂

Guest
Robin Munn
9 months 3 days ago

I’m actually going to go a step further. Rather than to consider it “the story receiving the most 1st place Hugo votes in 2015″, I’m just going to call it “the story that won the Hugo award in 2015”. Because the “No Award” vote, being based on nothing but politics rather than story vote, was illegitimate and should be disregarded. The Hugo committee might disagree with me (they won’t actually give Wright the rocket ship he earned), but they’ve forfeited the right to award the Hugo anyway by accepting this illegitimate result.

So the real Hugo winners of 2015 were:

Best Novel: The Three Body Problem, by Cixin Liu
Best Novella: “Flow”, by Arlan Andrews, Sr.
Best Novelette: “The Day the World Turned Upside Down”, by Thomas Olde Heuvelt
Best Short Story: “Totaled”, by Kary English
Best Related Work: “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF”, by Ken Burnside
Best Graphic Story: Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal, written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form: Guardians of the Galaxy, written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form: Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”, ” written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett
Best Editor, Short Form: Mike Resnick
Best Editor, Long Form: Toni Weisskopf
Best Professional Artist: Julie Dillon
Best Semiprozine: Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant
Best Fanzine: Journey Planet, edited by James Bacon, Christopher J Garcia, Colin Harris, Alissa McKersie, and Helen J. Montgomery
Best Fancast: Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
Best Fan Writer: Laura J. Mixon
Best Fan Artist: Elizabeth Leggett
The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer: Wesley Chu

Congratulations to Arlan Andrews, Sr., Kary English, Ken Burnside, Mike Resnick, and Toni Weisskopf on winning a Hugo Award!

Guest
Richard Brandt
9 months 3 days ago

Well, I’m sure you would have agreed with anyone claiming that all the Sad Puppy nominations should have been ruled ineligible because of the nominators’ politics.

Guest
Robin Munn
9 months 2 days ago

Richard,

What part of what I wrote makes you say that? I said that the votes based purely on politics rather on story quality were illegitimate, and therefore should be thrown out. Anyone claiming that “all the Sad Puppy nominations should have been ruled ineligible because of the nominators’ politics” would be basing their claim on politics rather than story quality, so their claim is also illegitimate.

Guest
TallDave
9 months 3 days ago

Nicely done.

Guest
TallDave
9 months 3 days ago

One quibble though — I think “One Bright Star To Guide Them” actually wins over “Flow” because first-place votes is the only criteria evaluated in the first round (if I am understanding the system correctly).

Guest
Craig(2)
9 months 2 days ago

TallDave – You are not. All rounds play out to the end (Round 1, passes 1 through 3 last year, Toni was first, but lost in round 4 and eventually slid to I think 4th place.

Guest
Robin Munn
9 months 2 days ago

And based on that, I have to retract one thing I said. I said earlier that Wright had earned a Hugo, but based on the official results, “Flow” took second place and “One Bright Star” took third. So based on the real results (throwing out the illegitimate “No Award” results), I had “Flow” rather than “One Bright Star” winning, and I can’t actually say that Wright earned a Hugo award this year.

Now, I haven’t actually taken the raw ballot data and re-run the math based on throwing out all the “No Award” votes. It’s possible that throwing them out at the beginning rather than at the end would have put “One Bright Star” above “Flow”, but I haven’t done the math. My list above was based on taking the officially-announced results, and giving the Hugo to the official “second place” winner in any category where “No Award” took first. An overly-simplistic method, I know, but I thought it would come out to the same results as doing the math.

If someone does the math and “One Bright Star” really does win out over “Flow” if you discard the “No Award” votes, please let me know and I’ll post a corrected list.

BTW, when I say “discard the “No Award” votes”, I mean that the following ballot:

1) No Award
2) Story A
3) Story B
4) Story C
5) Story D
6) Story E

Would instead be counted as:

1) Story A
2) Story B
3) Story C
4) Story D
5) Story E

I don’t mean that the ballot would not be counted entirely. The only ballots that would not be counted at all would be any ballots with “No Award” votes as #1 and no second (or third, etc) choices listed at all. (And even then, they would only fail to count in that one category.)

Guest
TallDave
9 months 1 day ago

it’s hard to tell for sure without the algorithm itself, and it depends what question you’re trying to answer, but if you throw out NO AWARD, “One Bright Star” wins the first round and the Hugo.

Remember, the SJWs wanted to be absolutely sure Wright did not win. So some voted NO AWARD and nothing else, others voted NO AWARD first and then other things, but not things by Wright.

But remember, the point of the exercise is to ask who would have won the first round if NO AWARD had not won the first round. And the answer seems obviously to be “One Bright Star.”

Guest
TallDave
9 months 1 day ago

Craig — I’m not sure you followed. Round 1 ends with the first count.

Guest
Craig(2)
9 months 1 day ago

TallDave. Not under the rules as written; check Best Editor, 2014.

Guest
TallDave
9 months 1 day ago

Then why is only one pass listed for the first round?

Guest
TallDave
9 months 1 day ago

Actually I think I can see their logic now (overanalysis is what happens when you’re a programmer) — they appear to end a round when (logically enough) an entry has more than half the preference votes, So “One Bright Star” wins the first pass for Position 1… but then it’s hard to say what happens because we don’t know what else the NO AWARD #1 ballots we threw out had. If you keep those ballots but just toss out NO AWARD then it looks like “Flow” wins.

Guest
Stacey
9 months 2 days ago

While I don’t like what many of the fans did when they voted No Award, what they did was *within the rules*. In fact, voting No Award is *provided for* in the rules, and it is required to be on the ballot for each category.

Hell, there were people calling for disregarding the nominations as done, because they “violated the spirit of the rules” and were “not ethical” or “morally illegal”. Nope, can’t do that either. The nominations were done within the rules.

In addition, there is absolutely no way to tell if people actually read the stories and just didn’t like them, or if they voted that way to make a political statement.

If you *really* want to change things, propose a change that the provisions that require No Award be listed for each category be removed from the WSFS Constitution.

Guest
FYTW
9 months 2 days ago

“In addition, there is absolutely no way to tell if people actually read the stories and just didn’t like them, or if they voted that way to make a political statement.”

Actually, there kind of is. Through the magic of data analysis you can arrive at a pretty good approximation of the number of No Award slate voters.

Given some of the ridiculously godawful dreck that’s won Hugo awards in the past, and applying Occam’s Razor, we can conclude that anybody claiming to have voted a No Award slate because nothing on the ballot was Hugo-worthy is simply lying out their ass.

Guest
Falling
9 months 1 day ago

That rather boldly assumes in past years the voters have intentionally voted for works that they knew were dreck. However, there seems to be a fundamental difference in taste. There is, at the core, a disagreement about what makes a good sci fi book. Once you add that in, then a very simple explanation follows for a lot of votes. Past wins appealed to their taste, and did not to Puppies (Things like AofJustice, Redshirts, Among Others, Graveyard Book?) Whereas the slate may have appealed to the Puppies, but not to the rest.

It actually is impossible to guess intentions even with statistical analysis. It could be due to believing the nominees lacked quality, or a repudiation of slate tactics, or even for this culture war reason, all of the above or a mix of some and not the others, or for reasons entirely separate. Unless you ask people the ‘why’, you are more or less engaging in speculative fiction when you assign

Guest
FYTW
9 months 21 hours ago

“That rather boldly assumes in past years the voters have intentionally voted for works that they knew were dreck.”

No such assumption is necessary. For example, as James May points out downthread, the usual suspects are currently making a great deal of noise about how the No Awards are an important victory, not for merit or for art, but for diversity. That’s a fairly unambiguous admission that quality is, at best, a second-order consideration for these people.

If:

(1) You all but admit that your principal voting criterion is something other than whether nominated work is actually any good (e.g., whether the work strokes your social-justice erogenous zones); and,

(2) The historical voting results bear this out (e.g., a decade or more of forgettable message-fic taking home Hugos); and,

(3) In the one year that a significant number of nominees fail to meet your principal voting criterion, you turn around and try to claim you No Awarded them because they just weren’t good enough…

Well, sorry, but I didn’t just fall off the back of the turnip truck. You are of course free to believe what you like, and if you’d prefer to think that this is merely a disagreement over taste, that’s your business. I will maintain, though, that the most straightforward and plausible explanation (again, Occam’s Razor) is exactly what I said before: people who voted a No Award slate and are now trying to claim that nothing on the ballot was of Hugo quality are simply lying out their asses, in much the same way that they lie about nearly everything else (e.g., our host being a racist misogynist shitlord wife-beater or whatever; I’ve been to busy to keep up with the Slander Of The Week lately).

Guest
James May
8 months 29 days ago

You are wrong, Falling. There is a massive culture-wide proof and in quotes books are being recommended based on nothing more than race and sex. Secondly, look at what wins in the non-fiction and magazine categories. The more you engage in incitement against men and whites and promote diversity, the better you do. This is a gender feminist third wave cult endemically hostile to straight white men, not a culture of fans devoted to artistry. Are most WorldCon voters naive flak catchers who mean well? Probably. That doesn’t magically change hate speech to love.

Guest
Falling
9 months 1 day ago

Sorry for the double post, but I guess you can’t edit in an additional thought.

For instance, regarding Toni for the editor category, I have seen multiple complaints that Toni did not provide very much material for them to judge. If it was supposed to be a life time award, that would be no problem. But as it is supposed to be for that calendar year, that provides a bit of bind for those voters, and the ones I have seen talking about it, felt like they had insufficient evidence and suggested that Baen provide a better packet in the future.

Guest
JackWylder
9 months 1 day ago

You CAN edit- for 5minutes after posting- but you have to hit refresh…

Guest
TallDave
9 months 1 day ago

Stacey — sure, absolutely no way, except for all the people who said publicly they weren’t going to read the stories, and urged other people not to read the stories, and said were going to vote NO AWARD because the nominees were horrible people, and urged other people to vote NO AWARD because the nominees were horrible people. and cheered loudly when NO AWARD won, and yelled at the nominee’s wives, and called the nominees a bunch of horrible things in the MSM, which had to issue retractions.

Guest
Taysha
9 months 1 day ago

Sure, it was in the rules. Just like slating has been done (yet they’ve screamed like harridans about it). Voting in block for No Award and buying memberships might be stretching the rules a bit.
Cheering when No Award wins, being told only cheering was acceptable is the lowest they could reach.
There is a way to tell, because many of them have proudly declared they didn’t read them. Jim Butcher, under no award? Just from a general survey, at least 3/4th of readers enjoy him. This is a fan award, after all.

Guest
Dianna
9 months 4 days ago

I hope I can actually comment.

If nothing else, Sad Puppies informed me that I can actually vote on the Hugos. Maybe next year, we can be even more influential, and bury the nonsense about “rightfans having rightfun” versus “Wrongfans having Wrongfun.”

It was great to read the Hugo nominees and actually enjoy them. “Three Body Problem” was a terrific book, and I enjoyed it thoroughly, I’m glad it won, though I voted for something else.

In addition, I had a tee-shirt made up by Cafepress, reading, “I am a Wrong Fan having Wrong Fun.” I will wear it proudly.

Guest
Daddy Warpig
9 months 4 days ago

The Hugo (No) Awards were the biggest public temper tantrum I’ve ever seen.

The CHORFs were spiteful, vulgar, and utterly without class.

Guest
anonme
9 months 3 days ago

And they were also super predictable.

Guest
Karim
9 months 3 days ago

Hey,

You know what’s spiteful, vulgar, and utterly without class? Still insisting on calling them CHORFs.

Guest
Greg
9 months 3 days ago

No, it’s ACCURATE. If they don’t want the label, they’re free to stop acting like that at any time.

Guest
Dr. Mauser
9 months 3 days ago

Hey, if the foo shits, wear it.

Guest
viktor
9 months 3 days ago

Please provide a list of acceptable terms. Spite-less, high-minded, classy ones. Start with “racist neo-Nazi” perhaps.

Guest
Ygolonac
9 months 1 day ago

I’d say “Butt-Sniffing Pugs”, but 1) the pugs shouldn’t be tarred with that brush, and 2) there’s already a game by that name. (Still in development, IIRC.)

Guest
James May
9 months 1 day ago

I agree. Mentally crippled flak catchers for radical feminists is more accurate.

Guest
James May
8 months 29 days ago

No matter how well-meaning, exactly how does one insult a thing which operates like a supremacist racial cult?

Guest
James May
9 months 6 hours ago

And the Hugo Award for Racial Incitement goes to…

… the Hugo Awards.

Congratulations you flak catching pricks.

Guest
Aimee Morgan
9 months 4 days ago

I plan to schedule my work next summer so that I am in KC for the next WorldCon.

Guest
Greg
9 months 2 days ago

For what It’s worth. Aimee, I appreciate what you said over at the Great Bearded One’s blog. His response was utterly out of line, but when I tried to call him on it I got banned.

Guest
Josh
9 months 3 days ago

Gerrold telling people it was inappropriate to boo no award but appropriate to cheer it is another example of “wrong fans having wrong fun.” I was a little annoyed that some of the people who were in the room actually listened to him and quit booing. Something tells me that if Vox Day had won editor long form Gerrold wouldn’t have made an announcement about it being inappropriate to boo him.

Guest
Bruce
9 months 3 days ago

You have to project from the diaphragm. I run one of the events at a well-known national pistol match, and when my check-in guy has a no-show, he hands me the competitor number. I called a competitor down from the competitor parking lot last year, and one from the vendor’s area this year. And there are three other match events being run on the ranges next to mine.

Tell me not to boo? Heh heh heh. I’ll have to bring earplugs for those around me if I make it to KC…

Guest
Hansen
9 months 3 days ago

Yes, I remember when media claimed it was all about “Right-Wing Trolls Hijack SciFi Oscars”. Because they hated that the Award had moved forward and more inclusive to diversity.

Even after the Hugos are over, media still continue to spread the same messages:

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/won-science-fictions-hugo-awards-matters/

“Early this year, that shift sparked a backlash: a campaign, organized by three white, male authors, that resulted in a final Hugo ballot dominated by mostly white, mostly male nominees.

After the Puppies released their slates in February, recommending finalists in 15 of the Hugos’ 16 categories (plus the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer), the balloting had become a referendum on the future of the genre. Would sci-fi focus, as it has for much of its history, largely on brave white male engineers with ray guns fighting either a) hideous aliens or b) hideous governments who don’t want them to mine asteroids in space? Or would it continue its embrace of a broader sci-fi: stories about non-traditionally gendered explorers and post-singularity, post-ethnic characters who are sometimes not men and often even have feelings?”

I must say the media has shown some extreme racial fixation these months, repeating the words “white males” over and over.

One has to wonder how Hayden and others have gotten such influence the last couple of decades. It can probably be explained as power abuse, conscious or not. There has been and are a lot of people in the business with a lot of power and influence, but they don’t abuse it. It takes a certain kind of personality to use their influence in ways their predecessors would condemn. If the mayor in a small town becomes the richest guy in town because he puts some of the tax money in his own pockets, unlike those who have been mayors before him, his wealth can be explained by him being immoral and not following the rules, written and unwritten. What has happened the recent years can probably be explained as the “wrong people” being at the wrong place, seeing the genre as a way to spread propaganda instead of nurturing it and let it spread in new directions.

Guest
Zsuzsa
9 months 3 days ago

“Would sci-fi focus, as it has for much of its history, largely on brave white male engineers with ray guns fighting either a) hideous aliens or b) hideous governments who don’t want them to mine asteroids in space?”

Ah, Straw Sci-Fi history. I hear that Straw Larry has been writing that stuff since the 50s (the 1750s that is). Because clearly the only choice is that or alleged “stories” about “non-traditionally gendered explorers and post-singularity, post-ethnic characters” (what the heck is a “post-singularity” character anyway?) talking about their feelings.

I can’t find it at the moment, but I recall a post from someone (John C. Wright, maybe?) on how the old sci-fi covers were nothing but helpless damsels being menaced by evil monsters while waiting for the men to save them. The post got funnier and funnier as he searched for a cover where the damsel didn’t have a gun…or a sword….or a flamethrower…hey, ray guns still count as guns…

Guest
Hansen
9 months 3 days ago

I really hate the way the article turns the whole thing is turned into the opposite of what it is really about. It make it sound like the puppies want to restrict the genre and only considers a very tiny handful of topics worthy to write about, while the other side wish to expand it to write about other topics as well. That is of course a big lie.

Today’s science fiction and fantasy has become more limited because it has been more and more restricted to just a handful of real world topics, disguised as speculative fiction, dealing with the same social messages over and over again. The campaign was about rewarding actual merit, but also about cutting the chains that has made the genre more boring and less interesting, and allowing other kinds of stories and ideas to flourish the way they used to do.

When speaking about diversity, what the SJWs really mean is more writers “of color”, as they put it, more females writers, more non-western writers, more gay and lesbian writers. Not more diversity in the genre itself. On the contrary, when rewarding the same kind of politically correct stories repeatedly, what we see is less and less diversity. Not to mention that it feels boring when the messages are too obvious. Even as a kid reading comics for children I instinctly disliked such stories.

Guest
Sigivald
9 months 3 days ago

I don’t expect Wired to write competently about technology.

I certainly wouldn’t expect them to get SF fandom politics correct, even if they tried, which I’m not sure they did.

Guest
Rolf
8 months 24 days ago

No, Wired didn’t try. I was a Rabid Puppy nominee for Campbell. I talked to Wallace for a while at Sasquan, explained the puppy’s side of it, talked about my book and how I got into it all, etc. She used absolutely none of it. Not a quote, not a reference, not a word. Indeed, many of the things she said flatly contradicted what she heard from me. Perhaps the fact that I had my own recorder going as well so she couldn’t out-of-context sound-bite me to push her own agenda had something to do with it. Or maybe it didn’t. Shrug. It’s the media. They get the facts wrong even when they are NOT trying to.

Guest
Doug Loss
8 months 24 days ago

Oh Rolf, do you really think that what passes for the journalistic media today EVER try to get the facts right? Sorry; the “narrative” is all. As the New York Times motto goes: “All the news that fits [our biases], we print.”

Guest
James May
9 months 5 hours ago

We’re against this affirmative action movement, not only because of it’s continually defamatory commentary about whites and men, but because it pushes unworthy work and poisons the well about whether the work is unworthy in the first place.

Take the Nebula winning “Jackalope Wives” by Ursula Vernon. I like that sort of story… when Walter Miller did “You Trifilin’ Skunk” 60 years ago. The social justice crusaders went all nuts over it though it was common urban fantasy in Unknown and other places in the ’40s an ’50s. Did the fem crusaders like it because Vernon’s a woman? Not her fault. Did they like it because someone did women wrong? Miller did that too. Did Vernon intend that? The truth is we don’t know. We can make shrewd guesses as to affirmative action darlings simply by the feminist flood of recommendations by skin and sex, but we can’t know for sure. The well’s been poisoned by these harpies and everything’s suspect now, even stories which may not deserve it. There’s certainly nothing innovative about “Jackalope Wives.” It’s also typical Bloch and Lieber territory from long ago.

None of that’s my fault. I’m just reading this feminist commitment to diversity, which is without a doubt an interchangeable term for affirmative action. There’s no way anyone deserves to be called “anti-diversity,” a “racist” or “misogynist” for reading clear as day comments from these morons or their conformist and sometimes shitty stories.

Guest
James May
9 months 5 hours ago

What I meant was you often can’t tell a feminist agenda just from the story (sometimes it’s obvious). For example, Alyssa Wong’s Nebula nominated “The Fisher Queen” is classic “rape culture” 101; she says so on her site, along with the usual colonialist bullshit. Also, since that story was plucked from a writing workshop, it’s pretty clear being gay, Asian and a woman is frosting on the cake.

So I just checked Vernon’s Twitter feed. Unfortunately she’s banging away with ever super-crusader we know. Nebula win confirmed.

Guest
Hansen
9 months 3 days ago

And since it for some reason seems impossible to edit my latest post even before five minutes have passed:

“What the heck is a “post-singularity” character anyway?”

If I should guess, I would say it is a character living in a future where all the gender and racial barriers (and all other barriers) have finally been tore down. Possibly a racial mixed androgynous hermaphrodite missing secondary sex characteristics and from a classless society or something.

Guest
El Bearsidente
9 months 3 days ago

But that universe already exists. It’s called Warhammer 40,000. Men and women fight on equal terms and get killed by orks, heretics, daemons, tau, eldar, dark eldar, necrons, tyranids and the inquisition on equal terms.

But 40k is probably sexist, too, because women can’t be Space Marines and the screaming lunatics in the SWJ camp would quickly go nuts and completely ignore awesome, strong female characters like Patience Kys, Amberley Vail and Regina Kasteen.

Guest
Toastrider
9 months 3 days ago

While the Sisters of Battle get consistently jobbed by GW in the game mechanics, the novels invariably depict them as a powerful, dangerous force against the enemies of the Imperium.

Guest
Peter O
9 months 3 days ago

Sandy Mitchel (Ciaphas Cain, Hero of the Imperium!) apparently has a novel coming out with Baen next year under his real name of Alex Stewart.

I also had the NightLords Omnibus as one of my nominees for best novel this spring.

Guest
Robin Munn
9 months 3 days ago

That’s fantastic news! I generally don’t want to give Games Workshop a dime of my money given how abysmally they’ve treated their fans in the past, but I make an exception for the Caiaphas Cain novels. They’re so fantastic that getting the author his royalties is worth whatever share of the cash gets into GW’s pockets from my purchase. (Or future purchase, I should say: my book budget is so tight that my Caiaphas Cain reading so far as been from books borrowed from friends. But Alex Stewart is going to get some cash from me at some point in the future. And if he’s got a novel coming out from Baen, well, he’s probably going to get even more cash from me, because I might just buy his new novel sight unseen.)

Guest
Sigivald
9 months 3 days ago

I assume they mean “singularity” in the Stross sense, of “after everything is so different none of the assumptions we have are valid”, not especially post-gender.

(See Accelerando for his prototypical use; note that the post-singularity characters still have gender, at least the ones that are human enough to be presented as comprehensible and relevant.

I suspect one might apply the term to a Banksian post-scarcity economy, too.

Now, I don’t know what “post-singularity” is singled out as especially relevant or interesting…)

Guest
TimP
9 months 3 days ago

> “non-traditionally gendered explorers and post-singularity, post-ethnic characters” (what the heck is a “post-singularity” character anyway?)

Normally in a SF context “singularity” refers to a hypothetical future where humans merge with machines, in which case the most recent “post-singularity, post-ethnic character” I remember reading would be TX45D62a0-9555-11e3-bfa7-0002a5d5c51b from Steve Rzasa’s Turncoat. He/it is even “non-traditionally gendered”.

Guest
Sjonnar
9 months 3 days ago

“what the heck is a “post-singularity” character anyway?”

A character after he’s fallen into a black hole.

Guest
Jordan S. Basssior
9 months 13 hours ago

Indeed, science fiction — going all the way back to Edgar Rice Burroughs in 1912 — was notable for its tendency to have heroines who didn’t just sit around waiting to be rescued, but actively fought the bad guys themselves. They MIGHT need rescue at some point, but they were neither passive, cowardly nor weak.

The CHORF’s are entirely ignorant of the history of their own claimed field. It would be like me claiming to understand US political history and being unaware that the Democrats had been pro-slavery.

Guest
perlhaqr
9 months 3 days ago

Good lord that article was terrible.

Given this kind of incendiary rhetoric, it’s possible that the Sad Puppies were at best naïve when they let Beale piggyback on their idea. At worst, they have been accused of providing a politely moderate front for a shit-stirring provocateur. Certainly, both Correia and Torgersen have worked hard to distinguish themselves from Beale.

What on earth is it that the author thinks they could have done?

“Hey, Beale! We INTERNET FORBID YOU from using a campaign name with the word ‘puppy’ in it!”

I’m sure that would have worked well…

Guest
Wendy S, Delmater
9 months 3 days ago

Trademarks are good things. We need them next time.

Guest
Patrick Chester
9 months 3 days ago

Exactly when did anyone have the power to “let” Beale do anything?!

Okay, maybe his Mom did when he was a boy, but still….

Guest
TomT
9 months 3 days ago

Beale turned into Vox Day after he was attacked for bad think by this very crowd. No wonder he is so caustic.

Guest
Patrick Chester
9 months 3 days ago

So it’s like a supervillain origin story? 😉

Guest
Hansen
9 months 3 days ago

It may be terrible, but it is articles like that, which the media keeps pouring out, who in a large degree are responsible for the actions from all the useful idiots interfering.

The articles reach out to millions, and just a very, very few of these readers care about doing some research themselves. Instead they think that somebody should learn these hateful white male extremists who tries to tear down an award celebrating diversity and progress a lesson.

If only a few of them decide to vote for themselves to support a good cause and fight against trolls and white saboteurs, despite not having read any of the works, that’s enough to give a whole category a No Award, or make sure inferior works win in competition with better works.

Without media’s generous assistance, who was quick to choose sides and spread disinformation, it is possible we would have seen a totally different outcome.

Guest
Synova
8 months 27 days ago

I thought the article as a whole was very good. Note that she does say “accused of” there, which isn’t exactly an endorsement of the charge.

Guest
King of Zeroes
9 months 3 days ago

I’m looking forward to next year. Wordlcon memberships last for three years, right? So at the very least, for those three years, you guys need to keep gumming up the works.

Forcing them to all hivemind together and No Award deserving, talented authors, erasing entire categories, and spitting on fans and writers who don’t toe the party line.

This one year might have done some real damage, but if you can force them to change the rules, or break half their awards for a few years, the Hugo’s will go up in flames. They’ll burn it all down over and over again, until people just stop coming back.

Hell, a year from now I’ll likely still be in GamerGate. Ha ha.

You Puppies have been at this way longer than us Gators. You have to put on a good show. Teach us young’uns how it’s done. Between the Sad Puppies and GamerGate, nerd culture is finally starting to push back against politically driven invaders.

Now this may just be me, but I’d hope you guys will stick around. See this through till the very end.

Guest
BassmanCO
9 months 3 days ago

Just two years, but I intend to use that membership to the fullest.

Guest
Beolach
9 months 1 day ago

Technically, it is 3 years for nominations, but it’s not current + 2 future; it’s previous + current + next.

So if you purchase a membership for Worldcon 2017 in Helsinki, you will also be eligible to nominate for the Hugos in 2016 & 2018. But only nominate, not vote on the final ballot – to vote on the final ballot you need a membership at that year’s Worldcon.

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

During the nomination period ballots may be cast by members of the current and following years’ Worldcons (as of January 31) and members from the previous year’s Worldcon.

After the nomination period closes, only members of the current Worldcon are eligible to vote on the final ballot.

Guest
perlhaqr
9 months 1 day ago

I thought it might be amusing to see what they do if the “Puppy Slate” next year was, like, Scalzi’s suggestions. Would they No Award all of those, too, just because we’d suggested them? Would all of the people who got the nominations refuse them?

I’d say it would be hilarious to force cognitive dissonance… but that presumes the existence of cognition to start with… *sigh*

Guest
Leah
9 months 1 day ago

that gives me a terrible yet awesome idea. what if we put their favorites on the suggestion list, I mean “slate” lets nominate Scalzi, Jemisin etc – and see them trying to figure out if they should vote for their favorite, or vote no award form them because puppies suggested their work. now THAT would be hilarious 😀

Guest
Nathan
9 months 1 day ago

Would, say, a D&D manual or a Magic the Gathering expansion count as a related work? I think this is possible to do while still nominating cool stuff that wouldn’t ordinarily get a Hugo because the award is stuck in the 60s.

Guest
Khazlek
8 months 19 days ago

I see no reason why a D&D manual couldn’t be a related work. A filk album was a couple years ago. Actually, the committee doesn’t get a say; the voters do. If you get enough people to nominate it, the committee only cares when it was published in English and a few other fiddly details.

Guest
Frank Probst
9 months 3 days ago

The link to the Cedar Sanderson site is the first time I’ve actually seen a close-up of the asterisk. Watching the Livestream, it seemed like a silly joke: “Look! If you put a bunch of exclamation points together, they look like an asterisk!” with an obvious double meaning about this being an odd year (to put it mildly). I chalked it up as a joke that missed the mark. It wasn’t the only joke that missed the mark, but there were a lot of genuinely funny jokes, too, so I thought it was just the typical win-some-lose-some nature of an awards show.

Seeing one up close, it strikes me as yet another slap in the face to the people who were No Awarded. It probably wasn’t intended that way–I’m guessing nobody thought this through and considered what it would feel like to get No Awarded and then walk away with this as your booby prize–but think about how it looks: You come to an awards ceremony where something you created has been nominated for a major award. Not only do you lose, but lose with the insult (regardless of its merit) that your work was unworthy of the award in the first place. While you’re dealing with that gut-punch, you get hit with the fact that a lot of people are actually applauding what just happened to you. And then just to round it all off, you get this Official Worldcon 2015 Asterisk, 2015 Hugo Award Nominee medallion.

I think that reasonable people can disagree about nomination slates or the use of No Award. I fail to see how anyone can think it’s okay to applaud–again and again–when a whole group of people get kicked in the teeth. It was probably too late to decide not to hand out the medallions at that point, but boy does it look horrible.

Guest
David, internet troll
9 months 3 days ago

Larry, you’re just trying to spin the fact that you did this whole thing because you’re mad that you never won a Hugo.

Just kidding! Just kidding! Please put the testubou away.

David

Guest
Frank Probst
9 months 3 days ago

“…an editor cursing at probably the meekest, politest author I know…”

I think this really needs to be called out by name. I’m assuming the editor is Patrick Nielsen Hayden from Tor, and the author is L Jagi Lamplighter, who is a Tor writer and John C Wright’s wife. Here is her description of the exchange, per her post on John C Wright’s blog:

BEGIN QUOTE

First, I think John has made it sound a bit worse than it was…but this is not his fault. I did not repeat to him all of what PNH said because I did not him to get upset during the reception. (I was afraid he would be very angry if he knew someone had sworn at his wife.)

Mr, Nielsen Hayden did shout, swear, and stomp off…but he was shouting and swearing at/about John, not at me personally and, actually, as far as swearing, he just used the phrase “tell him to shovel it up his…” You can figure out the rest.

This may not seem like swearing to many of you…many folks speak that way normally. But I do not. Nor do people normally speak that way to me.

END QUOTE

I really don’t know what to make of this. Nielsen Hayden and Lamplighter presumably have an established professional relationship, but he’s still trash-talking her husband, which is obviously outside the bounds of their professional relationship. Again, this is tasteless behavior at best.

Guest
Alex
9 months 3 days ago

Tasteless and unprofessional behavior? At Tor? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

Don’t worry, Jim Hines and the other feminists are calling for his firing just like they did with Tor editior Jim Frenkel over a similar incident at WisCon; because they’re not at all lying hypocrites.

Guest
perlhaqr
9 months 1 day ago

Oh, man. That was funny. 😀

Tell another one!

Guest
Steve Sundeen
9 months 3 days ago

The anti-puppies could have taken the high road. They had the media on their side. Instead, they behaved like classless a-holes and pushed many moderates into the “rabid” camp.

Guest
Leah
9 months 3 days ago

honestly? it was suggested before and you know what? I think its a good idea. we need our own awards. with none of the hugo politics, none of the bullshit. just fandom awards for books that majority of the fandom loved. let those insular cliques stay insular. its not like anyone outside of those cliques and long time librarians care about hugo’s much anymore anyways.

and I agree to you about Kari English, Totaled was amazing. it was one of those stories that make me sit back once I’m finished and just mule over it for a while, AND it was very well written. she and Annie Bellet are the best things I’m getting out of this whole mess, personally. (incidentally, it amuses me that they claim that Annie would have been on the nominations lists without the puppies. if not for the puppies, that crowd wouldn’t have even known about her)

Guest
rmhartman
9 months 3 days ago

Yes, it would be nice. And easy. However I do not thing we should settle for “separate, but equal”.

Guest
Adiabat
9 months 3 days ago

Then don’t settle for “separate, but equal”. Call the awards the “Science Fiction Achievement Awards”. It’s what the Hugo Awards were officially called before 1992, and calling the awards that would highlight that it’s a return to when the Award meant something.

You would be taking the award back to it’s roots, not creating a separate award. It’s also completely legal as the WFSF never gained protection for the name.

Guest
Linoge
9 months 3 days ago

Ooh. I like this idea and would actively support it :).

Guest
rmhartman
9 months 2 days ago

That is the only proposition for a new award that I could get behind. I kind of like the idea of taking the original name.

Guest
Stacey
9 months 2 days ago

They are still referred to as that in the WSFS Constitution, so they could very well try to defend the mark, even though the application for the mark was abandoned as of 1985.

Guest
Adiabat
9 months 1 day ago

I’m no expert on the Hugo’s (like most people I’ve largely ignored them for decades as haven’t seen them as a sign of good sci-fi) but it seems that they didn’t just abandon the application for the mark; the application failed and it was deemed ‘merely descriptive’. Here’s the text from Item F.3 (Calling the Hugo Award the Hugo Award) of the 1991 minutes of the WSFS:

“3.Brief Explanation
This motion would replace the remainder of the usage of “Science Fiction Achievement Award” in the WSFS Constitution with “Hugo Award”. WSFS’s awards are known universally by the name Hugo awards except in about half of the WSFS Constitution where the term “Science Fiction Achievement Award” is used. (The rest of the WSFS Constitution also calls them simply the “Hugo Awards”.) The term “Science Fiction Achievement Award” has neither current nor historical significance, nor have we been able to gain service mark protection for the term, as it is deemed to be merely descriptive.
4.Close Debate (by popular demand)
5.Vote on Main Motion: Many hands in favor (passes)”

There’s little value in the fact that they (accidently?) left in a single reference (in brackets) to the now unofficial name of the award that, in their own words, never had any significance to the WSFS.

Ultimately the aim of these awards would be twofold.

1. To reward quality Sci-Fi irrespective of the political view of the author.
And 2. To bring attention to the fact that the Worldcon version is based on politics and insider cliques.

Marketing it as a “back to its roots”, “genuine” and “original” version of the Hugo’s will do this. A failure by Worldcon to defend the original name of the award will simply reinforce this.

Guest
Joe
8 months 27 days ago

Great idea, Adiabat. But insurgencies don’t fight full-scale battles until the existing order is damaged and weakened enough, by which time the insurgents have also grown in numbers and experience.

Not there yet.

Guest
Wendy S. Delmater
9 months 3 days ago

Our own awards? Separate but equal, huh? I’ve read their blogs: it’s just what they want.

Only as a very last resort, I think.

Guest
SJW75126
9 months 3 days ago

Go for it. The convention would be tiny but nothing wrong with that.

Guest
Alex
9 months 3 days ago

Anybody know what the attendance was at LibertyCon this year?

Want to reconsider that almost-thought?

Guest
Dr. Mauser
9 months 3 days ago

LibertyCon was a lot of fun, but it’s a small, local con. The ChooChoo, let alone the entire city of Chattanooga couldn’t possibly handle a con big enough for that kind of award. Maybe Nashville….

(Seriously, the transportation infrastructure alone would be crushed by a con the size of WorldCon.)

Guest
Synova
9 months 2 days ago

There has been some talk of seeing if Liberty Con would host a juried (if that’s the right term) award for Human Wave. Which is a different sort of thing and while not political is certainly ideological. (By host I mean let us have the announcement there.)

It’s truly stupid though to recreate a popular fan award for every category when an award exists that supposedly represents the body of fandom.

Guest
Alex
9 months 1 day ago

3400 this year (granted, that was the smallest WorldCon since 2007, looks like). Chattanooga could handle that. Chattanooga Convention Center could put that in one corner with room for 3-4 more events of the same size.

Nashville hosts conferences in the tens of thousands of people. You can fit a small city in the Opryland Hotel alone.

Guest
Farley
8 months 29 days ago

The key factor in addition to a large enough convention center is enough hotel rooms in the immediate vicinity of same.

Guest
Doug Loss
9 months 1 day ago

It’s a good bit off-topic, but the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop symposium for 2016 is going to be in Chattanooga at the Choo Choo Feb. 28 – Mar. 2. It looks like it could be really interesting (it is decidedly not a fannish event).

Guest
Wild Ape
9 months 2 days ago

In the 70s comics had circulations in the hundreds of thousands even for mid level comics, now the best have circulations of maybe 50-80k. The industry is on life support and yet ComicCon has crowds of 250K and the attention of Hollywood and the media despite being in its near death circulation rate. Worldcon by comparison brags about 6K people voting for a Hugo. That is pathetic. Dota 2 is not the most popular game but its world championship held over 250K stream video viewers and was open in over 400 theaters. Worldcon had maybe 3K during its peak. Worldcon is a joke. I’ve seen high school graduations from small town Nowhere Special have better scripting and showmanship than the Hugos. I think a few brain dead morons could out do Worldcon.

Duck Dynasty on a duck hunt has more fashion sense than David Gerrold. I bet we could get Jason though and he would be actually funny and not snarky and mean spirited. Hell yeah we could put on a show! The trouble with Worldcon is it is a boring nerd fest. I think they channeled Lenin’s corpse when they came up with Worldcon. I’ve seen mime slap fights and chess play by play action with more entertainment quality than what I saw last Saturday at Worldcon.

Guest
jaed
9 months 3 days ago

we need our own awards. with none of the hugo politics, none of the bullshit. just fandom awards for books that majority of the fandom loved.

No good, for one simple reason: if such an award is successful, they’ll come after it as well. Maybe not the first year or the second, but we’ll lose that one too eventually. If they would leave it alone, it would be a solution. But they won’t leave it alone – not unless it’s so small it’s under the radar, and stays that small indefinitely. Tolerance is not in their world view and everything with any prestige must be absorbed.

Guest
Greg
9 months 3 days ago

As bad as the attacks have been on a relatively small and powerless group like the Puppies, the instant a formal organization springs up with identifiable names and persons in charge, the storm will really break. The CHORFs and SJWs will immediately organize like never before and start pushing publishers and authors to boycot the “bigot’s award”.

Guest
Farley
8 months 29 days ago

I am already boycotting Tor and their parent company, Macmillan. It’s easy enough to do, they haven’t been publishing very much worth buying for years.

Guest
Ricardo Lima / Neowarden #3260
9 months 3 days ago

Awareness growns their masks keep falling and we push back the narratives. We should never give up or give in. Their arrogance will be their fall. #GamerGate

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

So almost 30 bigots who should be under scrutiny by the Southern Poverty Law Center had to sit this one out on the sidelines. Hate speech is against the law outside the U.S., so keep flapping your gums.

Guest
Piedraman
9 months 3 days ago

What are you babbling about?

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

Racist feminist authors whose shit stories were sidelined forever.

Guest
Sigivald
9 months 3 days ago

Racist feminists…?

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

Oh, dear. Jim HInes is suffering from puppy related sadness because as an adult he still hasn’t figured out nobility or lack of it resides equally in all human beings, not just those he segregates by race and sex and then draws fake Jim Crow lines around based on data he made up out of his head.

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

You do realize I’m talking about the social justice crusaders, don’t you? Or are Glyer’s Liars on the prowl?

Guest
Robin Munn
9 months 3 days ago

I’m not one of the downvotes, but on first reading, I thought that your post was: 1) about the Sad Puppies (and undercounting them by a lot), and 2) not by you but by someone sock-puppeting your name.

Guest
Dr. Mauser
9 months 3 days ago

Poe’s Law in action. Have a remedial upding.

Guest
Draven
9 months 3 days ago

Because we all know how accurate SPLC is. And unbiased, too!

Guest
Brian
9 months 3 days ago

This is a serious Socially Transmitted reality resistant Disease problem rooted in a highly floating bubble so separated from reality it’s ready to explode and as with all STD’s the issue won’t be resolved till the viral media has run its course.
While waiting for sufficient numbers of the inculcated aging demented hosts and those that enable then feed from them to die off as their resources are diminished the only course of treatment will be to continue to address the symptoms.
The voting process in every election from local dog catcher to best author is going to have to be shoved down their pie holes until dried out throats can no longer elicit cheers of derision past the spittle flecked flaccid furred faces of male/female/ tri-gender pyro fox/others celebrating whatever injustice to only certain lives that matter and “No Award” announcements.
The only saving grace to the crucible of hard times ahead is the certain reality that the lotus eaters are facing a starvation diet.
That they take so many others with them that shouldn’t go while leaving a reduced legion of the infected is the unfortunate nature of the human beast.
Meanwhile I’ll probably skip the Hugo again and vote for Y’all with my wallet.
Cheers

Guest
Old NFO
9 months 3 days ago

It really sucks when you burn the house down to save it… And the truly sad part is you were EXACTLY correct Larry. The BS games have gone to a whole new level with not only the voting but the cheap shots with the asterisk and Hayden’s outburst at L Jagi Lamplighter. Hayden didn’t even have the balls to say it to John C. Wright’s face, he had to dump on his wife. Somebody should have bitch slapped him into the next county for that.

Guest
Brian Niemeier
9 months 3 days ago

You were right, Larry. It doesn’t get more conclusive than this.

I remember GRRM’s attempts to gaslight you with reasonable-sounding kafkatraps. I wouldn’t trust the man now if he said the sun rises in the east.

I also won’t be buying any more of his books, since SFF is about lying in service of the truth, and I have no desire to just be lied to.

Think I’ll have to allocate that portion of my book budget to you.

Guest
00zau
9 months 3 days ago

So what exactly are the new rules for the hugos gonna look like? A quickie google search doesn’t seem to turn up anything about them.

Guest
Frank Probst
9 months 3 days ago

The 4/6 rule means that you can only submit 4 nominees, and the ballot will have 6. EPH is difficult to explain, but basically, the more things you nominate, the less your vote counts. Both sets of rules passed, but they have to pass again next year in order to go into effect.

Guest
snelson134
9 months 3 days ago

We may have a little something to say about that.

Guest
SJW75126
9 months 3 days ago

Easy to explain. You have one vote and one point. Split it up or bullet vote. But if you split it up and what you voted for loses, you don’t lose that partial point. It gets re-allocated to the rest of your ballot.

Good luck and enjoy your nominating.

Guest
Greg
9 months 3 days ago

Did they ever make it clear is it 1 vote/point PER CATEGORY or 1 vote/point PERIOD?

Guest
Jeff Gauch
9 months 3 days ago

The gist of EPH is that you have one “point” in each category. The more works you nominate, the smaller fraction of your point each work gets. They add up all the points from all the nominating ballots and then drop the lowest scoring work (ties on scores are decided by number of ballots – if the lowest score is 1 point and one work has 2 1/2 points it will be dropped in favor of a work with 3 1/3 points). Anyone who nominated that work gets their point re-distributed over the remaining works they nominated. That process repeats until they have the finalist list.

I guess the idea is to prevent a slate from having all of its works nominated, leaving room for Tor to put their chosen one on the list so that all the SJW’s have something to put over No Award.

Guest
kathodus
9 months 3 days ago

How else would you prevent slates, Tor’s or Torgersen’s, Beale’s or Stalin’s, from dominating the Hugos? Do you genuinely believe that the vast majority of Hugo voters who no awarded the slated nominees (I am not one of them, though I did put no award first in a couple categories) are CHORFy SJWs? They re not. They are grumpy nerds who hate being manipulated.

Guest
Robin Munn
9 months 3 days ago

Do you genuinely believe that the vast majority of Hugo voters who no awarded the slated nominees … are CHORFy SJWs? They re not. They are grumpy nerds who hate being manipulated.

If so, they may be pretty angry soon when they realize how they were manipulated into devaluing the Hugo, by people who lied to them about the Sad Puppies and their motivation.

But I’m not confident that you’re correct. Rather, I think the vast majority who block-voted No Award were not manipulated into doing so, but were genuinely in lockstep with the CHORF agenda.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Guest
rmhartman
9 months 2 days ago

If they read the works and honestly believed non deserved the honor, then I have no problem with their voting “no award”. If, however, they did NOT read the works, and were voting “no award” in some misguided effort to “save the hugos” then they _were_ manipulated.

Guest
Mousekt
9 months 2 days ago

They are “fans” who refused to read a work and judge it for itself. In short, they are grumpy, easily manipulated nerds, who hate voting for books some else likes.

Guest
Greg
9 months 2 days ago

Hipsterism comes to SF/Fantasy…let the world tremble!

Guest
Reziac
9 months 3 days ago

So EPH does basically the same as the existing voting rules, except it uses fractions of a point instead of preferential votes.

Guest
rmhartman
9 months 2 days ago

Not quite. From what it sounds like the existing transferrable vote rules apply to the final voting only. This EPH scheme apply to the nominations.

Guest
howtovoteEPH
9 months 2 days ago

In context, EPH means that if you have competing slates, each slate will probably get something in. For the nomination rules as they currently exist, if you pit slates against each other, the larger slate takes all the spots and leaves the little slate sad.

It has some weird curlicues, but basically, it will pit the works on a slate against each other for elimination. If you have nice round numbers, you can get some very simple cases to work out. For example, if you have three voting blocs, sizes:

A: 300
B: 400
C: 500

With some random tiebreak voters thrown in proportionately, then the elimination sequence goes something like this:

2 A nominees (3 As left, 100 pts each)
1 B nominee (4 Bs left, 100 pts each)
*1 A nominee (2 As left, 150 pts each) *
1 B nominee (3 Bs left, 133 pts each)
2 C nominees (3 Cs left, 167 pts each)
1 B nominee (2 Bs left, 200 pts each)
1 A nominee (1 A left, 300 pts)
1 C nominee (2 Cs left, 250 pts each)

The elimination round marked with an asterisk is the only round in which nominees from two DIFFERENT slates compete with each other. By the EPH rules, the smaller slate will lose in this contest. That example gives 2 finalists each from B and C, and one from A. If we took this down to 4 finalists, the A candidate would be eliminated

Under EPH, you still should nominate as many works as possible, for two reasons. First, if you only nominate one, and that nominee is eliminated early on, your point for the category gets thrown away. Second, the number of ballots a nominee is used on decides which of two “competing” nominees is eliminated – so while you might only be giving each nominee one fifth of a point in determining which one goes up for elimination, you’re giving each one a full vote towards victory in the elimination contest.

Guest
Alan S
9 months 2 days ago

The entire issue is:
This only works as described against -actual- lockstep slate-voting for nominations.

A recommended reading list of 8 works is … a recommended reading list. No one can vote for all 8 works. Everyone -independently- picks their own ranking 1-8. (Or, at least, 1). I’d personally just pick the one book I considered Hugo-worthy from my own knowledge (list-or-not) and give it the full vote.

For the actual award voting, the puppies were flat out-voted. But for the -nominations-, … There only seems to be evidence of a relatively tiny “Slate Voting” block. But a hefty chunk of people who acted like sane adults with a reading list and then voted their own darn way – that was vaguely puppy-like.

So EPH seems like unnecessary, distracting, feel-good fluff, but whatever.

And in the meantime, it will probably put Toni on the ballot permanently. Because (A) every interaction puppies have had with Tor editors would make a good horror movie, and (B) puppies like her books.

Guest
Wendy S. Delmater
9 months 3 days ago

I actually made a point to sit down with the man who came up with E Pluribus Hugo. As I understand it, EPH would even get rid of block voting if it was for No Award.

Guest
Frank Probst
9 months 3 days ago

I don’t think this is correct. EPH applies only to the initial nominations process. It doesn’t apply to the final vote on the ballot, which is where No Award comes in.

Guest
kathodus
9 months 3 days ago

Absolutely incorrect. EPH is being considered for the nomination part, not voting for nominees.

Guest
NMM1AFan
9 months 3 days ago

Here’s the thing. I used to spend hundreds of dollars a year on SF books, back when good books were all over the place. Now, I hardly buy any new books, because most of them are just plain boring.
The Windup Girl – boring.
River of Gods – boring.
But I’m nobody, just a guy that used to buy a lot of SF books.

Regards,

Guest
Jeff Gauch
9 months 3 days ago

Try Baen, they’re rarely boring. Also, there’s a lot of good indie fiction at places like Amazon. There are still lots of good SF books, they’re just not getting put out by the big houses.

Guest
Sparky
9 months 3 days ago

There are a lot of people out there who think this SJW swill is the only material available. That’s why so few people read anymore.

But there’s a lot of good stuff out there. Larry here is a good start if you’re unfamiliar with what’s out there beyond the garbage dump of SJW-land.

Guest
SJW75126
9 months 3 days ago

I don’t know anyone that thinks SJW swil is only available. I don’t know anyone who thinks in terms of SJW swill.

Most people I know think the field is expanding rapidly and there are lots of exciting things out there.

Maybe you should find a different circle of readers?

Guest
Doctor Locketopus
9 months 3 days ago

Your hivelike monoculture is hardly something to brag about. Emphasis on the “cult”.

Guest
Akatsukami
9 months 3 days ago

You probably don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon, either.

Guest
Mousekt
9 months 2 days ago

I do find lots of interesting, exciting books. It’s just that when I try to get interesting ones awards, I get told by you that the only possible reason I could nominate that work was to spite Scalzi.

Apparently, spiting Scalzi is what made Jim Butcher a good author.

Guest
TomT
9 months 3 days ago

Look around there are a lot of good books out there some even still published by the big 6. More of them are being published by independents. Check out review sights and authors you likes sights to see what they talk about and recommend. Also if you have a kindle read the amazon reviews and download book samples of things that sound interesting.

Lots and lots of good books are still out there.

Guest
Samuel Marston
9 months 3 days ago

At this point, I think the Hugos are as good as dead.

Time to create a new award, where ANYONE regardless of social category can be honored for excellent work.

I don’t know if you drink, Larry, but I seriously owe you one. I’ll probably just dismantle my Gjallarhorn in your honor instead. 😀

Guest
Jeff Gauch
9 months 3 days ago

We do that and we just end up having to do this same fight over in 20 years when the Hugos die and the SJW’s come over to the new award.

Guest
Wes S.
9 months 3 days ago

You think it’ll take 20 years? After Saturday night’s Wellstone Funeral for the Hugos, *all* the rockets might as well come with an asterisk stamped on ’em from now on.

Guest

[…] (or, at the very least, how they represented them). Those who had put forth the slate saw it as a clear demonstration that the tolerance and inclusiveness of the progressive intelligentsia does n…, and that progressives are willing to punish women if they are in any way associated with a […]

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

K Tempest Bradford retweeted

Asymptotic Binary ‏@asymbina Aug 22
In awarding Laura J. Mixon Best Fan Writer, the Hugo voters have made it abundantly clear that white supremacy is alive and well in fandom.

KKK vs. KKK. Which side will emerge victorious? How would you even know who won?

Guest
SJW75126
9 months 3 days ago

Larry said:
“That’s how the Sad Puppies campaign started. You can see the results.”

Yes I do. You are still a liar. You have one more year to piss in the punch. After that, I am afraid the puppy party is over. And that’s no lie.

Guest
Doug Loss
9 months 3 days ago

Oh please. We’ve already established that every word you say is a lie, including “a” and “the”. You know we just keep you around for comic relief, right?

Guest
Sparky
9 months 3 days ago

One more year for what? Who’s going to make them stop? You do realize this isn’t ending, right? You’re going to have to do this again next year.

Oh what, didn’t think that far ahead? Yeah, you progs never do.

Guest
Patrick Chester
9 months 3 days ago

I like this tweet on the #HugoAwards #Sadpuppies hashes:
https://twitter.com/Warlord_Ralts/status/635975499475382272

@EscapeVelo @TorgoForever They think more convoluted Hugo voting rules are going to stop us? Bitch, we played 1E AD&D and *LIKED* it.

Guest
Achillea
9 months 3 days ago

1E AD&D? hell with that, I played Rolemaster.

Guest
James Ogle
9 months 3 days ago

SJW75126 trips over an imaginary dead tortoise and is stunned for three rounds.

Guest
Doctor Locketopus
9 months 3 days ago

They’re playing Pokemon: Collect the Whole Set of Grievances. The Puppies are playing Diplomacy.

Guest
Patrick Chester
9 months 2 days ago

I thought it was an SJW version of Bingo. Fill all the appropriate “diversity” squares and they’ll win a toaster.

Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
9 months 3 days ago

What, we only have one more year? Pray tell, Numbers, what’s going to change? Both Puppy camps are growing. And the resentment from the travesty of a ceremony is only going to get stronger.

Guest
Patrick Chester
9 months 3 days ago

Shh… he’s monologuing.

Guest
Alex
9 months 3 days ago

But isn’t he supposed to have a cat in his lap to pet instead of… ew.

Guest
Frank Probst
9 months 3 days ago

I don’t think it’ll play out that way. Kate Paulk is the point person on SP4, so everyone will wait to see what she does. Everyone who voted No Award this year is obviously acutely aware of the fact that the nominations process can be, for lack of a better word, “gamed”. I see it going one of two ways. Either Kate Paulk gets inundated with suggestions from the No Awards folks, which would basically neutralize SP4, or there will be one or more counter-slates that get organized, and the numbers are there to override SP4 by a large margin. I can also seeing it playing out either nasty (with the two groups screaming at each other on social media) or nice (with an honest dialogue of what works from the past year were really worth reading). I suspect it’ll go on the nasty road. The only way I see it going on the nice road is if Kate Paulk and someone like George R R Martin are able to broker some sort of peace agreement.

Guest
Alex
9 months 3 days ago

Martin is the one who gave out the “let’s pretend the Puppies don’t exist” awards. Yeah, I can’t see that happening.

Guest
Frank Probst
9 months 3 days ago

Like I said, I expect it to go on the nasty road. But Martin has a lot of influence, and he still hasn’t posted his reactions to the awards. I’m hoping that he was, at a minimum, appalled by the raucous applause that greeted each No Award and is thus willing to make or take a peace offering. We’ll see.

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

“Apalled”? Martin not only sanctioned Mixon’s racial incitements he actively promoted that woman.

Guest
PavePusher
9 months 3 days ago

Georgie-Porgie doesn’t seem particularly interested in ‘peace’….

Guest
SJW75126
9 months 2 days ago

I floated the counter slate idea at “Making LIght” and it is getting no respect. I thought, why not just slate stuff that has won awards. You don’t have to get that many real fans to support. As a starting point and example , here are the nomination for last years Nebula (with no John Wright):

Novel

The Goblin Emperor, Katherine Addison (Tor)
Trial by Fire, Charles E. Gannon (Baen)
Ancillary Sword, Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
The Three-Body Problem, Cixin Liu, translated by Ken Liu (Tor)
Coming Home, Jack McDevitt (Ace)
Annihilation, Jeff VanderMeer (FSG Originals; Fourth Estate; HarperCollins Canada)

Novella

We Are All Completely Fine, Daryl Gregory (Tachyon)
Yesterday’s Kin, Nancy Kress (Tachyon)
“The Regular,” Ken Liu (Upgraded)
“The Mothers of Voorhisville,” Mary Rickert (Tor.com 4/30/14)
Calendrical Regression, Lawrence Schoen (NobleFusion)
“Grand Jeté (The Great Leap),” Rachel Swirsky (Subterranean Summer ’14)

Novelette

“Sleep Walking Now and Then,” Richard Bowes (Tor.com 7/9/14)
“The Magician and Laplace’s Demon,” Tom Crosshill (Clarkesworld 12/14)
“A Guide to the Fruits of Hawai’i,” Alaya Dawn Johnson (F&SF 7-8/14)
“The Husband Stitch,” Carmen Maria Machado (Granta #129)
“We Are the Cloud,” Sam J. Miller (Lightspeed 9/14)
“The Devil in America,” Kai Ashante Wilson (Tor.com 4/2/14)

Short Story

“The Breath of War,” Aliette de Bodard (Beneath Ceaseless Skies 3/6/14)
“When It Ends, He Catches Her,” Eugie Foster (Daily Science Fiction 9/26/14)
“The Meeker and the All-Seeing Eye,” Matthew Kressel (Clarkesworld 5/14)
“The Vaporization Enthalpy of a Peculiar Pakistani Family,” Usman T. Malik (Qualia Nous)
“A Stretch of Highway Two Lanes Wide,” Sarah Pinsker (F&SF 3-4/14)
“Jackalope Wives,” Ursula Vernon (Apex 1/7/14)
“The Fisher Queen,” Alyssa Wong (F&SF 5/14)

Ray Bradbury Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Written by Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. & Armando Bo (Fox Searchlight Pictures)
Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)
Edge of Tomorrow, Screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie and Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (Warner Bros. Pictures)
Guardians of the Galaxy, Written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)
Interstellar, Written by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures)
The Lego Movie, Screenplay by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures)

Andre Norton Award for Young Adult Science Fiction and Fantasy

Unmade, Sarah Rees Brennan (Random House)
Salvage, Alexandra Duncan (Greenwillow)
Love Is the Drug, Alaya Dawn Johnson (Levine)
Glory O’Brien’s History of the Future, A.S. King (Little, Brown)
Dirty Wings, Sarah McCarry (St. Martin’s Griffin)
Greenglass House, Kate Milford (Clarion)
The Strange and Beautiful Sorrows of Ava Lavender, Leslye Walton (Candlewick)

Guest
Synova
9 months 2 days ago

Thing is… They didn’t listen to GRRM when he said no award was a bad idea. They figure this was a victory. So why be civilized?

Guest
Greg
9 months 2 days ago

First he says that it’s a “bad idea”, then when it works he praises it as the wisdom of the “fans”.

Martin is a lying hypocrite.

Guest
Alan S.
9 months 2 days ago

“Either Kate Paulk gets inundated with suggestions from the No Awards folks, which would basically neutralize SP4, or there will be one or more counter-slates that get organized, and the numbers are there to override SP4 by a large margin.”

Pretend Kate made a recommended reading list for prospective nominators. (Exactly like this year.) Make it … eight books. Make four of the books by Martin, Scalzi, Hines, and that Hate person. Puppies reading all eight books will … most likely not vote for four of those books.

When you mix chocolate chips and rabbit pellets, stir gently, and then suggest “Eat what you like”, well, some pretty careful sorting will go on. And people will -individually- vote their own way.

Guest
Sigivald
9 months 3 days ago

Yeah.

I was intellectually on the Puppies side before I read about the ceremony and the results, but didn’t care in any real sense.

Now I’m actually annoyed at the other side.

“Applaud but don’t you dare boo”?

Who died and made you my boss?

(I mean, hey, booing is rude. I probably wouldn’t boo Hitler if he won an award for Mein Kampf*.

But telling me I can’t, pre-emptively?

Oh, it’s on.

* Though I’d No-Award it; it’s a terrible piece of writing. And I’d boo Hitler in any other context, because, y’know. Hitler.)

Guest
jaed
9 months 1 day ago

Meh. Booing an award is rude because it’s rude to the person who just won the award. Cheering is fine because it’s supporting the person who just won the award.

Booing “No Award” is expressing disapproval, but not targeting any particular person. Cheering “No Award” is rude because it’s celebrating the humiliation of five writers who have just been told that their work is so bad, it would be better to not give a Hugo at all.

Not hard to figure out, unless you’re David Gerrold.

Guest
Nighthawk
8 months 29 days ago

Not sure if you’ve seen this Hitler ranting about 2015 hugos:
https://youtu.be/qZOWipBL0gM

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

Do you ever dream of escaping, like in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest?

Guest
Daniel
9 months 3 days ago

So the poor winner comes around. Here is the thing you do not seem to understand. This year, Larry said the Sad Puppies campaign was not about winning him a Hugo, but instead showing how the awards no longer represent all sci-fi fans. I think anyone objective can look at what has happened and see that is the case. Congrats, you have saved your precious awards. Enjoy how they continue their spiral into obscurity and irrelevance. You and the rest of the “Truefans” “won”

Guest
El Bearsidente
9 months 3 days ago

You do realize that outside the English speaking extremely obsessed fanbois, fangirls and similar nutjobs with a pseudo-social agenda nobody cares about the Hugo, right?

I haven’t seen even one mention in the big newspapers in my country, not a word on TV or the radio. Heck, I’ve been reading scifi since the 80s and I haven’t known about the Hugo Awards until a few years ago, because, guess what, it’s irrelevant in my language area. We acknowledge the giants of the past, like Asimov and Clarke, of course. But the Hugo hype? Nobody cares.

Also, there’s a deadline? Maybe, because in a year the Hugo will be even more irrelevant than today. I had a look at some of the stuff that won in recent years. Wow, talk about trash. It shows again that quality doesn’t matter, skill doesn’t matter, talent doesn’t matter. Just push the buttons of the fringe minority of self-righteous tryhard crusaders that have hijacked “fandom” and you, too, can win!

Personally, I don’t do fandom, it’s boring, it’s full of people with obsession issues on a clinical level and that makes me uncomfortable. I don’t do conventions because I have better things to do with my time and money. I can re-read Gaunt’s Ghosts in the time I waste on a con.

Guest
James May
9 months 3 days ago

I agree with what you say. However the rise of a hate speech movement that is actually celebrated with awards should give any American pause. Keep in mind 3 of the worst have Sci-Fi TV and movie tie-in novels this very minute. That allows their reach to go much further and cements the idea their crazy fears of whites and men is plausible. How do you think the racist fraud Black Lives Matter got traction? On nothing Twitter feeds by nobodies.

Guest
Kryten
9 months 3 days ago

Rule 1 : SJWs always lie.

Guest
Mousekt
9 months 2 days ago

I’m afraid that Mr. SJW-alternate-reality may be right. It may be that our chance to turn the Hugos into something that all fans care about and listen to is ending. Not because of the new voting rules, they don’t look like a bug deal at first glance, but because how many of us who aren’t the valiant 3000 really care enough to try to resuscitate someone who doesn’t want it?

I’ll stick around, though, and maybe we can still create some awards that reflect what all the fans think is the best book.

Guest
perlhaqr
9 months 1 day ago

What? How is that even tangentially a reply to the previous comment?

Guest
Alex
9 months 3 days ago

Pass the popcorn. This has the potential to be a better narrative than anything they’ve written in years.