# Hugo Awards and #Sadpuppies



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Surprised there's not already a thread about this.

#Sadpuppies is a voting block of the WorldCon Hugo awards dedicated to fighting political correctness. Mostly, they are upset that women, minorities and alternate lifestyle authors are winning Hugo awards. They accuse those "fringe" groups of unfairly influencing votes in order to shut them out. They created their own list of nominees and recruited voters to support their list. 

The hashtag and effort was started by science fiction author Larry Correia in response to author K. Tempest Bradford's challenge to readers to not read books written by straight, white males for a year. 

#Sadpuppies nominees seem to be sweeping the Hugo nominations this year.


----------



## George Applegate (Jan 23, 2013)

I guess _tolerance _doesn't mean what I thought.


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

Hi,

Being a straight, white male I'd take issue with anyone saying I shouldn't qualify for something because of my race and gender.  Personally I think it's a shame if something as prestigious as the Hugo's would be influenced by political factions instead of just who wrote the best damn book last year.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't post as I'm not actively engaged, but the "straight, white male" part hit a nerve.

Regards,
SM

Edited to change "Single to Straight" in my last sentence.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

My understanding (and it may be incomplete) is that a voting bloc was formed to promote the works of LGBT, women and ethnic authors and was successful, #sadpuppies was created to  combat it and give the awards back to those who were used to getting them.

I think both extremes are bad, but I imagine the voting rules of the HUGO awards that allow manipulation from both sides will really undermine the value of the award.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Salvador Mercer said:


> I'd take issue with anyone saying I shouldn't qualify for something because of my race and gender.


Yeah, that sucks, doesn't it?


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

MyraScott said:


> My understanding (and it may be incomplete) is that a voting bloc was formed to promote the works of LGBT, women and ethnic authors and was successful, #sadpuppies was created to combat it and give the awards back to those who were used to getting them.
> 
> I think both extremes are bad, but I imagine the voting rules of the HUGO awards that allow manipulation from both sides will really undermine the value of the award.


Agreed. Bad all the way around IMHO. Thanks for sharing, I'm off to read about it.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

MyraScott said:


> The hashtag and effort was started by science fiction author Larry Correia in response to author K. Tempest Bradford's challenge to readers to not read books written by straight, white males for a year.


Just FYI, this isn't right. Bradford's post went up on February 2, 2015. Sad Puppies has been around since 2013. It's a broader response to many things in SFWA--including the fact that Vox Day/Theodore Beale was expelled from SFWA for using the official SFWA twitter account to broadcast a racist blogpost in which he said that fellow SFWA author (and African-American) was "an educated but ignorant savage" whose race could not be considered civilized for another thousand years.

Bradford's post had nothing to do with Sad Puppies formation.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Thanks, Courtney.  My attempts to track down the origins of this group wasn't very successful.  I found a lot of current accusations but not really the whole story.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

MyraScott said:


> My understanding (and it may be incomplete) is that a voting bloc was formed to promote the works of LGBT, women and ethnic authors and was successful, #sadpuppies was created to combat it and give the awards back to those who were used to getting them.
> 
> I think both extremes are bad, but I imagine the voting rules of the HUGO awards that allow manipulation from both sides will really undermine the value of the award.


You can actually see the Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies nominating slates online. There is such a thing. Here's the Sad Puppies slate: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/sad-puppies-3-the-2015-hugo-slate/

Here's the Rabid Puppies slate: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/rabid-puppies-2015.html

Point to me where the other side has set up a similar nominating slate.

I do see a variety of sites list their favorites (and those lists do not coincide). This is NOT the same thing as setting up a nominating slate which people then vote upon as a block.

I don't believe in saying "both sides are equally bad" when one side has an official campaign, one they have run three years in a row now, to tilt the results and the other does not, when one side chooses books on the basis of the speech of the authors in response to the controversy and not the quality of the books, and one side is explicitly siding with overtly racist and sexist rhetoric.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

What Sad Puppies shows us is that the Hugo Awards have been always affected by small voting blocks, whether they are based on previously-oppressed identity groups or no. It's not like the Hugos are objective arbiters of value in SFF publishing. There have always been campaigns for nominations and for awards. The Hugos represent the collective view of those who are active in the community and attend Worldcons. Nothing more.

ETA: Sad Puppies may be the first time it has been formally done in a more public and organized manner. It is clearly in response to efforts to promote other identity groups.

However, to suggest that gender, race and sexual orientation / presentation don't affect what gets published, read, nominated and awarded is to be blind to reality. I don't think it's possible at this time to have a neutral publishing system or award system. We all have biases and they affect what we read and value. The best thing is to try to be aware of your own biases and try to expose yourself to things that are outside your usual repertory. Not to be politically correct but because you will discover gems you might not have found otherwise.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2015)

MyraScott said:


> Surprised there's not already a thread about this.
> 
> #Sadpuppies is a voting block of the WorldCon Hugo awards dedicated to fighting political correctness. Mostly, they are upset that women, minorities and alternate lifestyle authors are winning Hugo awards. They accuse those "fringe" groups of unfairly influencing votes in order to shut them out. They created their own list of nominees and recruited voters to support their list.
> 
> ...


Most of this is untrue.

From what I have researched, sad puppies is not upset that women, minorities, and alternative lifestyle authors have won the award. From what I've gathered, they are upset that identity politics have entered into an award that *should* have been about the story. Not the author's race, sex, or orientation. You have only to go to Larry Correia's blog to see what he's written himself. And, as this is the third year this has been running, (unless Tempest Bradford put forth her challenge before this year) it is demonstrably untrue that sad puppies is a result of Tempest Bradford's challenge.



MyraScott said:


> My understanding (and it may be incomplete) is that a voting bloc was formed to promote the works of LGBT, women and ethnic authors and was successful, #sadpuppies was created to combat it and give the awards back to those who were used to getting them.
> 
> I think both extremes are bad, but I imagine the voting rules of the HUGO awards that allow manipulation from both sides will really undermine the value of the award.


I don't know if the first part of your statement is true or not, but sad puppies has never been about giving awards to those used to getting them. Again, it helps to research the source (Larry Correia's blog, as well as Brad Torgersen's). If you look at the final ballot, you'll find, for example. Jim Butcher and Kevin J. Anderson, who have never before received nominations. The finalists have a wide range of political leanings as well.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Salvador Mercer said:


> Personally I think it's a shame if something as prestigious as the Hugo's would be influenced by political factions instead of just who wrote the best damn book last year.


Replace "political factions" with "white patriarchal privilege" and you see how many people have felt for _years_ about these types of awards.


----------



## Jeff Sproul (Dec 21, 2014)

So one side wants to promote minorities, woman and alternate lifestyles.
The other wants to fight political correctness.
(To be honest, I don't follow either of these sides or what's really going on in the news with this. Sorry for my ignorance if I mis-write some aspect of what they stand for.)

I'm a white male. I'm also very low income. So one of those groups wants to try and prevent me from making any legitimate income for the year?

But wait, there's more. I'm also Pansexual. According to K. Tempest Bradford (To be honest, I'm not familiar with any of these people), I should have to flaunt this in order to get a readership? I don't think my sexuality should have any bearing on trying to get people to read my work. It's shameful that I have to try and flaunt my sexuality, just to try and appeal to more readers.

In a perfect world, my writing would be based off the merit of...my writing!

But I guess it's time I start labeling myself as "Jeff Sproul, a pansexual SFF writer with red hair."
Damn...that last part gives away that I'm probably white. I need a PR firm for this.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

> From what I have researched, sad puppies is not upset that women, minorities, and alternative lifestyle authors have won the award. From what I've gathered, they are upset that identity politics have entered into an award that *should* have been about the story. Not the author's race, sex, or orientation. You have only to go to Larry Correia's blog to see what he's written himself.


This argument (that awards should be about 'story' instead about politics) is true in principle but naive, in my opinion.

Awards _should_ be about the story, but you have to take a step back and examine how the story got there in the first place. If you do, you will look at an industry in which some voices are heard while others are not, and in which the divisions in greater society can not help but affect content and how it is valued.

How could awards not be about identity politics when we live in a society divided by gender and other divisions that have nothing to do with the ability to write quality SFF?

It was the great Robert Silverberg who wrote, when opining on whether James Tiptree, Jr. was a female, "It has been suggested that Tiptree is female, a theory that I find absurd, for there is something ineluctably masculine about Tiptree's writings."

In other words, writing was seen to be gendered, different and detectably so.

We are still far too close to that era to expect that there is a chance to award the Hugo based on 'story' vs. identity politics.

JMO.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Sela said:


> What Sad Puppies shows us is that the Hugo Awards have been always affected by small voting blocks, whether they are based on previously-oppressed identity groups or no. It's not like the Hugos are objective arbiters of value in SFF publishing. There have always been campaigns for nominations and for awards. The Hugos represent the collective view of those who are active in the community and attend Worldcons. Nothing more.


Exactly. I was shocked when I went to my first WorldCon and saw the voting tally for the Hugos after the award presentation. You can win a Hugo with less than 100 votes. This is why a small hate-filled group can have such a large impact. In my opinion, Hugo voting should be opened up, similar to the Goodreads Reader Choice Awards. When you get tens of thousands of people voting, it's harder to manipulate the results.

Happy to report that KBoards' very own Annie Bellet was nominated for her short story GOODNIGHT STARS, which was part of an anthology edited by John Joseph Adams and myself. I haven't read all the nominees in her category yet, but she definitely deserves the win, in my opinion. If you're qualified to vote, check out her story and see what you think!


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2015)

I like to be a little more optimistic about humanity in general being able to see beyond the author and to find stories they enjoy. 

I can't dispute biases in the field, and agree with you there. There have been voices that haven't been allowed to be heard for whatever reasons. (The reasons I've heard the most about are sex, race, and politics.)



> How could awards not be about identity politics when we live in a society divided by gender and other divisions that have nothing to do with the ability to write quality SFF?


Part of the reason for sad puppies was that people denied that this was the case. For me, this may be how some (or many) choose to live. And no matter who we are, we all have our biases. It may be naive to believe that this can change--seeing the world through identity politics--but we'll never know if change is possible if we never try. That's what I love most about SFF: the ability to ask "what if?" and explore what happens. And who knows? If enough people stop and ask, maybe real change can come beyond the awards themselves. It would be wonderful for both authors and readers alike if the stories they want to tell can be heard by those who want to read them. That's one of the things that drew me to self-publishing in the first place.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Good points, Courtney, as always.



shelleyo1 said:


> Replace "political factions" with "white patriarchal privilege" and you see how many people have felt for _years_ about these types of awards.


True, but the remedy isn't creating the same situation in reverse.

As someone who views himself as a centrist and moderate on most of the hot-button issues consuming politics and culture today, I deplore most extremes. I see this kind of thing as part and parcel of the culture wars raging across the world. I've read sci-fi since I could read, beginning with children's and youth classics from people like "Andrew North" (Andre Norton in disguise), more than 45 years, and I sympathize with both (all?) sides.

I sympathize with those who have been marginalized and sidelined from SF in the past by their non-mainstream (for the times) viewpoints, orientations, politics, etc. I have nontraditional-orientation family members active in the arts community elsewhere doing wonderful work - I won't say more because some don't want to be outed - and so I have a fairly robust familiarity with their struggles.

But today, I sympathize more with the old-school folks, if not some of their underlying reasoning, because the pendulum swung too far for a while. Before the indie revolution, I was finding it very hard to find SFF that didn't seem to preach a more liberal political or social agenda - and by preach, I mean preach, not merely include. It's an axiom of fiction that preachiness is not desirable - "If you want to send a message, use Western Union" being one of the more famous quotes (from Sam Goldwyn).

Combine this with the appearance and, arguably, the fact that the Hugos and Nebulas and other awards seem to have a sociopolitical litmus test associated with them (include a gay character, often as a worse stereotype than ever? check. Deplore capitalism and other Western values? Check. Warn of the dangers of science (_quel ironie!_): check). And so on. It appeared, at least from the outside, that those very lights of liberalism that had stormed the castles of SF to take their rightful place in the hallowed halls were now barring the gates to those they disagreed with.

"Meet the new boss; same as the old boss," in other words, merely from the other side.

So it's not terribly surprising that we have a backlash situation. In every struggle, the weaker, marginalized side often feels the need to organize. The civil rights movement (in which my father took direct part - you should hear his stories about marching from Selma to Montgomery, or trying to) only became successful when organized. Ditto unions, the suffrage movement, and so on. No, I'm not morally equating the sad puppies with the civil rights movement, only clinically/objectively - as examples of an attempt to gain or regain power within a political system.

And any time there is voting, prestige and money at stake, it's a political system. Putting "Hugo award winner" on book covers is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions. We have to expect a political system to become, yes, politicized.

I don't know what the solution is; Jefferson and others of the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to ban political parties, but it's hard to see how that would have worked out in practice. The rise of parties seems to spawn opposing parties, so perhaps that's what we have to expect in the awards (and wonder why it didn't happen earlier): partisanship based on cultural viewpoint, with voting blocs supporting their favorite sub-genres and viewpoints, everyone pointing fingers and demonizing the other side...and unfortunately, just as we've seen with electoral/governmental politics, everyone loses.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Jeff Sproul said:


> I don't think my sexuality should have any bearing on trying to get people to read my work. It's shameful that I have to try and flaunt my sexuality, just to try and appeal to more readers.
> 
> In a perfect world, my writing would be based off the merit of...my writing!
> 
> ...


This is quite dismissive of the real inequalities that exist in our society and how they affect who gets published, read, nominated and promoted.

None of us overtly use gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation when selecting stories (unless we're prejudiced and proud of it) to read or when promoting them or awarding them. We all think it's because of story and not our own or the author's identity. However, research does show that we do. Unconsciously, we do. Our prejudices and biases do affect how we value things. Books and short stories are not immune to this.

That said, I'm not a big proponent of political correctness. I've seen it in effect in the university department where my husband and I both worked and I always felt that we should both be treated based on our merit not because of our genders. I saw it in action denying hiring a candidate who was more than qualified for a position because the department wanted to hire a woman instead. The candidate they did pick was qualified but not as qualified as the male candidate. In my view, that politically correct hiring harmed the department because we lost a star candidate because he wasn't the right gender.

However, and there is always a however because nothing is black and white, how do you combat decades of inequality unless you promote qualified people? People tend to hire people who are like them. Studies on organizational behaviour clearly show this. Until those in power in organizations reflect the greater community, it will remain the same without some kind of way of overcoming that tendency.

My uncle was an exec director in a government agency and was in charge of selecting candidates for management jobs. He joked once that all the resumes with "funny names" were filed in the circular file. That's how his agency retained its white male appearance. He hired candidates like him. They hired candidates like them. And so on.

There was a big debate about this in the SFF community a while back -- heck it is a perennial debate -- and SFF editors argued that they purchased stories based on submissions and their publication records seemed to reflect this. If 10% of submissions were from women, their purchases reflected this and 10% of stories published were by women, give or take a percentage or two.

Perhaps things are changing and more women and minorities are submitting stories to these editors. At some point, hopefully, gender, sexual orientation / presentation and visible minority status will not matter, and we will publish, read, nominate and award stories based on 'story' and nothing else.

I don't believe we are there yet.

JMO.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> I don't believe in saying "both sides are equally bad" when one side has an official campaign, one they have run three years in a row now, to tilt the results and the other does not, when one side chooses books on the basis of the speech of the authors in response to the controversy and not the quality of the books, and one side is explicitly siding with overtly racist and sexist rhetoric.


Sorry, my comment was both _extremes_ are bad, meaning voting/reading because someone *is* or *isn't* a straight, white male is a poor reason on either side. I was referring to the attitudes, not the actual groups.


----------



## Jeff Sproul (Dec 21, 2014)

Sela said:


> This is quite dismissive of the real inequalities that exist in our society and how they affect who gets published, read, nominated and promoted.
> 
> Perhaps things are changing and more women and minorities are submitting stories to these editors. At some point, hopefully, gender, sexual orientation / presentation and visible minority status will not matter, and we will publish, read, nominate and award stories based on 'story' and nothing else.
> 
> ...


You're right, and I didn't mean to come off as appearing to make light of what's a significant issue.

My main goal was to speak out on the fact that sometimes when people try to push others in the right direction-to help promote equality, it's not always a perfect solution.

But yes, I agree with your examples and the point you're making in regards to the person's merit over anything else.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Which Amazon largely solved with KDP.
> 
> If there was a problem with SF--and I'd agree there was, given the number of female writers who felt they had to use male 'nyms for their books--it was with the trade-publishing gatekeepers. Now anyone can publish, and no-one knows and few people care that the author is a green dog from Sirius.


That covers publishing and reading - but not nominating and promoting (for the award). To cite a more visible parallel, Oscars are not awarded based on success or popularity - they are awarded based on the personal criteria of members who've often seemed out of touch with reality. And the awards put a stamp on those movies worth millions in extra publicity. Where that much money comes in, fairness or balance becomes difficult to achieve, and is often threatened by partisanship.


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Which Amazon largely solved with KDP.
> 
> If there was a problem with SF--and I'd agree there was, given the number of female writers who felt they had to use male 'nyms for their books--it was with the trade-publishing gatekeepers. Now anyone can publish, and no-one knows and few people care that the author is a green dog from Sirius.


And... Lord help me for posting again... I just asked a question on Elizabeth's post about KU withdrawing (titles) and going wide, on a man writing in the Romance genre and it was commented on that using initials or a female name in that genre may be a good idea.

In a way you could say the gender door swings both ways in the world of indie publishing.

I'd just say that extremes of any nature do more harm than good, and from I see on this thread it seems the Hugo isn't held in high esteem anymore even though I thought a woman won the award last year?


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

CENSORED.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Who cares about awards if their books are selling well?


Awards sell more books. Many, many people use awards lists to choose which books to read. It's not a nebulous honor, it is a selling advantage that offers a boost for years.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> You can actually see the Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies nominating slates online. There is such a thing. Here's the Sad Puppies slate: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/sad-puppies-3-the-2015-hugo-slate/
> 
> Here's the Rabid Puppies slate: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/rabid-puppies-2015.html
> 
> Point to me where the other side has set up a similar nominating slate.


You mean like Scalzi and Stross use to do back in the day?

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/01/03/the-2008-award-pimpage-post/
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/03/shameless-hugo-nomination-tout.html


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

CENSORED.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Scott Esteban said:


> Maybe I missed something, but while I realize that to Beale, Scalzi is basically Satan Himself, but he's just pimping his own stuff. That's not exactly creating an ideological slate of candidates and then getting people to vote for them. Stross' nomination seems to be completely innocuous. Basically a "catch up" nomination for someone who put 30 years in at Ace and was retiring.


So, a writer pimping his own stuff and other works he likes is ok, but a group of writers pimping their stuff and other works they like isn't? 
Honestly, I'm not sure what the color of the sky is in Beales world, but I am sure its pretty, and hes not the only one viewing it. Scalzi's seeing the same color from time to time.

Yes, the sad puppies slate is ideological, but its an ideological response to an already entrenched ideological belief system. 
Why is the entire Wheel of Time series good enough to nominate, but not a single book from the series? 
Why is it the same editors, fanzines, magazines, and podcasts are always nominated? 
Can anyone with a straight face say that all of the nominations in all the categories of the past few years, regardless of who wrote them, have been the best in their respective categories?
How is it authors and editors that are very good at what they do have never been nominated (IE, Pratchett, Butcher, Anderson, and Weiskopf)?

The past few years, the perception has been that many awards, Hugos included, weren't about the quality of the story, but the message of the story, and some people take exception to that.
The best way for them to prove it was to put forth their own ballet. Hence Sad Puppies, and the ensuing flames. Honestly, I think Correia et al did a great job of preparing the "battlespace" with Sad Puppies, but they threw away any advantage they had by nominating Beales work. Even if his story was great, his standing in the community as a whole is toxic at best. But, I can understand why it was included, it was a classic "go big or go home" maneuver that worked on many levels, and failed on many others.

Ultimately It's a good strategy. Not only did they nominate works that are deserving of consideration (Butcher, Anderson) they also nominated works that are deserving of consideration whose authors views and beliefs don't correspond to the current Buzzword Bingo card. Their belief is that Science Fiction is and should be a big tent, with plenty of room for everyone, and that great writing should be rewarded, not personal beliefs. Thats its not about the authors and their beliefs, but the quality of the work.

And they are proving their point very well. There are people who think Cards wins for Enders Game and Speaker for the Dead should be repealed because of his views on gay marriage. Not because his stories aren't good enough for the awards, but because his beliefs are different. Butcher was announced as a possible nominee, and all the sudden he was anti gay because of a sentence he wrote in Ghost Story. Or as more than a few commentators on other sites have said "Anderson and Butcher are both deserving of a win, but I'm going to put them below No Award because they were nominated this way". Well of course they were nominated this way, it was the only way they would have been nominated, otherwise they would have been nominated before!

The writing on the wall for something like this to happen has been there for awhile, and the people who are shocked its happening have either been living in a state of denial or ignorance.

The Hugos have always been a popularity award. There were 2200 ballots this year, and they decide what the best Book in all of SFdom is?
Hell, I had more people vote for Prom King and Queen at my Senior prom....


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

MyraScott said:


> My understanding (and it may be incomplete) is that a voting bloc was formed to promote the works of LGBT, women and ethnic authors and was successful, #sadpuppies was created to combat it and give the awards back to those who were used to getting them.
> 
> I think both extremes are bad, but I imagine the voting rules of the HUGO awards that allow manipulation from both sides will really undermine the value of the award.


It's great that #sadpuppies exits to promote the things they like. It's sad that they are creating an imaginary war for attention.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

CENSORED.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Who cares about awards if their books are selling well?


Emotionally? I don't know. Commercially, it's money in the bank, both from direct sales of the book and from the author being able to leverage the award into other things - tradpub contracts, appearances at events, all the things that go with approval by the insiders' club. Money. In. The. Bank. IMO that's why I care, not to put too crass a point on it.



Scott Esteban said:


> This whole thing is the creation of one person who's throwing an extended tantrum because his racist and sexist views have been completely and utterly rejected by society, nevermind science fiction.


This is demonstrably inaccurate. If it were simply one rejected person, he wouldn't have a following so effective that his opponents worry about his faction influencing the process. If his views had been completely and utterly rejected, there would be no issue or debate. It's the very fact that a significant portion, probably a minority, agree with him (more or less) that has brought the issue to the fore.

You may not agree with Vox, you may think he's despicable - but trying to dismiss him is rather like trying to dismiss an influential pundit on a major news channel - denying his existence doesn't make him disappear.

_Edited to remove reference to now edited post. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

CENSORED.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Scott Esteban said:


> Dude, when someone is LITERALLY talking about how people of color aren't truly homosapiens, it's hard not to go there.


I get that. I'm not defending Vox's words on that topic, not in the least. But once we declare the other sides to be the most despicable of human beings possible, with no redeeming qualities and worthy of being bombed with indiscriminate incendiary weapons, we 1) demean ourselves and 2) find there's nowhere else to go in the debate. I mean, once you go for the scorched earth, you declare there's no common ground anymore - and I don't believe that's true.

Since Vox is often viewed as the ringleader and driving force behind the sad puppies, I'll address what I know of him. I had an interesting email exchange with him on the issue of homosexuality portrayed within mil-sf and he came across to me as surprisingly moderate on the issue, along the lines of, "well, it's there, it's historical, so as long as it isn't pushing any agenda, I'm not going to worry about it." That may not be "enlightened," whatever that is, but it's not rabidly anti-gay or anti-anything, the way his opponents want to portray him.

Does that mean he's someone to emulate or that he not be held accountable for other, more extreme and despicable views? No, but defaulting straight to the most extreme label ourselves doesn't prove our own enlightenment, nor does it illuminate the debate, nor does it make it likely to influence opinions for the better.

The answer to extremism is not more extremism from the other side, in other words.

An eye for an eye blinds us all.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

CENSORED


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> True, but the remedy isn't creating the same situation in reverse.


I'm not sure that's true, and I'm pretty sure the reverse situation isn't going to happen anyway, no matter how much some might try.

I'd rather see people encouraging readers to read books from more diverse authors than to say don't read a book by a white dude for a year, sure. But when I look at this with an objective eye, I also don't see the harm. It's more a lick at a snake than a program that's going to completely shut out white writers. And the backlash sounds like, "How dare you do to us what we've done to you all this time! Find another solution. We'll just stay the big cheese until then, thanks."

What are the odds that a year of some people reading books by authors other than white dudes is going to completely shift the balance of power so that the white guys' books aren't getting read and nominated? It might help drag things toward a fairer system, but I don't think the white man's in danger of being oppressed here. Minorities making strides toward equality doesn't equal oppression of whites, no matter how much some white guys think it does.

I'm not accusing you personally of any of this, by the way. It's more an academic observation than an accusation (toward _you_). I'm absolutely accusing plenty of others involved in it, though.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> I'm not sure that's true, and I'm pretty sure the reverse situation isn't going to happen anyway, no matter how much some might try.
> 
> I'd rather see people encouraging readers to read books from more diverse authors than to say don't read a book by a white dude for a year, sure. But when I look at this with an objective eye, I also don't see the harm. It's more a lick at a snake than a program that's going to completely shut out white writers. And the backlash sounds like, "How dare you do to us what we've done to you all this time! Find another solution. We'll just stay the big cheese until then, thanks."
> 
> ...


Yes, it's usually a matter of where we draw the line, or think we _should._ That's why I believe the indie movement and self-publishing has democratized content to the point where books from all stripes are now available. For a time, the left was largely locked out of SFF. Lately, it's been the right, or the more traditional if you prefer that term. Self-publishing has blown that wide open, but the Hugos are a vestige of the historical order, and they've leaned left for the past decade or two. It is probably a pipe dream to hope that the representation of views should remain broad and diverse - and true diversity has to mean judging stories not on some viewpoint checklist, but on the literary and artistic merits.

_Edited to remove reference to quoted content. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2015)

1) I think the flaws are in the Hugo themselves. You shouldn't have awards that allow for manipulation of any group, whether good or bad, for any purpose, whether good or bad.


2) Perhaps we should draw a line between opportunity and awards.

Yes, there should be EQUALITY in opportunity i.e. EQUALITY for everyone to read, write, be read, be published, get exposure.

It's hard to argue there should be EQUALITY in awards and that every year we should make sure we have people of every ethnicity and every sex and every walk of life winning a HUGO, or any other award.

OR

If last 2 years Straight women won it, then this year we better make sure it isn't won by a gay man.

*******

3) It's not clear to me exactly where the line is being drawn.

Are we saying -

Option 1: Everyone should get an Equal Opportunity to win the Hugo?

OR

Option 2: Everyone should get an Equal Share of the Hugo?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome is a classic debate, rather like nature vs. nurture, with the optimal situation probably requiring a blending of both. Getting to that point, however, is a very tough thing.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Salvador Mercer said:


> And... Lord help me for posting again... I just asked a question on Elizabeth's post about KU withdrawing (titles) and going wide, on a man writing in the Romance genre and it was commented on that using initials or a female name in that genre may be a good idea.
> 
> In a way you could say the gender door swings both ways in the world of indie publishing.
> 
> I'd just say that extremes of any nature do more harm than good, and from I see on this thread it seems the Hugo isn't held in high esteem anymore even though I thought a woman won the award last year?


Several women have won recently in several categories. Anyone who is familiar with the Hugos and awards sees the same names over and over again because it's the same people who make up the more active members and it's based on what they have read and loved and how motivated they are to see their choices win. It is a popularity contest.

As for whether a man should write romance using initials, I believe a good writer can write any genre well if they understand its tropes and reader expectations, but we writers on KBoards were not born yesterday, and we understand that quality is not the sole factor in determining whether a book will be read and be a success. Whether readers will buy it is based, at least in some part however small, on whether they actually see the book somewhere, and their perceptions of what a proper "SF" or "Epic Fantasy" or "Romance" author is. It's quite complex and involves visibility and the new gatekeepers. The emergence of eBooks and Amazon has removed some of the old gatekeepers but has put in place new ones. Technology alone has not removed the personal biases we all have and use to judge a book's merit. Time and again research has shown that given an identical work by a man and a woman, both women and men will judge using some kind of gender lens.

I'm hoping this is less and less the case as a new generation replaces the old but progress is not inevitable.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, just back from a lovely Easter dinner to multiple reports.  Locking thread to allow me to put the leftover lemon meringue pie away and read through.

Lots of other threads.  Critique a blurb or something.  Back in a bit.

EDIT:  I'm going to open again.  Let's not invoke the Nazis.  Let's keep it civil.  Posts have been edited.  PM me if you have any questions in order to not derail this thread. /edit

Betsy
KB mod


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2015)

There is a fundamental difference between saying "Hey! Look at these fabulous women authors who deserve a vote." and saying "Vote for these white guys hand picked by a white guy so no women win."

There is a fundamental difference between saying "Check out this amazing African-American author who deserves a vote" and  saying "Vote for these white guys hand picked by a white guy so no minorities win."

There is a difference between having genuine enthusiasm for promoting the voices of minority authors and making a concerted effort to shut down those voices.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

> It's hard to argue there should be EQUALITY in awards and that every year we should make sure we have people of every ethnicity and every sex and every walk of life winning a HUGO, or any other award.


If anyone's arguing for that, they're wrong. It's about equal opportunity, not a winning quota. (Or at least it should be.)

Look at the TV awards. Kerry Washington gets nommed for Scandal. One of the few blacks nominated for anything. She doesn't win. Viola Davis is nommed for How to Get Away with Murder (so so so deservedly so). Doesn't get it. If there were more roles on TV with black actresses who were nominated, when one doesn't win it would look far less like a slight. But when only one is nominated in a sea of white faces and doesn't win, it makes things seem even worse than they are. The argument is well, whites have more chances because more are nommed. Obviously. Why are more nommed? Is that because whites are better actresses? No, it's because most of the award-worthy roles (and more roles period) go to white women. Why? Because _white_.

If there were more blacks in good roles . . . if more science fiction and fantasy readers looked beyond the older guard white dudes . . . .

It's not about giving awards to certain people. It's allowing certain people to even be in the running. When they are, guess what, they'll win sometimes. And that shouldn't bother anybody. When it does bother someone, it's a sure sign that certain groups were being deliberately excluded before based on something other than talent. Or why would anyone care?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There is a fundamental difference between saying "Hey! Look at these fabulous women authors who deserve a vote." and saying "Vote for these white guys hand picked by a white guy so no women win."
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between saying "Check out this amazing African-American author who deserves a vote" and saying "Vote for these white guys hand picked by a white guy so no minorities win."
> 
> There is a difference between having genuine enthusiasm for promoting the voices of minority authors and making a concerted effort to shut down those voices.


And vice versa.

While generally not as explicit as the sad puppies crowd, there has been a perception of definite bias toward "minority" authors and works promoting their agendas in the last couple of decades in the Hugos. Fine and deserving works by the "white guys," or those perceived as having views aligned with the traditional rather than the progressive, have been systematically shut out because of ideological litmus tests.

I think we all agree that promoting what we prefer is natural, and attacking what we don't prefer is unhelpful, no matter what side it comes from. Constantly framing the argument as good vs. evil, with one's own side being the good, is simply a more subtle way of fighting the same ideological war, rather than trying to elevate the debate and award the prizes to the best stories on their non-ideological merits.



shelleyo1 said:


> If there were more blacks in good roles . . . if more science fiction and fantasy readers looked beyond the older guard white dudes . . . .


This quote seems to indicate you believe it's currently "older guard white dudes" that are getting the awards lately. That's not the case, or at least it doesn't seem to me. The sad puppies, right or wrong, are protesting against the current apparent bias against "older guard white dudes." In other words, no matter how good they are, if they don't meet the ideological litmus test, they won't win, or at least they won't be fairly considered.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2015)

Here's a link to the proposed slate: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/sad-puppies-3-the-2015-hugo-slate/

I have no idea what the ethnicities of the authors are, but a few of them might be surprised to find out they're men.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There is a fundamental difference between saying "Hey! Look at these fabulous women authors who deserve a vote." and saying "Vote for these white guys hand picked by a white guy so no women win."
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between saying "Check out this amazing African-American author who deserves a vote" and saying "Vote for these white guys hand picked by a white guy so no minorities win."
> 
> There is a difference between having genuine enthusiasm for promoting the voices of minority authors and making a concerted effort to shut down those voices.


HEAR, HEAR. Exactly what you're saying. /standing ovation/


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

The Hugo awards are the People's Choice awards of science fiction and fantasy. 
Anyone can be nominated, and anyone can win. Self-published authors, too. 

Nominations are closed for this year, but next year, all you have to do to nominate and vote is pay your $40 supporting membership fee. Something to keep in mind.

ETA: Anyone can be a member.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Cherise Kelley said:


> The Hugo awards are the People's Choice awards of science fiction and fantasy.
> Anyone can be nominated, and anyone can win. Self-published authors, too.
> 
> Nominations are closed for this year, but next year, all you have to do to nominate and vote is pay your $40 supporting membership fee. Something to keep in mind.


Excellent point. As they say, if one doesn't vote, one can't fairly complain about the results.

Now to nominate myself and organize my fan base...


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> This quote seems to indicate you believe it's currently "older guard white dudes" that are getting the awards lately.


No, that's not not what I believe. I believe it was that way for a really long time, but now other people are getting some of the awards they feel they deserve and they're butthurt about it, hence #sadpuppies.



> The sad puppies, right or wrong, are protesting against the current apparent bias against "older guard white dudes." In other words, no matter how good they are, if they don't meet the ideological litmus test, they won't win, or at least they won't be fairly considered.


Don't do to us what we've done to you, aieee! It's at this point I have to puff out my lips and say _aww, poor white guys_. Oh wait, no I don't.

Seriously, it's not about fairness. They don't want fairness. Fairness is what's been happening when some women and minorities with excellent fiction have been winning some things, too. If you can look at the list of the people they recommend for awards and think it's only about merit, then the takeaway is somehow women and minorities haven't been writing as well as men, I guess. There sure are a lot more of them writing it than ever before, so it seems a stretch to think so few of them do it well enough to be nominated.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There is a fundamental difference between saying "Hey! Look at these fabulous women authors who deserve a vote." and saying "Vote for these white guys hand picked by a white guy so no women win."
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between saying "Check out this amazing African-American author who deserves a vote" and saying "Vote for these white guys hand picked by a white guy so no minorities win."


So when the VP of SFWA Tweets out that "no white male won a Nebula or Hugo this year!" she is both promoting and shutting down?

There is a difference between having genuine enthusiasm for promoting the voices of authors who write a good story and making a concerted effort to shut down those voices who don't adhere to your politics or point of view on whatever social issues you hold dear. They aren't talking about marking down Butcher and Anderson because they don't like what they've written, but because of how they were nominated. Thats an acceptable behavior?

Le Guin, Bujold, Cherryh, and the other female Hugo award winners didn't win because they were female, but because they wrote some damn fine stories.

And anyones whose read "If you were a Dinosaur My Love" and some other, more recent winners and nominees knows that hasn't been the case lately.



> There is a difference between having genuine enthusiasm for promoting the voices of minority authors and making a concerted effort to shut down those voices.


True. Makes you wonder why Kary English, Annie Bellet, Rajnar Vandra, Megan Grey, and the other oppressed would agree to be part of it.  Although Kary English has a post or two on it if I recall...


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> While generally not as explicit as the sad puppies crowd, there has been a perception of definite bias toward "minority" authors and works promoting their agendas in the last couple of decades in the Hugos. Fine and deserving works by the "white guys," or those perceived as having views aligned with the traditional rather than the progressive, have been systematically shut out because of ideological litmus tests.


Can I ask where this perception comes from? I linked to the actual Sad Puppies slate, which actually makes request for voting en masse for the slate. That is fact, and nobody has disputed it. I have asked to see evidence of something remotely similar from the other side.

What I got in response was a link to Scalzi pimping his own books, and a link to another person saying, "Here is an editor I really liked." I did not see one person in fact setting forth a slate of minority-authored books for people to vote for en masse. Those links didn't even include evidence of _anyone_ suggesting a vote for a minority-authored book, period.

Your _perception_ is that there's a definite bias toward minority authors. What evidence is there to support your perception other than the fact that in recent years, minority authors have gotten Hugo nominations/wins? Surely a conspiracy that would have to encompass dozens, if not more, would have something to support it. So where are the blog posts to support this conspiracy? Where are the emails that were sent out to someone that contained the list of nominees?

Because if all you have is your _perception_, I have a problem with that. I've been reading SF/F basically since I was able to read. I've read several Hugo nominees in multiple years. I don't see a difference in quality between the Hugo nominees who were minority authors and Hugo nominees who were not. For instance, I think that N.K. Jemisin's book was brilliantly written and had radically creative worldbuilding like nothing I had ever read before.

The Hugo-nominated minority authors that I have read seemed extremely deserving. And I did see people celebrating their nomination because they were minorities--but that doesn't mean they weren't nominated because they deserved it. It's entirely possible that people are excited that we're getting really amazing books written by minorities.

And so when you say that this is because of identity politics, I feel like we need some proof other than just the fact that some people vaguely feel like it is.

If you don't have proof of this conspiracy, it sounds to me like you are maligning authors and saying they didn't deserve a Hugo-nomination solely because of their race.

And that's pretty disturbing.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Davout73 said:


> So when the VP of SFWA Tweets out that "no white male won a Nebula or Hugo this year!" she is both promoting and shutting down?


Someone asked Ruth Bader Ginsburg how many female justices there would need to be on the Court for her to think there was enough.
Her response: Nine.

And it's not because she thinks there should be no men on the court. Just that if nobody blinked at two centuries of nine men on the Supreme Court, nobody should blink at nine women. I think this follows in the same vein.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

> No, that's not not what I believe. I believe it was that way for a really long time, but now other people are getting some of the awards they feel they deserve and they're butthurt about it, hence #sadpuppies.


Erm, no. Correia has been pretty upfront as to why he started the whole Sad Puppies thing.



> Seriously, it's not about fairness. They don't want fairness. Fairness is what's been happening when some women and minorities with excellent fiction have been winning some things, too.


Women and minorities have been winning awards in Science Fiction for quite some time now. The issue lately has been that many of the stories being nominated and winning haven't been the best stories out there, but have been nominated because of the message in them/who wrote them (IE, not some old white dude). At the same time, authors who's previous work should have been recognized,Kevin Anderson and Pratchett are probably the best examples of this, have been "overlooked". And how any reasonable SF reader/fan can overlook Anderson and Pratchett is just plain odd. Theres some good works on the SP slate, from authors whose beliefs are across the spectrum. That these same authors are being attacked on not what they wrote isn;t fair now, is it?

If you can look at the list of the people they recommend for awards and think it's only about merit, then the takeaway is somehow women and minorities haven't been writing as well as men, I guess. There sure are a lot more of them writing it than ever before, so it seems a stretch to think so few of them do it well enough to be nominated.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> Someone asked Ruth Bader Ginsburg how many female justices there would need to be on the Court for her to think there was enough.
> Her response: Nine.
> 
> And it's not because she thinks there should be no men on the court. Just that if nobody blinked at two centuries of nine men on the Supreme Court, nobody should blink at nine women. I think this follows in the same vein.


I agree with and that point of view. 
But I also suspect if two of those nine were say, Harriet Meirs and Judy Sheindlin, Justice Ginsburg might think about qualifying her statement a little. 
She'd want the nine best women, if not the nine best legal minds regardless of sex, and there is a pervading opinion in SF Fandom that over the last decade plus, the best stories haven't been nominated and/or winning for a variety of reasons, and several deserving works have been left off as well.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

I know one of those who got nominated, and have for many years - he is a great guy who would be appalled to be caught up in some sort of war going on.  And there is a bit of a one at the moment - I've had to limit my time on various gaming forums since the whole GamerGate thing started up.  Games, comics, movies and now the Hugos - they are all being caught up in a fairly heated battle over political correctness and privilege.  Its all rather depressing at the moment.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

The issue is that the Sad Puppies lot genuinely think that no one ever could actually like a book about someone gay, transgendered, female and/or of color unless they were pretending to in order to be politically correct. The idea that speculative fiction readers might actually appreciate and enjoy different perspectives is entirely incomprehensible to them.  So they invent SJW conspiracy theories that actually just amount to people voting for what they like and enjoy, just like they have the right to.

Their narrowness of perspective is scary. 

But let them vote. Everyone who qualifies has the right to nominate and vote as they please. Didn't stop Vox Day/Theodore Beale deservedly ranking below "No Award".

ETA: A S Beale is right. Being on the SP slate doesn't mean an author is undeserving, just that SP have co opted them for their own ends. The best thing, if you qualify, is to vote exactly as you would if this had never happened.

The link to [email protected] is accurate. I've been a gamer for three decades and I've programmed hobby games for 25, by the way, getting in before the inevitable GG " Oh, you're a woman, you play Angry Birds and you think you're a gamer". I will admit that I prefer thoughtful, interesting indie games* and niche Japanese games to Call of Duty, though... Just the kind of games VD and his lot rail against, just as they rail against anything but a super conservative male perspective in SF. The exact same thing happened when Gone Home won so many video game awards, the GGers fell over themselves trying to attribute its success to lgbt tokenism instead of the fact that it is a stunning game that pushed the boundaries of video game narrative-- including dealing with issues of sexuality, family and identity. 

*and Tekken.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Davout73 said:


> She'd want the nine best women, if not the nine best legal minds regardless of sex, and there is a pervading opinion in SF Fandom that over the last decade plus, the best stories haven't been nominated and/or winning for a variety of reasons, and several deserving works have been left off as well.


Okay, and once again I ask you: whose pervading opinion is this? What is this based on? Because your "pervading opinion" does not mirror my reading experience or the experience of my friends. It is not the pervading opinion of the people I talk to about books.

I read the entire 2014 Hugo slate (or at least started to read--I did give up on a handful of the novels that weren't to my taste after a few chapters), and did not find the winners or the minority-authored books to be less worthy in any way. (Exception: I didn't really like Ancillary Justice; stylistically, it wasn't to my taste. But I know a bunch of people who felt differently, as always happens with books.) But I am half-Chinese and female, and that does inform my experience. There are some things I do respond to that maybe someone else wouldn't.

And so yeah, I loved Mary Robinette Kowal's "The Lady Astronaut of Mars" because she wrote something that I responded to. And yeah, I thought that Vox Day's short story was derivative and like a million other things that I'd read. But that was my honest opinion.

If what is happening is that more women and minorities are reading science fiction, and responding to books that better represent their experience, then it might be that there are just more books you don't enjoy on the slate. It might be that the tastes of people like Vox Day are no longer mainstream. That doesn't make the nominated books bad books, and it doesn't mean that anyone pulled shenanigans to get them on the slate. It just means that the mainstream changes.

But when you give me talk of "pervading opinion" and "perception" without evidence, I have to wonder. I'm reading the same books and thinking, "Wow, this is amazing."


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> But I am half-Chinese and female, and that does inform my experience. There are some things I do respond to that maybe someone else wouldn't.
> 
> And so yeah, I loved Mary Robinette Kowal's "The Lady Astronaut of Mars" because she wrote something that I responded to. And yeah, I thought that Vox Day's short story was derivative and like a million other things that I'd read. But that was my honest opinion.
> 
> If what is happening is that more women and minorities are reading science fiction, and responding to books that better represent their experience, then it might be that there are just more books you don't enjoy on the slate.


Gosh. You mean, some of us actually enjoy works by women and minorities, we're not being forced to read and vote by the PC police? But popular awards are always unanimous!


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> True. Makes you wonder why Kary English, Annie Bellet, Rajnar Vandra, Megan Grey, and the other oppressed would agree to be part of it.


As a kid, one movie that made a huge impact on me was the cheesy but wonderful "Battle for the Planet of the Apes." The nasty evil Ape-oppressing humans lost the battle to the enlightened Apes - and what happened? The Apes, or at least the thuggish Gorillas, replaced human oppression with their own, setting up the sequence of movies for its well-known time loop in which each group brought on its own doom, over and over, by repeating the mistakes of the past/present/future.

"We, the enlightened ones, shall take over and oppress our former oppressors! And crow about it!"

Sound familiar?

"And I did see people celebrating their nomination because they were minorities--"

- Rather, we see people celebrating because the "non-minorities" LOST. This creates the _perception_ of bias, don't you think?



shelleyo1 said:


> So it's unreasonable that anyone should beat them? Why?


Rather, it's unreasonable that no story by Pratchett never won a Hugo, as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), when other stories that seem less deserving did, because of perceived bias.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Davout73 said:


> Women and minorities have been winning awards in Science Fiction for quite some time now. The issue lately has been that many of the stories being nominated and winning haven't been the best stories out there, but have been nominated because of the message in them/who wrote them (IE, not some old white dude).


But all that's a matter of opinion. Who are the ones saying they're not the best?



> At the same time, authors who's previous work should have been recognized,Kevin Anderson and Pratchett are probably the best examples of this, have been "overlooked". And how any reasonable SF reader/fan can overlook Anderson and Pratchett is just plain odd.


So it's unreasonable that anyone should beat them? Why?



> Theres some good works on the SP slate, from authors whose beliefs are across the spectrum. That these same authors are being attacked on not what they wrote isn;t fair now, is it?


I can't figure out what you're referring to here.

I know the sad puppy thing is basically a revolt against what a bunch of white dudes believe is the social justice takeover of the Hugo's. I don't happen to agree with them, but I'm not heavily invested one way or the other, because the Hugos are a bit like choosing prom king and queen. It's a popularity contest. Which makes it kind of amazing to me, is that the people who voted for the old guard were correct (in their view) and not possibly biased by knowing the writers or having a similar religion or philosophy or political belief, but the people voting for more socially aware fiction by a more diverse group of writers maybe they know and share philosophies with are biased enough a campaign has to be created to stop them.

In summary, nothing's changed, but the the direction of the wind has shifted, and wow that pisses people off. Everybody's privilege is just hanging out all over the place, and all the arguments for the sad puppy thing actually do a really great job of illustrating the other side's points.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Davout73 said:


> True. Makes you wonder why Kary English, Annie Bellet, Rajnar Vandra, Megan Grey, and the other oppressed would agree to be part of it.  Although Kary English has a post or two on it if I recall...


Are you listening to yourself? Adding a smile really doesn't help.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> Rather, it's unreasonable that no story by Pratchett never won a Hugo, as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), when other stories that seem less deserving did, because of perceived bias.


Wow, it's great that Sad Puppies is speaking up for authors like Pratchett, when...

Oh, wait. Pratchett wasn't on the Sad Puppies nominating slate.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Well, at least one author on that slate is female, socialist, queer, and her story is about a non-white female protagonist (Goodnight Stars is the title). Also, it was bought and published by Hugh Howey.  There are also other women, minorities, and liberal authors up for awards, if that truly matters more than their fiction to you.

So... it isn't a generic set of things up there. And some of that work is by hard working, really good writers (and editors, and artists) who write awesome fiction.

I'll be voting based on a lot of factors, but the fiction itself will be the prime one.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

No Cat said:


> Well, at least one author on that slate is female, socialist, queer, and her story is about a non-white female protagonist (Goodnight Stars is the title). Also, it was bought and published by Hugh Howey. There are also other women, minorities, and liberal authors up for awards, if that truly matters more than their fiction to you.
> 
> So... it isn't a generic set of things up there. And some of that work is by hard working, really good writers (and editors, and artists) who write awesome fiction.
> 
> I'll be voting based on a lot of factors, but the fiction itself will be the prime one.


I hope the works that deserve to win do win based on their own merits rather than because a bunch of voters voted a blind slate because sad puppies.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> Can I ask where this perception comes from? I linked to the actual Sad Puppies slate, which actually makes request for voting en masse for the slate. That is fact, and nobody has disputed it. I have asked to see evidence of something remotely similar from the other side.





> What I got in response was a link to Scalzi pimping his own books, and a link to another person saying, "Here is an editor I really liked." I did not see one person in fact setting forth a slate of minority-authored books for people to vote for en masse. Those links didn't even include evidence of _anyone_ suggesting a vote for a minority-authored book, period.


Sad Puppies is about identity, but not "Whats your skin color" identity, but "What your belief and message" identity. The two are different. SP isn't upset that minority writers are being nominated and winning, heck by the legal interpretation of the word both Beale and Correia are minorities, and the SP slate this year is pretty darn inlcusive. Sad Puppies has always been about deserving works and authors not getting nominated because their message and beliefs are contrary to the voting cliques at Worldcon. And they appear to be correct.

One of the arguments against SP is that they are promoting works en masse and that doing so, while within the rules of the WSFS, is wrong. And yet when authors, well respected authors like Stross and Scalzi do the same thing IE "Here's a list of works I like, go peruse them and if you like them vote for them too" or "This editor is great, read her stuff and include her on your noms" it's ok. The common thread in all of these is that Sad Puppies, Stross and Scalzi are all nominating works they think are good and worthy of being nominated. Yet only one of those three is wrong for doing so. They aren't wrong for how the games the voting process, but for who they nominated.



> Your _perception_ is that there's a definite bias toward minority authors. What evidence is there to support your perception other than the fact that in recent years, minority authors have gotten Hugo nominations/wins? Surely a conspiracy that would have to encompass dozens, if not more, would have something to support it. So where are the blog posts to support this conspiracy? Where are the emails that were sent out to someone that contained the list of nominees?


Well, I'm pretty sure the tweet about "No white man won." was real. And it was made to prove someones point. My perception is that lately, its not the quality of the story, but the message of the story, and maybe the politics of the author as well. There's been a pervasive sense of "Oh Look, another story written by a white person." that's been both spoken and unspoken the past few years. And there's been a growing opinion that the past few years, some works aren't being nominated because they are the best read, or the best written, but because they have a message that the majority of the nominating group, which has historically numbered around the 2K mark, likes.

Do you honestly believe that "If You were a Dinosaur My Love" won because it was the best short story in SF/F last year? Or that "Chicks Dig Time Lords: A Celebration of Doctor Who by the Women Who Love It" won Best related in 2011 because "Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century, Volume 1", "The Business of Science Fiction: Two Insiders Discuss Writing and Publishing", and "Writing Excuses, Season 4" were somehow inferior works? I thought both were inferior works, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. But, as expressed to me by a voter when I asked what they had done after their ballot had been sent in it was "Oh look, a book about an old white dude, two old white dudes talking, and a podcast that's nominated every year." And that wasn't an outlier.



> Because if all you have is your _perception_, I have a problem with that. I've been reading SF/F basically since I was able to read. I've read several Hugo nominees in multiple years. I don't see a difference in quality between the Hugo nominees who were minority authors and Hugo nominees who were not. For instance, I think that N.K. Jemisin's book was brilliantly written and had radically creative worldbuilding like nothing I had ever read before.


And 2312 was heads and tales better than Redshirts IMO. I liked Jemisin's book as well, but I liked the Dervish House better that year. And I firmly believe if NK Jemisin were instead Nick James, and came from an affluent Upper West side family or Albequerque trailer park and wrote "A Hundred Thousand Kingdoms" it would have been nominated as well.



> And so when you say that this is because of identity politics, I feel like we need some proof other than just the fact that some people vaguely feel like it is.


Its all about identity politics. Theirs are right, Sad Puppies are wrong. Look at the outcry over Sad Puppies Slates. Consider that the objection, the main objection, to the SP slate of authors this year and in the past isn't the stories being put forward are bad, or that they aren't well written, or even deserving of being nominated, _but the people writing those stories are bad people. .....or guilty by association by agreeing to be on the slate with those authors_. And because voters don't agree with their politics or beliefs, they are judging them on those, and not what they wrote. I think Vox Day is a reprehensible person, but if your going to say he came in last behind "No Award" because his story was the worst on the slate last year, I have a bridge in some swampland to sell you. There are already a multitude of comments out there by voters saying "I'm not reading them and putting them behind "no award" because they are (Insert right wing anti gay anti whatever here)." Even Scalzi has said "Nominte your your two favorites and then "No Award". And they are PROUD of saying such things in public. And they are so upset at what SP has been able to do now they are going to try and change the nominating procedures, and limit who can vote to attendees only, or any other myriad number of solutions to stop Kate Paulk from putting out Sad Puppies 4 next year.

And if your OK with that, then SF/F deserves what it gets.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

Creating a list of authors who predominantly fit one single profile and encouraging others to flood the ballots with votes of those authors in a concentrated effort to make sure anyone who doesn't fit that profile doesn't win is prejudiced. 

Suggesting a nomination of one or two people who one admires based on the content of the work and pointing out that their work is ignored because of their race or sex and deserves consideration is different and NOT prejudiced. 

If you can't see the difference or if you can't see the problem with this, then you ARE the problem.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> But all that's a matter of opinion. Who are the ones saying they're not the best?
> 
> So it's unreasonable that anyone should beat them? Why?


No, its unreasonable they've never even been nominated, especially to those who consider themselves pretty hardcore SF/F fans.



> I know the sad puppy thing is basically a revolt against what a bunch of white dudes believe is the social justice takeover of the Hugo's. I don't happen to agree with them, but I'm not heavily invested one way or the other, because the Hugos are a bit like choosing prom king and queen. It's a popularity contest. Which makes it kind of amazing to me, is that the people who voted for the old guard were correct (in their view) and not possibly biased by knowing the writers or having a similar religion or philosophy or political belief, but the people voting for more socially aware fiction by a more diverse group of writers maybe they know and share philosophies with are biased enough a campaign has to be created to stop them.


Well, its more than just white dudes, but hey, whatever fits your unbiased narrative, go with it.

Heres the thing: If Sad Puppies were and are wrong about what they are saying, why the uproar? Surely if they were ignored they'd go away and back to making money.

Edited, whoops.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> I hope the works that deserve to win do win based on their own merits rather than because a bunch of voters voted a blind slate because sad puppies.


And if her work is there only because it was part of the Sad Puppies slate? I'd like all the works to be read and judged on their merits and ranked accordingly. I also know thats not going to happen.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> If Sad Puppies were and are wrong about what they are saying, why the uproar? Surely if they were ignored they'd go away and back to making money.


Are you suggesting that when people see something wrong, they just sit quietly and hope the problem goes away? Because that has _*never*_ worked in my experience.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Call me crazy, but&#8230;

what if instead of complaining about who someone else is voting for, 
you signed up and voted for who you wanted to win?

$40 
Non-attending membership for all ages. Includes voting rights...

https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php#rates


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> Oh, wait. Pratchett wasn't on the Sad Puppies nominating slate.


And if he were, people would be putting him behind "No Award".


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Davout73 said:


> Well, its more than just white dudes, but hey, whatever fits your unbiased narrative, go with it.


It's a good shorthand. I'll stick with it.



> Heres the thing: If Sad Puppies were and are wrong about what they are saying, why the uproar? Surely if they were ignored they'd go away and back to making money.
> 
> Edited, whoops.


This statement is incredibly disingenuous or incredibly short-sighted or both. Wow. It's ideas like this that are the problem. I'll just quote, because she said it better than I have.



bethrevis said:


> Creating a list of authors who predominantly fit one single profile and encouraging others to flood the ballots with votes of those authors in a concentrated effort to make sure anyone who doesn't fit that profile doesn't win is prejudiced.
> 
> Suggesting a nomination of one or two people who one admires based on the content of the work and pointing out that their work is ignored because of their race or sex and deserves consideration is different and NOT prejudiced.
> 
> If you can't see the difference or if you can't see the problem with this, then you ARE the problem.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

bethrevis said:


> Are you suggesting that when people see something wrong, they just sit quietly and hope the problem goes away? Because that has _*never*_ worked in my experience.


Right, which is why Correia started Sad Puppies. After all, if the Hugos haven't become a politicized, message driven popularity contest, there'd be no reason for sad puppies and any attempt to do so would go away with little fuss.

The people opposed to Sad Puppies don't appear to be opposed to the submitted works, rather they are opposed to the people who wrote those works. That sort of behavior doesn't usually get a pass in todays world, but as those people believe wrong, its ok, yes?


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Davout73 said:


> The people opposed to Sad Puppies don't appear to be opposed to the submitted works, rather they are opposed to the people who wrote those works.


That might be true, but the problem isn't the people or the works. People are mostly opposed to how those works got on the ballot. But I think you know that.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

Deleted: I want to do a little more research on this, and also want to avoid trolling.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Davout73 said:


> And if he were, people would be putting him behind "No Award".


Which would be a vote of no confidence in the process, and not an indictment of the work.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

> Creating a list of authors who predominantly fit one single profile and encouraging others to flood the ballots with votes of those authors in a concentrated effort to make sure anyone who doesn't fit that profile doesn't win is prejudiced.


 The common thread amongst the nominated works on the Sad Puppies slate are two fold: They are on the sad puppies slate, and they are some good science fiction.



> Suggesting a nomination of one or two people who one admires based on the content of the work and pointing out that their work is ignored because of their race or sex and deserves consideration is different and NOT prejudiced.


 Thats a true statement. Thats also not what is happening with Sad Puppies. The outcry over SP isn't that they are all White men, or that they wrote bad stories and novels etc. Its that some of the authors have a different set of political and personal beliefs. And they are being judged not on what they have written, but on those beliefs, and in some cases authors are being judged because they are affiliated with those authors by agreeing to be on the SP slate. Sad Puppies authors run the gamut of politcal beliefs, but they aren't being judged against that gamut, but against one or two individuals. And that is prejudice. And if your OK with that, then yes, you have a problem.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> Which would be a vote of no confidence in the process, and not an indictment of the work.


Its a testament to the mindset of many people opposed to Sad Puppies, for whatever reason. He wouldn't be judged by his work, but by his association, to his works detriment in the process.
I wish your statement were true, but theres plenty of comments on a variety of websites that say otherwise.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> Wow, it's great that Sad Puppies is speaking up for authors like Pratchett, when...
> 
> Oh, wait. Pratchett wasn't on the Sad Puppies nominating slate.


Are Hugos allowed to be posthumous?



Davout73 said:


> Heres the thing: If Sad Puppies were and are wrong about what they are saying, why the uproar?


In other words, we should only complain about things that we believe are _right?_ That partakes of the very old fallacy that truth drives out lies. Rather, the opposite tends to happen.



shelleyo1 said:


> It's a good shorthand. I'll stick with it.


Shorthand, or bigoted stereotype? Seems as if when one agrees, it's the former, while if one disagrees, it's the latter. Personally, it would raise the debate to avoid such "shorthands" - read _labels_ - in the future.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> Are Hugos allowed to be posthumous?


Yes. And Pratchett only died this year, and this is Sad Puppies third year presenting a nominating slate.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> Shorthand, or bigoted stereotype? Seems as if when one agrees, it's the former, while if one disagrees, it's the latter. Personally, it would raise the debate to avoid such "shorthands" - read _labels_ - in the future.


If you'll point me to where I can find compelling evidence that it's a bigoted stereotype instead of a fact in this case, I'll absolutely change the way I reference it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. With the information I have in front of me right now, I'm not. I welcome new information.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> Yes. And Pratchett only died this year, and this is Sad Puppies third year presenting a nominating slate.


Then that does smack of hypocrisy, to point at an example of an injustice and then fail to move to rectify it, when to do so would be quite easy (at least to nominate).

But then, being the cynic I am, I see both/all sides as more wrong than right, more concerned with the other side losing than retaining the moral high ground.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> If you'll point me to where I can find compelling evidence that it's a bigoted stereotype instead of a fact in this case, I'll absolutely change the way I reference it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. With the information I have in front of me right now, I'm not. I welcome new information.


That was in response to "just white dudes" as a shorthand.

First, "just," as in only. Are all the SPs nominees white males? If not, this fails the fact test. "Just" also provides the sense of "merely," a term of deliberate diminishment.

Then "white." Setting aside the fact that being white, like other ethnicities, is partially fiction and partially self-identification (I'm not entirely Caucasian in descent, and my grandson "looks white" but is at least a quarter ******* African in genetic makeup, so how are we defined, and why is it fair, unbigoted and unbiased to label me, or him?), are they all white males? If not, it's non-factual labeling, a bigoted stereotype in my book. If I were to incorrectly label a group of women as "just black chicks," would that appear to be bigoted stereotyping? Even if I was (hypothetically) factually correct, labeling them that way would be partaking of a bigoted stereotype.

Then "dudes," another term of deliberate diminishment, like "chicks" above, partaking of a bigoted stereotype.

Quod erat demonstrandum.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> That was in response to "just white dudes" as a shorthand.
> 
> First, "just," as in only. Are all the SPs nominees white males? If not, this fails the fact test. "Just" also provides the sense of "merely," a term of deliberate diminishment.


Come on, David. Almost all. Are we really going to argue semantics over the word "just?" A stunning majority of them are.



> Then "white." Setting aside the fact that being white, like other ethnicities, is partially fiction and partially self-identification (I'm not entirely Caucasian in descent, and my grandson "looks white" but is at least a quarter ******* African in genetic makeup, so how are we defined, and why is it fair, unbigoted and unbiased to label me, or him?), are they all white males? If not, it's non-factual labeling, a bigoted stereotype in my book.


I'm afraid this draws another _come on_ from me. If you look white and pass for white in this society, you benefit from white privilege and get to skip all the disadvantages and prejudices leveled against non-whites. It's hardly about actual ancestry. You know that. Right? I'm betting your grandson has never been stopped and frisked by the cops because of his skin color, if he looks white. So his genes don't matter.



> If I were to incorrectly label a group of women as "just black chicks," would that appear to be bigoted stereotyping? Even if I was (hypothetically) factually correct, labeling them that way would be partaking of a bigoted stereotype.


If we were starting from an equal footing, they would be the same. We're not; they're not. I don't think we're speaking the same language, though. Dude isn't dismissive to me, and not the same as chick.



> Then "dudes," another term of deliberate diminishment, like "chicks" above, partaking of a bigoted stereotype.


Again, not the same at all to me, since things aren't equal from the start. We don't agree. Not sure what else to say, but you're welcome to the last word and the belief that I'm bigoted.

I think the really unfortunate thing about all this is that the Hugos are going to lose any legitimacy they had if it keeps up. Did X win because it was great, or because it was promoted by the SP group? There's always been an element of that, but it never had this much of an agenda attached. I read the headline earlier and it stuck--the Hugos were always political, now they're _only_ political.

That's a shame.

FYI, I will be voting for Annie Bellet, because Goodnight Stars is awesome.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

Hey, folks,

I see that my name's been bandied about here, so I thought I'd pop in. 

Yes, I do have a post on my blog about some of this. It's here: http://karyenglish.com/2015/04/the-disavowal/

I'm packing to head off to the Writers of the Future workshop early tomorrow morning, so I don't have time to give a full response. If folks are still interested by the time I get back (a week from Wednesday) I'd be happy to do so then.

One quick note: Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are not the the same. Different organizers, different slates, different goals.

My nominated story, Totaled, features a female lead scientist and her Hispanic research partner. It's free on Wattpad and on the Galaxy's Edge website. Have a look and decide for yourself whether there's anything offensive in there.

For the record, this story was getting Hugo buzz as early as last summer, long before this year's Sad Puppies campaign had started. Proof: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08/prweb12096372.htm


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

I find it sad but predictable that the culture wars have finally overtaken the genre. The Hugos, and SFF have always been political, but the level of toxicity has reached stunning new highs. I yearn for the comfortable fiction that literary awards are given out based on merit.

That said, a plague on both their houses. 

In one corner you've got Vox Day, unrepentant bigot, John C. Wright, rabid homophobe, and Tom Kratman, who wrote an entire book about how it would be a good idea to kill all the muslims (in an alternate universe, 'natch.) Anyone who votes for a slate that includes them, or doesn't invite themselves off such a slate once they find out they've been added to it, shouldn't complain when they are tarred by association. That includes Jim Butcher, who I would totally have a bromance with if he knew I was alive.

In the other corner you've got people like Benjanun Sriduangkaew, aka infamous internet troll, Winterfox/Requires Hate, still somehow eligible for a Campbell award after being outed.

Yes, there are more crazies in the Sad Puppies camp than the 'establishment,' I don't dispute that. But when the establishment mindset is permissive/enthusiastic regarding a campaign to not buy straight white male authored books for a year, my personal view is that something has gone seriously amiss in the quest for social justice.

Which leaves me in the role of Mercutio: A plague o' both their houses.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Vox Day wasn't on the Sad Puppies slate... he ran his own.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> Come on, David.


- A term of condescension, attempting to pre-diminish your opponent by communicating that his or her argument is worthy only of contempt.



shelleyo1 said:


> Are we really going to...


Ditto.



shelleyo1 said:


> ...argue semantics over the word "just?"


Arguing semantics is exactly what the entire debate rests upon - what language is used to frame it, and upon what does it rest?



shelleyo1 said:


> If you look white and pass for white in this society, you benefit from white privilege and get to skip all the disadvantages and prejudices leveled against non-whites. It's hardly about actual ancestry.


Granted, absolutely. Good point.



shelleyo1 said:


> You know that. Right?


...and again with the contempt and condescension.



shelleyo1 said:


> I'm betting your grandson has never been stopped and frisked by the cops because of his skin color, if he looks white. So his genes don't matter.


Well, since he's yet to enter kindergarten, no.  But I get your point, which is a good one.



shelleyo1 said:


> If we were starting from an equal footing, they would be the same. We're not; they're not. I don't think we're speaking the same language, though. Dude isn't dismissive to me, and not the same as chick.


As you're not the targeted class, it's not your role to decide whether "dude" (or any other word) is offensive to those you label "dudes." Blacks/African Americans get to declare the N-word as offensive. You rightfully have implied "chick" is offensive. Being part of the targeted minority, white men, it's clear to me that calling me a "dude" is an attempt to diminish me. The fact that I may have benefited from my ethnicity from time to time (but let me make it clear, I grew up poor, enlisted in the Army and went to college on the GI bill) doesn't somehow make it right to insult, dismiss or belittle me, it merely adds a further wrong.

The old saw that two wrongs don't make a right really, really, I say again _really_ applies in cases like this. The fact that someone got a better deal in life than I got, and there are plenty, doesn't give me the right to belittle them. In fact, I don't see that anything gives me the right to belittle someone, not even if they belittle me.

I do, however, think it's important to identify it when it happens.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Terry Pratchett *might* have deserved an award for one of his better books, Small Gods or Monstrous Regiment perhaps. Nominating one of his more recent ones would come across as "Sorry you're dead." In any case, he's not the kind of poster boy the wingnuts like, for all he was a middle class, white, straight (but decidedly not Christian) man. 

I have no respect for Winterfox, since she's been mentioned.

But if Sad Puppies were claiming to nominate on merit, they made that claim a laughingstock when they nominated VD for his writing.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Vox Day wasn't on the Sad Puppies slate... he ran his own.


Neither Torgersen nor Correia have distanced themselves from him that I have seen, and I sincerely doubt they're upset he helped upset the apple cart. I stick with my 'tarred' assessment unless I've missed something. But honestly, Coreia's slate http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/02/sad-puppies-3-the-slatening/ includes "One Bright Star to Guide Them" - John C. Wright - Castalia House and"Big Boys Don't Cry" - Tom Kratman - Castalia House. Castalia House being Day's tin horn. So.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Day/Beale was on an earlier SP slate.

If anyone is curious about him, his Rational Wiki page makes some... interesting... reading.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

eleanorberesford said:


> Terry Pratchett *might* have deserved an award for one of his better books, Small Gods or Monstrous Regiment perhaps. Nominating one of his more recent ones would come across as "Sorry you're dead." In any case, he's not the kind of poster boy the wingnuts like, for all he was a middle class, white, straight (but decidedly not Christian) man.


I always preferred his early works after he found his feet. The latter ones tended to be a bit more serious and less on the humour. And while Pratchett was very much progressive in his world view, and while they did influence his writings, he was general subtle about. He didn't beat people over the head with it. He was, from what I've seen, generally admired by all types. Except the serious literary circles. But then they have a poor view of sff in general.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> If anyone is curious about him, his Rational Wiki page makes some... interesting... reading.


I'd rather gargle bleach that put myself in his headspace.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

I should clarify, by "his" Rational Wiki page I mean the one about him, not one by him. 

Pratchett was outspokenly antireligion. He was not a good fit with military creationists like Day. (I loved Pratchett first and foremost for his prose.)


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> I should clarify, by "his" Rational Wiki page I mean the one about him, not one by him.


Ah


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

And on that note, I'm retiring. It's never any good trying to convince alien hunters that the pyramids were built by humans, or people who believe in an SJW Illuminati that sometimes people enjoy diverse books.

My position is still that, despite my profound lack of respect for the Sad Puppies campaign, Worldcon supporters  should vote for whoever the hell they want to win. As they always have.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

I'd heard that Pratchett had actually withdrawn from a Hugo nom (a Pratchett fan told me this the other day) so in case he was misinformed, and since it's come up in this thread, I just did a quick search and found that he declined his nomination for Going Postal: http://kate-nepveu.dreamwidth.org/619044.html


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

This is the first I've heard about this and I did a search to get some more information. One of the results was a Breitbart.com article praising Sad Puppies.

When Breitbart.com is in your corner, that's not a good sign.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

It speaks volumes, dunnit?


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> Then "dudes," another term of deliberate diminishment, like "chicks" above, partaking of a bigoted stereotype.


No, because context matters. Context ALWAYS matters. Language choices are not about the words themselves, but the power behind them and inferences they carry in context.

One day I was at the supermarket, and an old man in a wheelchair said, "*Hun*, would you grab me that box of cereal?" And my response was, "Of course, sir," and I didn't bat an eyelash.

On another day, a pushy salesman came into the office wanting to talk to a manager. After I told him we have a no-solicitation policy, he said, "Look, *hun*, why don't you just get your supervisor?" I won't repeat my response because it would set the filter on fire.

If you don't understand the difference between those two uses of the same word, then _that_ is the problem.

Language is as much about perceptions of power as it is definitions. A black man walking up to his black friend and saying, "What up, N***" is NOT the same thing as a white man walking up to a stranger and saying "What up, N****". You are fixating on a word to try to make a point, but you are pulling the word out of context and ignoring the societal perceptions of power. The word "dude" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, carry the same weight and connotations as "chick." You have lived in this world long enough to know that, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. And before you say otherwise, picture this:

Your new boss asks you to work late. You say you can't. He says, "Come on, dude." You think, _well, he's bit informal_. but other than than normal people don't think twice about it.

Your wife's new boss asks her to work late. She says she can't. He says, "Come on, chick." Lots of women think, _I want to punch him in the face_.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

eleanorberesford said:


> If anyone is curious about him, his Rational Wiki page makes some... interesting... reading.


I suspect we'd all be better off spending that time writing instead.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No, because context matters. Context ALWAYS matters. Language choices are not about the words themselves, but the power behind them and inferences they carry in context.
> 
> One day I was at the supermarket, and an old man in a wheelchair said, "*Hun*, would you grab me that box of cereal?" And my response was, "Of course, sir," and I didn't bat an eyelash.
> 
> ...


All absolutely true - but I believe you have proven my point for me. If the term in question is used in a friendly context by an appropriate person in a socially appropriate way, it can be fine. I can call my buddy "dude" all day and it's fine.

But this wasn't used this way. It was clearly used by one or more social peers in an offensive way in order to label and diminish opponents. That's what I'm objecting to on behalf of others, and when the term is transferred in a patronizing (matronizing?) way to me personally, then yes, I'm personally offended. I try not to use the "offense defense" much, as I think it's overused in our society today, but there it is.

The golden rule always applies. Treat me the way you would like to be treated, please.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Sad Puppies and groups like it are why Spec-Fic has such a hard time not being seen as a clownshoes genre among non-'white guy' types. We get into the genre young with books and cartoons and such, then when we try to join fandoms and groups surrounding it, a bunch of cankerous wretches like #sadpuppies or thier gaming equivalent #gamergate go all 'OH NOES! SOMEONE NOT LIKE ME! THREAT DISPLAY! GET OUT OF HERE, YOU DIRTY DIFFERENT!'

And then when those of us aren't shaken off by that try to make out own place, try to carve out a niche and combat such blatant jackassery, some 'well meaning' folk who claim to be 'level-headed' or 'taking a balanced approach' tell us to just wait quietly until the white guys decide they're bored winning everything ever and getting all the advantages and decide to give us some leftovers.

Well screw that. I'm a hundred and fifty years too late to beg for scraps at the Big House. I'm going to belly up to the table and take mine--right out of the damn mouths of walking hate-plagues like #sadpuppies and their 'heroes'.

What people don't get is that this thing with Sad Puppies isn't about protecting jack. It's about becoming active about what they once passively did: boxing minorities out. The playing ground was never even. The market was never 'free'. The people now cheating their butts off to keep Hugo white are the same one that have been trying to keep their finger on the scale for centuries. This is the death throe of a status quo that's been jealously guarded for longer than anyone here has been alive--and I pray that death is _agonizing_.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> The golden rule always applies. Treat me the way you would like to be treated, please.


The golden rule is there to invoke so you can get the first shot in.

"Please be nice to me in hopes I'll be nice to you"

"...Okay."

"Sucker." *shank*


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Sela said:


> None of us overtly use gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation when selecting stories (unless we're prejudiced and proud of it) to read or when promoting them or awarding them. We all think it's because of story and not our own or the author's identity. However, research does show that we do. Unconsciously, we do. Our prejudices and biases do affect how we value things. Books and short stories are not immune to this.


I wouldn't necessarily call this reviewer of one of my books prejudiced and proud of it, but he was certainly aware that he didn't read books by female authors, and he was very clear on why he didn't read them. http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R2LC8ZWV2DSVRX/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00QBOD5U6

I'm not trying to discount your very good points, but I think often readers are quite aware of their biases. Which makes it even stranger to me that people would get up-in-arms over this issue. If we're all fairly aware that many readers are strong biases based on author gender (and probably ethnicity/race, too), then why don't we guard more carefully against things like "accidentally" shutting out certain groups from major awards? If we're on award panels or editing anthologies or whatever, we should be extra-conscientious of including groups outside of our comfort zones, just so we can be sure we're providing the widest possible selection.

I certainly don't think that excluding straight white males is ever the answer. You don't correct an imbalance by pushing everything over to the opposite side. Then it's just as imbalanced, but in another direction. But I don't think anybody has been suggesting that you exclude straight white males from these awards--just that we try to be more conscious of our biases and take measures to balance things out.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> But this wasn't used this way. It was clearly used by one or more social peers in an offensive way in order to label and diminish opponents.


And you are still ignoring the power differential and cultural norms of the words in question. Because using "dude" to refer to unknown men is not the same as using "chick" to refer to unknown women. _Dude_ is quiet commonly used to refer to unknown men (and heck, sometimes unknown mixed gender groups). "Chick" carries a lot of baggage that "dude" does not. Dude is often used by strangers. "Dude, can you hand me that box off the shelf?" "Dude, sit down I can't see the game." "Dude, that was my parking spot."). Dude is a mundane word used when you don't know a person's name. When was the last time you heard a stranger say "Hey Chick, hand me that box off the shelf?" "Chick, sit down I can't see the game." "Chick, that was my parking spot." The word is simply not used in our culture as a mundane replacement for an unknown woman's name _unless_ it is being used disparagingly. It is never used casually with strangers. Seriously, if you were in the store and a strange man said, "Dude, you're blocking the aisle" you'd probably say "sorry, man" and just move. If the same guy looked at your wife and said, "Chick, you're blocking the aisle" chances are you would have to stop yourself from punching him.

So you are straining to read equal offense between the words when there is not remotely equal weight. That is the point. It's like those people that claim offense when someone calls them a honky while trying to claim the word is THE SAME THING as calling someone the N-word. Such claims completely dismiss centuries of baggage and actual socio-economic consequences. No parent ever had to have "the talk" with a crying child explaining the meaning of the word honky. But "the talk" is very real for African Americans.



> I try not to use the "offense defense" much, as I think it's overused in our society today, but there it is.


And yet here you are, claiming offense in an effort to diminish the real offenses that women and minorities deal with routinely. Sorry, but the use of the word _dude_ does not even remotely reach the level of "offense" and attempting to claim otherwise shows enormous lack of understanding of what women and minorities still, in 2015, deal with on a regular basis. I'm a female game designer. If "dude" was the worst word thrown at me this week, _I would consider myself lucky_.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> The golden rule is there to invoke so you can get the first shot in.
> 
> "Please be nice to me in hopes I'll be nice to you"
> 
> ...


Deplorable expressions like this are exactly why cycles of violence, physical or interpersonal/social, continue.

Demand your fair share? Thumbs up. Insist you be heard? I'm all for it. Knock down the ivory towers? Check. But the only way violence solves a problem is when one side achieves total victory and wipes out the other, an impossibility when we're talking about cultural rather than physical war. Each cultural wave sows the seeds of its own destruction by its actions. If you "win" today, you will lose tomorrow - and by "you" I mean anyone, SP and every other faction included.

There's a reason that following the prison metaphor results in, yes, something resembling the never-ending oppression and violence of prison.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And yet here you are, claiming offense in an effort to diminish the real offenses that women and minorities deal with routinely.


Those are not my motives. You can't believe you know what I'm thinking and you can't know what my experience is. For example, I've served in the military and been to war. You can never fully understand that unless you've been there. I can't fully understand your experience as a minority woman in a male-dominated workplace.

But I do know that I try to treat everyone with similar respect. I don't think it's sensible, fair, healthy or right to treat one person with less respect merely because he or she has theoretically benefited from some advantage elsewhere in society. This seems to be what you're arguing - that because of the power differential, it's okay to disrespect those whom you perceive as more advantaged. Or put another way, that I shouldn't feel disrespected because I happen to be part of a class that, as a whole, is more advantaged.

I firmly disagree.


----------



## thomaskcarpenter (May 17, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Happy to report that KBoards' very own Annie Bellet was nominated for her short story GOODNIGHT STARS, which was part of an anthology edited by John Joseph Adams and myself. I haven't read all the nominees in her category yet, but she definitely deserves the win, in my opinion. If you're qualified to vote, check out her story and see what you think!


QFT!


----------



## 58907 (Apr 3, 2012)

David VanDyke said:


> Those are not my motives. You can't believe you know what I'm thinking and you can't know what my experience is. For example, I've served in the military and been to war. You can never fully understand that unless you've been there. I can't fully understand your experience as a minority woman in a male-dominated workplace.
> 
> But I do know that I try to treat everyone with similar respect. I don't think it's sensible, fair, healthy or right to treat one person with less respect merely because he or she has theoretically benefited from some advantage elsewhere in society. This seems to be what you're arguing - that because of the power differential, it's okay to disrespect those whom you perceive as more advantaged. Or put another way, that I shouldn't feel disrespected because I happen to be part of a class that, as a whole, is more advantaged.
> 
> I firmly disagree.


+1


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> But this wasn't used this way. It was clearly used by one or more social peers in an offensive way in order to label and diminish opponents. That's what I'm objecting to on behalf of others, and when the term is transferred in a patronizing (matronizing?) way to me personally, then yes, I'm personally offended. I try not to use the "offense defense" much, as I think it's overused in our society today, but there it is.


I never referred to you as "dude," not a single time. But did you get in a twist over me using your name and saying _come on_. You picked apart a post of mine telling me what my intent was for the words I used.



> Those are not my motives. You can't believe you know what I'm thinking and you can't know what my experience is.


You knew my motives, though, for simple phrases that I find pretty non-threatening. Saying "come on, David," was condescending and belittling, according to you. That wasn't my intention, either, but you'd made up your mind and knew my motives, and picked apart the rest of the post in a similar way. I guess the reason that you can judge my words by a standard you don't want yours judged by is because you didn't like me calling a bunch of white men white dudes? If no one can know what you're thinking and your experience, how can you know mine?

Tone is hard to judge online. My tone was not meant to condescend or belittle, but to express disbelief and bafflement at what you were saying. But you know better than me, you said so.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> But the only way violence solves a problem is when one side achieves total victory and wipes out the other, an impossibility when we're talking about cultural rather than physical war.


Wait. What?

You realize that:

1) The *shank* was from the person using the 'Golden Rule Delaying Tactic'

and

2) Not representative of a _literal stabbing_, right?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> But I do know that I try to treat everyone with similar respect. I don't think it's sensible, fair, healthy or right to treat one person with less respect merely because he or she has theoretically benefited from some advantage elsewhere in society. This seems to be what you're arguing - that because of the power differential, it's okay to disrespect those whom you perceive as more advantaged. Or put another way, that I shouldn't feel disrespected because I happen to be part of a class that, as a whole, is more advantaged.


This is all well and good... right up until you start advocating a shrinking, meek plan of action that keeps that advantage firmly in place.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> I can't fully understand your experience as a minority woman in a male-dominated workplace.


You can start by trying to understand what I am telling you as a woman in a male-dominated workplace instead of telling me that I am wrong or that your perceived grievances are the same as mine.

I would most certainly not tell you that you were wrong about your own military experience. But nor would I pretend that having someone throw a crumbled up ball of paper at me is the same thing as being shot at in war. I would not pretend that having to wait in line to use the restroom is the same thing as having to relieve myself on a battlefield. I would not pretend that having my purse stolen was the same as having my Humvee blown up by terrorists.

But that is what you are doing. And I'm trying to explain that to you. What you are perceiving as an "equal" insult is no more the same thing as any of the examples that I gave above. And your attempts to claim such hijack the real insults that women and minorities deal with on a regular basis. And this is what always happens with these issues. It is the very root of the entire Sadpuppies nonsense. An overly discriminatory situation arises, and suddenly apologists chose to fixate on some completely mundane non-issue and compare it to the real one. Instead of listening to the life-experiences of those who live it, apologists come along and "blame the victim" for some nonsense slip of the tongue or perceived slight instead of focusing on the issue that instigated the slip. You want to get upset about the use of the term "white dudes", but you don't want to look at the systematic, pervasive, entrenched cultural norms that elicited the word choice to begin with. Decades of being ignored or marginalized by the status quo don't disappear because you decide to be offended by a single instance of the term "white dudes".

And this is what is frustrating. Because now the conversation has become about you being offended by the term "white dude" instead of addressing the decades-old cultural marginalization of women and minorities in genre fiction. And it is what always happens. The term wasn't directed at you. This thread wasn't about you. But here we are talking about you and how you feel people should be following the golden rule and how they should be treating you INSTEAD of dealing with the fact that for decades nobody has told the establishment that the golden rule is even a thing.

Do you understand the frustration?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Shelley, as we both likely know, there are levels of reasonable inference. When someone used a condescending phrase, it's reasonable to infer condescension (judge what someone is thinking in that moment).

It doesn't seem reasonable to me to, for example, extend that inference to something as deep and complex as a motive to "in an effort to diminish the real offenses that women and minorities deal with routinely." That's going far, far beyond the plain and obvious meaning of a phrase.

It's as if I claimed you were using a condescending phrase "in an effort to get back at other white males who treated you badly in the past," which is not something I'm saying (except for an example).



Vaalingrade said:


> This is all well and good... right up until you start advocating a shrinking, meek plan of action that keeps that advantage firmly in place.


It's always difficult to parse out the level of pressure needed to change a system. I'm more MLK than Malcolm X in my approach, because I think violence doesn't create real and lasting change to hearts and minds within civil society, and a lot of innocents get hurt in the process. I understand the urge to tear it all down, the good with the bad. I tend to believe more in reform than revolution.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> Shelley, as we both likely know, there are levels of reasonable inference. When someone used a condescending phrase, it's reasonable to infer condescension (judge what someone is thinking in that moment).


We disagree on what constitutes condescending, among other things.

Julie, I wish there were a LIKE button.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> What you are perceiving as an "equal" insult is no more the same thing as any of the examples that I gave above.
> 
> Do you understand the frustration?


I'm pretty sure I never used the term "equal" or implied all insulting terminology is equal, but rather, I was trying to draw parallels, some hyperbolic (the N-word, for example). I apologize if I did not communicate clearly. But I don't think the issue is about the level of offensiveness as much as my insistence that two wrongs don't make a right, and one wrong doesn't justify the next wrong.

And I do my best to understand the frustration of others. One reason my military career ended with an on-time retirement instead of making the next rank and staying in was that I often spoke up to my superiors about perceived injustices within my workspaces. I took many face shots for rocking the boat when I saw those with less power - women, minorities, enlisted personnel, civilians, gays, etc. - being trampled on. I was the guy that went to the commander on the open door policy to complain, trying to work within the system. I was the guy that got ostracized by my "power bloc" of white males because I wasn't conforming to their comfortable notions of how things should remain. Sometimes I saw results, sometimes I didn't, but I always persisted in doing what I thought was right. This informs my response to being slapped, if not exactly shanked (metaphorically) by those (as a class) I've often tried to help. It feels like a betrayal, I just realized.

But that very fact illustrates that we simply don't know what the other people have been through, and treating each other with respect is doubly, triply important, for that very reason.

...and I don't mean to imply that I among others should be treated with respect merely because I've worked for social justice at times. I really do believe everyone needs to be extended that same courtesy, as much as we can; and because we're using words on a page instead of words in an oral conversation, we should be able to suppress our baser instincts and treat each other civilly.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> It's always difficult to parse out the level of pressure needed to change a system. I'm more MLK than Malcolm X in my approach, because I think violence doesn't create real and lasting change to hearts and minds within civil society, and a lot of innocents get hurt in the process. I understand the urge to tear it all down, the good with the bad. I tend to believe more in reform than revolution.


What violence are you talking about? I haven't said anything about violence. Not a word.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

George Applegate said:


> I guess _tolerance _doesn't mean what I thought.


:facepalm:

Please, not this stupid argument again. "But if you don't tolerate my intolerance then you're not very tolerant are you?"

Recently risen zombie-baby Jeebus save me from the second stupidest argument ever made. Hopefully this is the thousand and first similar response to this: the purpose of tolerance is not to let intolerance flourish. They are diametrically opposed forces. Tolerance and intolerance are opposites. To tolerate intolerance is to undermine and the very purpose of tolerance, so intolerance wins by default. The purpose of tolerance is to end intolerance.


----------



## Kristopia (Dec 13, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No, because context matters. Context ALWAYS matters. Language choices are not about the words themselves, but the power behind them and inferences they carry in context.
> 
> One day I was at the supermarket, and an old man in a wheelchair said, "*Hun*, would you grab me that box of cereal?" And my response was, "Of course, sir," and I didn't bat an eyelash.
> 
> ...


 Word. Well-said.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

MyraScott said:


> Yeah, that sucks, doesn't it?


Somehow I doubt many people will see what you did there. I see what you did there... and it was brilliant. Well done.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

windsong said:


> Most of this is untrue.
> 
> From what I have researched, sad puppies is not upset that women, minorities, and alternative lifestyle authors have won the award. From what I've gathered, they are upset that identity politics have entered into an award that *should* have been about the story. Not the author's race, sex, or orientation. You have only to go to Larry Correia's blog to see what he's written himself. And, as this is the third year this has been running, (unless Tempest Bradford put forth her challenge before this year) it is demonstrably untrue that sad puppies is a result of Tempest Bradford's challenge.
> 
> I don't know if the first part of your statement is true or not, but sad puppies has never been about giving awards to those used to getting them. Again, it helps to research the source (Larry Correia's blog, as well as Brad Torgersen's). If you look at the final ballot, you'll find, for example. Jim Butcher and Kevin J. Anderson, who have never before received nominations. The finalists have a wide range of political leanings as well.


It's all about ethics in gaming journalism.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> Somehow I doubt many people will see what you did there. I see what you did there... and it was brilliant. Well done.


Agreed. It's too bad it was soundly ignored in favor of arguing for the status quo by way of complacency.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Also, I am _very much_ Martin over Malcolm.

But here's the thing: Dr. King never preached complacency and asking nicely.

No, he marched on Selma. He organized bus boycotts. He took part in sit-in and work slowdowns. He hurt the bad guys. He hurt them in ways unkind that weren't physical and meant so much more. Dr. King would never have stood for letting something like #sadpuppies go unchallenged.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

bethrevis said:


> Creating a list of authors who predominantly fit one single profile and encouraging others to flood the ballots with votes of those authors in a concentrated effort to make sure anyone who doesn't fit that profile doesn't win is prejudiced.
> 
> Suggesting a nomination of one or two people who one admires based on the content of the work and pointing out that their work is ignored because of their race or sex and deserves consideration is different and NOT prejudiced.
> 
> If you can't see the difference or if you can't see the problem with this, then you ARE the problem.


Well said.



Vaalingrade said:


> Sad Puppies and groups like it are why Spec-Fic has such a hard time not being seen as a clownshoes genre among non-'white guy' types. We get into the genre young with books and cartoons and such, then when we try to join fandoms and groups surrounding it, a bunch of cankerous wretches like #sadpuppies or thier gaming equivalent #gamergate go all 'OH NOES! SOMEONE NOT LIKE ME! THREAT DISPLAY! GET OUT OF HERE, YOU DIRTY DIFFERENT!'
> 
> And then when those of us aren't shaken off by that try to make out own place, try to carve out a niche and combat such blatant jackassery, some 'well meaning' folk who claim to be 'level-headed' or 'taking a balanced approach' tell us to just wait quietly until the white guys decide they're bored winning everything ever and getting all the advantages and decide to give us some leftovers.
> 
> ...


It's really weird. There are some people who just cannot abide the fact that in certain places SFF is becoming more popular and they largely seem to want to do whatever they can to make absolutely sure the genre remains... "pure". Trouble is, it never was. But that's humanity for you. Even a supposedly "more enlightened" group of people ("Fans are slans" after all) we still have to deal with the trashy side of humanity and their need to knock others down simply because they're different. Never mind that it's those very differences that make groups strong.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No, because context matters. Context ALWAYS matters. Language choices are not about the words themselves, but the power behind them and inferences they carry in context.
> 
> One day I was at the supermarket, and an old man in a wheelchair said, "*Hun*, would you grab me that box of cereal?" And my response was, "Of course, sir," and I didn't bat an eyelash.
> 
> ...


It's really too bad that the people who most need to hear and understand the argument are the least willing to listen.

Though, in a weird twist, I did just watch a prominent female African-American SF writer argue exactly the opposite on social media last week. Her argument was basically that context never, ever matters. That the *souce* of the thing is utterly irrelevant; that only the *target* matters. So according to her, it's just as racist for an African-American man to say the N-word to another African-American man as it is for a white man to say it to an African-American man. I utterly disagree, of course. But there it is. For what it's worth the context of that exchange was about a comedian making jokes rather than SFF awards. In that exchange I watched some white guy ask some questions then the writer and her fans tear into him for disagreeing with her, going to the point that they accused him of being a racist, misogynistic, men's rights activist. I didn't necessarily agree with what he was saying, but simple disagreement did not warrant that response. That writer lost me as a fan.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> Though, in a weird twist, I did just watch a prominent female African-American SF writer argue exactly the opposite on social media last week. Her argument was basically that context never, ever matters.


It always saddens me when writers, who of all people should understand the need of context, claim context doesn't matter.

True communication is all about context. Words by themselves are only half the equation. Some people have knee-jerk reactions to specific words, and feel the only way to deal with them is to erase them from existence. But real communication includes context, body language, and inflection. And considering that the internet negates two of the three, context becomes all the more important online.


----------



## srf89 (Aug 18, 2014)

I wrote about this on my blog. I'm new to the Hugo Award process so I have to say it's disappointing to see just how much personal politics plays in getting nominated, that ultimately one must choose between "left" and "right" to get support from what appears to be a popularity contest (to be fair, I think most awards are given this way). I have a feeling next year's Hugo is going to see the left put up some group to counter the "sad puppies" and go nominate whoever is opposite the SP slate, which will result in 2017 being another move of the pendulum back to SP. The losers are those who just want to believe the most prestigious award in Sci-fi/Fantasy goes to recognition of merit, and not whose side you're on.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> That might be true, but the problem isn't the people or the works. People are mostly opposed to how those works got on the ballot. But I think you know that.


To paraphrase a quote: I am amused by people who claim to love democracy until somebody they don't like turns out to be better at it than they are.

Look, I can link to more than a few post by Scalzi where he says "These are what I am voting for." Are we supposed to believe noone else out there copied what he posted? Are we convinced that everyone who voted for a SP work voted 100% the same. If that is what they are truly upset about, wouldn't you say their critics proposed solutions, such as voting No Award above anything on the SP slate, are a bit heavy handed in response?

Sad Puppies has always been "Vote the works on their merits, not who wrote them." They've shot themselves in the foot along the way with some of their nominees, but anyone who wants to claim this years slate is nothing more than a collection of "Right Wing misogynist nutjobs...etc etc etc" is either willfully obtuse, intellectually lazy, or both.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> Look, I can link to more than a few post by Scalzi where he says "These are what I am voting for."


Please do.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

> What people don't get is that this thing with Sad Puppies isn't about protecting jack. It's about becoming active about what they once passively did: boxing minorities out. The playing ground was never even. The market was never 'free'. The people now cheating their butts off to keep Hugo white are the same one that have been trying to keep their finger on the scale for centuries. This is the death throe of a status quo that's been jealously guarded for longer than anyone here has been alive--and I pray that death is agonizing.


So Correia, who is one of those minorities, is challenged by the Hugo status quo to do something about what he sees as wrong, does something about it, the Hugo status quo loses their collective freaking mind, and he's boxing minorities out?


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> Please do.


Phones not best for for posting links. he used to do a Pimpage thread, if you google "Scalzi award pimpage" they come up. IIRC in most of those he's nominating his works in the various categories. I suppose if Correia had done the same the outcry would be less.

But there have always been a few posts the past few years of people putting out their recommendations. And, if the RUMINT is to be believed, there have always been behind the scenes efforts and blocs trying to get one or two works in a category nominated. Then again, until recently it only took maybe 50 or 60 votes to get a work nominated.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> :facepalm:
> 
> Please, not this stupid argument again. "But if you don't tolerate my intolerance then you're not very tolerant are you?"
> 
> Recently risen zombie-baby Jeebus save me from the second stupidest argument ever made. Hopefully this is the thousand and first similar response to this: the purpose of tolerance is not to let intolerance flourish. They are diametrically opposed forces. Tolerance and intolerance are opposites. To tolerate intolerance is to undermine and the very purpose of tolerance, so intolerance wins by default. The purpose of tolerance is to end intolerance.


Perfectly stated. This whole "you have to be tolerant of my intolerance or else you're persecuting me!" is a common refrain used by bigots in this day and age and it's so unbelievably backwards that I have no idea how anyone can say it with a straight face. It's like the people who say, "I love gay people, I just don't want them to get married, teach my kids, shop at my stores, or eat at my restaurant."



Davout73 said:


> Phones not best for for posting links. he used to do a Pimpage thread, if you google "Scalzi award pimpage" they come up. IIRC in most of those he's nominating his works in the various categories. I suppose if Correia had done the same the outcry would be less.
> 
> But there have always been a few posts the past few years of people putting out their recommendations. And, if the RUMINT is to be believed, there have always been behind the scenes efforts and blocs trying to get one or two works in a category nominated. Then again, until recently it only took maybe 50 or 60 votes to get a work nominated.


Let's be clear about something--putting out recommendations is NOT the same thing as trying to rig an election. The SP/RP crowd aren't interested in recommending the best books out there, they're interested in pushing books that fit their agenda.

Could there have been behind-the-scenes efforts by other groups to do the same thing in the past? Yes, there very well could have. But as of right now, that's speculation and it doesn't mean the SP/RP crowd are right, it means the other people are wrong, too. But we DO know that SP/RP are pushing an agenda. They suffer from what I like to call PWMS--Persecuted White Man Syndrome.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> Somehow I doubt many people will see what you did there. I see what you did there... and it was brilliant. Well done.


The smart people got it.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

Myra, Courtney, Julie, Vaalingrade, et al: *thank you.*


----------



## Kristopia (Dec 13, 2013)

Ditto Bethrevis - thank you.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Perry Constantine said:


> Let's be clear about something--putting out recommendations is NOT the same thing as trying to rig an election. The SP/RP crowd aren't interested in recommending the best books out there, they're interested in pushing books that fit their agenda.


Rigging an election would be not following the rules. Getting votes counted twice, fake submissions, not having submissions counted, throwing submissions away without counting them that would be rigging. And the WSFS has always been very above board when it comes to revealing the ballots after the awards.

Sad Puppies games the system the same way state legislatures gerrymander districts: Legally.

How are the authors and stories on this year slate pushing the "persecuted white man agenda?" Vajra doesn't fit that narrative, and neither does Annie Bellets story. And if you know Kloos and Butchers politics your part of a very small circle. What agenda are those two pushing? Is it the same agenda that Kary English has, or Kevin Anderson?

Their agenda has been getting good works nominated. They've failed as often as they have succeeded in that regard IMO.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Their *stated *agenda has been getting good works nominated.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> Their agenda has been getting good works nominated. They've failed as often as they have succeeded in that regard IMO.


Right, and GamerGate is all about ethics in gaming journalism and the Men's Rights movement is about universal equality. Paint a cowpie any color you like, it'll still be cowpie when you're done.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Like Fishbowl said: "Actually, it's about ethics in games journalism".

They're basically the same group as GG, being puppeteered by the same people with the same MO. The only difference-- the ONLY difference is that this time around, they straight up created a separate hashtag to get militant with, #rabidpuppies. My kingdom for a brick, a sack and a deep river.

Edit. Ninja'd by Perry. Curse you Perry the Writer Guy! /thedoof


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

I can't speak for any other men but I have to get this off my chest.

"DUDE" is condescending in my world and culture.  No I don't blow a gasket if someone uses it with me, but I don't like it either.  Having someone tell me it's alright to be called a "DUDE" can't possibly understand my own feelings (even if they are wrong or I'm accused of not understanding the context of being called it).  Yes, I'd prefer that to being called (and I'm quoting the movie Roadhouse here): "Two nouns combined to elicit a response".  (I may have paraphrased it instead but you get the point).

Why am I even posting this I don't know.  I think there resides in all of us that personal spark that motivates us, yes even demands of us, to act when we see something that has elicited an emotional response from our inner selves.  At least reading this post I'm seeing a lot of our personal experiences being touched.

Regards,
SM


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Context always matters. Context never matters. Context sometimes matters. The context of the discussion matters, or doesn't matter, in the larger context of global, national, regional local and historical realities and histories.

Context is a logical bog that can be used to back up any position, by any one, at any time.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

'Well I don't like being called this completely innocuous thing that has nothing to do with the diminutive I was using, but it really, really sounds like their equivalent and now _you're_ the real bad guy.'

I've seen people use the same argument to try and get away with the n-word.

Can we just not go to _that_ place, please?

Actually, can we just pretend all the 'No, actually you're the REAL racsit/sexist/bigot' arguments have been made and appropriately mocked then flushed down the toilet for the purposes of this thread? That'd be a real time saver.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

@Salvador: Thank you for speaking up. Whether or not this is respected, you are not standing alone.


----------



## Kristopia (Dec 13, 2013)

I'm going to repeat here what Julie stated earlier, because it is obvious that certain others either didn't read it, or don't give one flying...fig...about the fact that they are perpetuating the problem by saying, "Well, 'dude' DOES offend me," or "Well I'm not like those other guys, so stop persecuting me," rather than becoming part of the solution. The continual attempts to derail the thread and make it all about YOU rather than about the rampant sexism and the privilege that white fellas hold (is "fellas" offensive, too? have you been oppressed by that word as well, for decades, centuries?).



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You can start by trying to understand what I am telling you as a woman in a male-dominated workplace instead of telling me that I am wrong or that your perceived grievances are the same as mine.
> 
> I would most certainly not tell you that you were wrong about your own military experience. But nor would I pretend that having someone throw a crumbled up ball of paper at me is the same thing as being shot at in war. I would not pretend that having to wait in line to use the restroom is the same thing as having to relieve myself on a battlefield. I would not pretend that having my purse stolen was the same as having my Humvee blown up by terrorists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

I'm half asian and female. Yes, I've had to deal with my share of racism. But that doesn't mean I'm insensible to other people's feelings. In a civil society, when someone speaks up, the polite, civil thing to do is apologize (if necessary) and move on. Not mock, belittle, or tell them their feelings don't count. Otherwise, that makes us no better than the people we rail against.


----------



## Kristopia (Dec 13, 2013)

Windsong - this has nothing to do with being insensitive to others' feelings - it has to do with the fact that, every time this particular issue comes up, whether it's here on kboards discussing the Hugo awards and the backlash of the white guys group who speculated (just speculated) that the women and minorities had an "agenda" in the year before (because whyever else would anyone want to read a spec fic or sci fi book written by a woman or a minority?), so they formed a group very similar to the gamergate groups in scope, to take power back to the white guy arena.

For people to derail this thread with, "well THAT OTHER word offends ME," is a red herring. It has completely changed the thread about the politics going on with the Hugo awards (and the privileged group's determination to "take it back" as their own) to "oh no, you offended ME. That's the same thing as centuries and decades of connotations regarding a word." It is a derailment of the importance of the topic to focus on the _ individual _ rather than on the problem the individual is detracting from by continuing to rail about their offense.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> . The continual attempts to derail the thread and make it all about YOU rather than about the rampant sexism and the privilege that white fellas hold ...


This thread is about the Hugo awards and morose canines.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Kristopia said:


> Windsong - this has nothing to do with being insensitive to others' feelings - it has to do with the fact that, every time this particular issue comes up, whether it's here on kboards discussing the Hugo awards and the backlash of the white guys group who speculated (just speculated) that the women and minorities had an "agenda" in the year before (because whyever else would anyone want to read a spec fic or sci fi book written by a woman or a minority?), so they formed a group very similar to the gamergate groups in scope, to take power back to the white guy arena.


I'm sorry, but that isn't true. If you read Larry Correia's own words, you would know exactly why he started Sad Puppies, which is in its third year. It is also untrue that they were only speculating. I read the twitter feeds last year, especially during the Nebulas--which aren't the Hugos, but the same accusations have been leveled there as well. I'm going straight off what people said directly--Larry on his blog, as well as on twitter. Also, if you care to look at the timelines, you would find that Sad Puppies happened long before Gamergate.

Anyhow, my point in speaking up isn't to convince anyone. The facts are available via google. I spoke up because it isn't right to belittle someone and their right to their own opinions and feelings regardless of who they happen to be. In my opinion, the replies mocking and belittling are just as derailing to this thread, and quite a bit longer, some of them.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> Well said.
> 
> It's really weird. There are some people who just cannot abide the fact that in certain places SFF is becoming more popular and they largely seem to want to do whatever they can to make absolutely sure the genre remains... "pure". Trouble is, it never was. But that's humanity for you. Even a supposedly "more enlightened" group of people ("Fans are slans" after all) we still have to deal with the trashy side of humanity and their need to knock others down simply because they're different. Never mind that it's those very differences that make groups strong.


Hate to say it but the political divisions in the US are making themselves felt in the world of SFF more overtly. They've always been there, of course, but it wasn't until the status quo was challenged that it became more obvious. Those who are in the dominant group think there is no bias involved in them being at the top -- that they were there by merit. It's only when their position is challenged that they acknowledge race, gender, sexual orientation and class bias and oppression -- but they think it's against them.

Amazing hubris and narcissim...


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

Sometimes I'm just stupid LOL!  

Yeah, I was going to lose sleep over that post and get Betty or Ann on me so I'll just try to bow out.  I think this topic strikes too closely to too many of us.  It did me even though I tried hard to just read and not post.  I know I'm in trouble when my head tells me no but my heart says yes.

I'll learn.
Regards,
SM


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Salvador, you have nothing to apologize for. There are reactionaries on both sides of the fence, who see agendas where there is only the attempt at honest discourse, and who will attempt to shut down any conversation that is not 100% supportive of their stance.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Being part of a minority does not mean you're not playing into the culture that maintains the status quo and making the same horrible arguments used to keep others down. Lots of people act against their own interests in exactly this manner.

It's all just a discussion until the Sad Puppies thing you're getting too 'uppity' and decide to put you in your place.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> It's all just a discussion until the Sad Puppies thing you're getting too 'uppity' and decide to put you in your place


I'm not sure I see your point, V. Are you saying there shouldn't be discussions? Surely not.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Vaalingrade said:


> Being part of a minority does not mean you're not playing into the culture that maintains the status quo and making the same horrible arguments used to keep others down. Lots of people act against their own interests in exactly this manner.
> 
> It's all just a discussion until the Sad Puppies thing you're getting too 'uppity' and decide to put you in your place.


Let's not assume you understand or are privy to my motivations, reasons, or life experiences. It is precisely because of the racism I've had to deal with that I *will* not stand by and not say anything. Those times when I was at the bottom of the dog pile, it would have really been nice to have someone extend a hand and help me up. I'm not going to turn around and mimic the behavior that put me at the bottom.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Michael McClung said:


> I'm not sure I see your point, V. Are you saying there shouldn't be discussions? Surely not.


I'm saying that some people might not feel they really have a dog (heh) in this fight, but they need to realize that they might be in the running for something someday and groups like this will be ready and waiting to tear them down.

And they will. It's what they're for no matter what they pretend to profess.

Trying to say 'well both sides are meanie heads' is a perfect example of the Golden Mean Fallacy. These guys do not need people playing devil's advocate for them. Or trying to justify them. It's not 'fostering discussion' to try and stick up for them, it's just aiding and abetting bigotry.

Sometimes, in real life, there really is a bad guy. And this time, it's #SadPuppies


----------



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

Fascinating discussion.  I won't call anyone dude, chick, or fella.  I hardly ever use dude, though perhaps in jest to a friend... now I'll have to think about whether it might be hurtful.  How about dudette?  

Annie Bellet is a friend of mine and wrote a truly awesome story... I'm hoping that her happening to be on this list (actually both SP and RP, yes?) which has an agenda behind it, and may include some individuals who seem to have made reprehensible statements, will not keep her story from being considered fairly.  

I can't speak for her, but if an author were told she'd be put forward with some other good stories as a Hugo nominee, why should she say no to that?  Would she necessarily even know where the list would appear, who else would support it, or what other authors would be on it?  I doubt it.  So it hardly tars each individual writer whose name was put on the SP/RP lists with the politics of the others.

In any case... may the best writers win!


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm saying that some people might not feel they really have a dog (heh) in this fight, but they need to realize that they might be in the running for something someday and groups like this will be ready and waiting to tear them down.
> 
> And they will. It's what they're for no matter what they pretend to profess.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your clarification. I really do understand your position better now, though I don't wholly agree with it. It's not about equivalencies of evil canceling each other out. One the one hand you've got right wing zealots pushing a right wing agenda that includes sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance, and dressing it up as populism. On the other hand they're doing it in reaction to a small, core group of left wing establishment types who condone or espouse some pretty heinous nonsense that masks itself as social justice.

That's not 'both side do it, so shrug' in my book. That's 'a plague on both your houses' as I've already stated, not least because the actual quality of the works being honored with the Hugo becomes meaningless.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> So it hardly tars each individual writer whose name was put on the SP/RP lists with the politics of the others.


I respectfully disagree. She knows now that she's been nominated. Unless she lives under a rock, she knows now that the nomination is a poisoned cup, at best. If she doesn't decline the nomination, many people will infer she tacitly supports the rest of the slate.

Like my grandma used to say, 'sometimes you wake up with dogs, and those dogs have fleas.' (My grandma used to drink. A lot.)


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

If you'd like to know how Annie Bellet feels about things, perhaps you should read her blog post about it: https://overactive.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/hugo-nomination-and-thoughts/


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

I'm a life-long SFF reader. When I was ten, I started out reading my father's old SF digests I found in his footlocker from his time in bootcamp. I remember vividly To Serve Man by Damon Knight. That story and others got me hooked and I soon moved on to Heinlein juvies, Bradbury, Clarke, Asimov, etc. and on through the golden age to new wave, new weird, cyberpunk and so on.

There is so much out there to read it's hard to pick. I scan the magazines for short stories and novellas. I hunt the shelves in bookstores for new novels and collections. I read online blogs for recommendations. I check out my favourite authors for new releases. Still, there is so much to read, and so much to miss. I looked to the awards to find what I thought was the good stuff. Works that win awards have to be the best, right? How naive of me!

My view of the Hugos is this: the awards are a popularity contest among the Worldcon community and as with all such communities, what wins depends entirely on who is active and who votes. As a result, it is entirely possible for one bloc or another to affect the outcome. The Hugos have always been about the most popular book (novella, novelette, short story etc ) _as chosen by the people who vote for the Hugo awards_. The Hugos are simply the most popular works as chosen by a very select few.

They are nothing more and nothing less than that. They are not an objective assessment of the quality of the year's offerings, as if there could ever be such an animal. But they do sell SFF and can make careers or at least, make a career in SFF sweeter. So there are stakes involved.

What we are witnessing is a battle among SFF fans/authors/editors/publishers over which qualifying works will win the popularity contest.

SP argues that in the recent past, works were not chosen because of merit but for political reasons, specifically to promote a leftist social justice agenda. Works that did not fit in with this agenda were not considered, had no chance, and if they were put forward, the authors would be attacked. I cannot attest to the veracity of these claims. SP also clams its only agenda is to depoliticize the Hugos and vote for works based on entertainment value.

What it has done, sadly, is to politicize it even more firmly.

I've been reading both sides of the SP divide and I conclude this: it's a mess. The vast vast vast majority of SFF readers are not members of Worldcon and do not vote on the Hugos. The awards are not about merit but about taste and preference, and about the specific tastes and preferences of a vanishingly small number of SFF readers who pay their fee.

As such, sad to say but I guess I will be ignoring them from now on.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> On the other hand they're doing it in reaction to a small, core group of left wing establishment types who condone or espouse some pretty heinous nonsense that masks itself as social justice.


Except those people don't exist. The Hugos have never been controlled by some left wing cabal. There's never been some ideological vanguard putting forward nominations from the left. it's just a talking point.

The best anyone has come up with for this supposed left wing equivalent was Scalzi's pimping threads. These, of course, are not in any way shape or form an ideological agenda. For awards, it's generally him saying stuff he's eligible for. I mean, isn't that why authors have promotion blogs? In the immortal words of Sesame Street "One of these things is not like the other."


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Except those people don't exist. The Hugos have never been controlled by some left wing cabal.


You misunderstand me on the second part of your statement, and we disagree on the first.

As to the fist part, a small fraction of left leaning editors and SFF luminaries stand squarely behind such concepts as "if it happens to a white person it can't, by definition, be racism". A great many more lent support to Requires Hate, excusing her abusive vitriol as "punching up." These two examples support my previous statement.

I know full well, and you know full well, that the Hugos are not hand picked by some leftist cabal. But are there tastemakers? Of course there are. And some of them hold views I find abhorrent. I already stated they were far less numerous than the right wing crackpot crowd. It doesn't matter. Sad puppies need something to be sad about, and have no issue conflating and exaggerating.


----------



## Keith Soares (Jan 9, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> If she doesn't decline the nomination, many people will infer she tacitly supports the rest of the slate.


This is precisely the kind of nonsensical political bullshit that is the problem. The author did not put their own name on ANY of these lists. To then be beholden to turn down a prestigious nomination due to inane political misconceptions outside of their control is not only ridiculous but insulting. And pressuring any author to do so in this (or any other) public forum is sad and wrong.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Keith Soares said:


> This is precisely the kind of nonsensical political [bullcrap] that is the problem. The author did not put their own name on ANY of these lists. To then be beholden to turn down a prestigious nomination due to inane political misconceptions outside of their control is not only ridiculous but insulting. And pressuring any author to do so in this (or any other) public forum is sad and wrong.


Hi Keith,

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, of course. I don't personally view my own opinions on the matter as ridiculous or insulting, but rather principled. And I hope you're not inferring that I'm pressuring anyone to do anything. There will of course be, and already are, others who are pressuring the nominees. They'll do what they want, and I'll judge them by their actions. Personally I couldn't stomach finding out I'd been nominated by the same crowd that nominated Wright and Kratman, but YMMV.


----------



## Keith Soares (Jan 9, 2014)

I actually was very much inferring that you were pressuring an author to refuse a nomination. So if you are not, that's good to know. 

I guess what it comes down to is this: Are the nominations for the books or for the authors? If they're for the books, then the politics/race/gender/sexual orientation/ideology of the author seems immaterial. And if that's immaterial, why would an author decline based on outside lists or the makeup of other authors nominated?


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Are the nominations for the books or for the authors? If they're for the books, then the politics/race/gender/sexual orientation/ideology of the author seems immaterial. And if that's immaterial, why would an author decline based on outside lists or the makeup of other authors nominated?


1. The nominations are for the works, not the authors. An author can have multiple works competing against each other in the same category. It has happened before, several times.

2. Ideally, the politics etc. of the author should indeed be immaterial, and only the merit of the work should be considered. This, sadly, is not an ideal world or award, and never has been. This year's award is even less ideal than usual because of slate nominations put forth by the sad puppies. Idealism only works when people vote their consciences after reading all the works they vote on. Slate voting means people do not read the works and consider based on merit, but rather vote as a block to make a political or other statement. It is at this point the award or nomination becomes worthless to a person of conscience, in my opinion.

3. Therefore, if an author nominated by the sad puppies slate doesn't decline the consideration for the award, in my opinion, they're saying in effect that the award is the important thing, rather than recognition of the work, deserving or otherwise.

I hope that clears up what I think and why I think it, on that subject. I'm happy to dig deeper if you like. I kept myself strictly to the award itself, and avoided the greater political issues I have with both sides.


----------



## Keith Soares (Jan 9, 2014)

I have no political connections to either side here, and in all honesty find it infinitely amazing that humans can argue about anything. I also find it tiresome to even keep up with such arguments. 

If I was nominated, I would most certainly not decline. Nor would I listen to the political nonsense of any side.

And if the nomination or award turned out to be worthless in some respect? Well, then it can sit on the shelf next to my other worthless awards.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

So you'd be totes cool that you were only there as an unwitting catspaw for a bunch of delusional racists who see society growing up and putting on its big boy pants as a vast conspiracy against them?


----------



## Keith Soares (Jan 9, 2014)

"only there" - those are the two words I find very hard to believe. There is no merit going on here whatsoever? I doubt that very much.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Keith Soares said:


> "only there" - those are the two words I find very hard to believe. There is no merit going on here whatsoever? I doubt that very much.


The point is any legitimate merit the work may have is tarnished by the fact that, in this specific case, the work is being put forth _specifically_ to make a political point. The work was not nominated on its own merits per se, but because the book fit a specific set of requirements put forth by Sadpuppies to suit their agenda.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Perry Constantine said:


> Right, and GamerGate is all about ethics in gaming journalism and the Men's Rights movement is about universal equality. Paint a cowpie any color you like, it'll still be cowpie when you're done.


Correia has several posts over the past three years detailing how and why he started Sad Puppies. If you have any evidence to show where he is lying about what he's said and why he's done it, by all means, share.

Also, the nominations this year were closed before any mention of Gamergate. 2100 nominations were received. If Gamergate was involved in any way with the voting, the number of nominations received would be around 21000, and they'd be crowing about it all over twitter.

You can be a hateful, spiteful internet troll but if enough people like what you write and the story's is good, you can also get nominated for a Campbell. But thats only if your Name is Requires Hate, and there wasn't a whole lot of outcry over that nomination, was there?


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Keith Soares said:


> "only there" - those are the two words I find very hard to believe. There is no merit going on here whatsoever? I doubt that very much.


I'm confident there is merit there. The problem is in determining which nominations are there based on merit and which ones are there because someone blindly voted the slate. I have no idea if such a determination is possible. All we can do is vote for the works we think deserve the award.

EDIT TO ADD:

Saw this on another writer group. Worth reading if you plan to vote and need help understanding what the "No Award" choice means.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> Correia has several posts over the past three years detailing how and why he started Sad Puppies. If you have any evidence to show where he is lying about what he's said and why he's done it, by all means, share.
> 
> Also, the nominations this year were closed before any mention of Gamergate. 2100 nominations were received. If Gamergate was involved in any way with the voting, the number of nominations received would be around 21000, and they'd be crowing about it all over twitter.
> 
> You can be a hateful, spiteful internet troll but if enough people like what you write and the story's is good, you can also get nominated for a Campbell. But thats only if your Name is Requires Hate, and there wasn't a whole lot of outcry over that nomination, was there?


1. Correia is not the be all and end all of what happened to the nominations this year, and to suggest he is is more than a little disingenuous. You're chopping out Torgersen and Vox Day. VD in particular is relevant, because

2. Seriously, do you not think VD might have correspondence with some small fraction of those who identify with GamerGate? That just strains credulity.

3. 21,000 nominations? At $40, or is it $50 bucks a pop? I think not.

4. I happen to agree with you about Requires Hate, though I will note that the Campbell Award nomination is for 2 consecutive years, and she was nominated as Benjanun S. before her thuggishness was common knowledge. That she gets to retain her place on the nominations list sticks in my craw, and the same logic you apply to her nomination I apply to anything related to Vox Day.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

When I worked for a union, union members, for the most part, did not take part in general assemblies or attend monthly meetings or even vote in elections. For the most part, the issues that received consideration at the GA, the matters that were addressed at monthly meetings, and the candidates who were elected represented at most 5 - 10% of those actually eligible to vote. In their monthly newsletter, the union executive did not reveal how many members actually voted in elections or on motions, etc. They only released info on % of the vote, etc. because if the members knew how small the group of people was who were active and made all the decisions, it might _would_ delegitimize the union, its decisions and the authority of its elected members.

But that is the risk you take in this kind of organization. Most people do not take part. Those who do make the decisions. Their will is done.

It's the same for the Hugos and other awards where a small number of people make the decisions.

In the past as today, those who were active chose the winners. Their taste was recognized. Their choices won the day. The community had a certain profile based on who were the members most willing to pay their $$ and take part. I don't know for sure what that profile has been in the past, but I have a pretty good idea.

Tastes of those participating changes based on who participates and as a result so will the flavour of the awards.

If a bloc of people enter the community with a goal of influencing the nominations and voting, they can do it as SP has shown. They can, if they are organized enough, drown out previously powerful voices in the community and see their will done instead. I've seen it in action on various boards and committees I've been a part of them my career as a student, a member of a college staff association, and a member of a government union.

This is no different. A group of people don't like the way the community is going? Rally the troops, attack and take over. It's really just one taste profile winning over another. If you don't agree with that taste profile, you have to try to defeat it the next time.

It's sad when the taste profile becomes about politics and not about works that have merit because they excite and stimulate and leave a lasting impression. I mean, everyone thinks their choices are about merit, but seriously, it's about the taste of those who participate as it always has been.

If the award is going to be about a work's popularity among a small fraction of those who read SF, people should stop kidding themselves that it's about merit. If it's not about merit in any objective sense, then how prestigious can it really be? How much value can it really have?

That's what I wonder.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> So you'd be totes cool that you were only there as an unwitting catspaw for a bunch of delusional racists who see society growing up and putting on its big boy pants as a vast conspiracy against them?


Oh, you.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

No one is saying the SP _is_ GamerGate. They're just an completely identical movement only for books instead of videogames. They have the same blatant 'dur we don't want politics in our thing' lie as their cover story, they're both being used by the same political entities to desperately grasp at relevant in a popular culture that no longer cares about them, they both have a reaction to social justice akin to a vampire to the presence of the True Cross, they both like to talk like they are literally in a war when they think they're talking in private forums (and incidentally, both seem to not get that anyone can read and follow their links when they use that hashtag, pretty much forgetting the whole point of their adorable private forums), and they both pull the 'no, you're the real racist' thing when called on it.

There's probably a LOT of crossover, but when I say they're essentially the same organization, I mean they're identical, not that they're literally the same thing.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

I'm starting a campaign to encourage Hugo voters (I am pretty sure that if you pay $40 for Sasquan membership NOW you can vote) to take this pledge:

"I will nominate and vote for the Hugo awards based off of the artistic merit of the work or works presented and, as best as humanly possible, ignore the ethnicity, gender, sexuality, politics, religion or other personal factor of the author, editor or artist presenting the work."

Who's with me?


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> If the award is going to be about a work's popularity among a small fraction of those who read SF, people should stop kidding themselves that it's about merit. If it's not about merit in any objective sense, then how prestigious can it really be? How much value can it really have?


This speaks directly to one of the issues I have with the Hugos, and with Worldcon, and with the SFF-as-industry. Worldcon members have said many times that the Hugos belong to Worldcon participants. No more, no less. If memory serves, generally less than a thousand people voting. In a rational world, it would be a nice award to receive, and not much more. That isn't the case. It is in many respects the Oscar of the SFF community, and even a nomination can help to make a career. Yes, this is because many of the Worldcon members are also industry insiders. Absolutely. And so we have this sort of cognitive dissonance regarding the Hugos and what they mean. A Hugo win, to many, is the sort of validation that is priceless by dint of who it is that's doing the voting, the validating.

In that context, what's being done by sad/rabid puppies is psychologically understandable. Reactionaries gonna reactionate. And homophobes, racists, misogynists et al get a Hugo nomination.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

The SP is not gamergate. However, the SP includes Vox Day who admits on his blog to being a gamergate supporter. He's also nominated for short form editor, but if I manage to vote I would definitely pick Jennifer Brozek or Mike Resnick anyway. Long form editor I'm less sure on - the only one I really have a vibe about there is Toni Weisskopf.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> You misunderstand me on the second part of your statement, and we disagree on the first...
> 
> I know full well, and you know full well, that the Hugos are not hand picked by some leftist cabal. But are there tastemakers? Of course there are. And some of them hold views I find abhorrent. I already stated they were far less numerous than the right wing crackpot crowd. It doesn't matter. Sad puppies need something to be sad about, and have no issue conflating and exaggerating.


Why's it always conspiracy theories on the right-wing? I mean honestly. Can't anything just happen in the world without some 67th-Grade Mason or Illuminati Shock Troopers being involved? It's really bizarre to me that facts somehow have a liberal bias too.



> As to the fist part, a small fraction of left leaning editors and SFF luminaries stand squarely behind such concepts as "if it happens to a white person it can't, by definition, be racism". A great many more lent support to Requires Hate, excusing her abusive vitriol as "punching up." These two examples support my previous statement.


Hold on. Stop. Just stop.

There is such a thing as privilege and harm. Some groups simply do have more privilege than others; some groups simply do have more harm coming at them from society than others. These are simple facts of the world. This changes from society to society of course. But the so-called minority groups have less advantages than straight, white, men. The more of those boxes someone ticks, the more privilege they have, that's a simple fact. Someone who's LGB, not white, and female or trans does have a whole heap of unasked for bullshit thrown at them on a daily basis. That's a simple fact.

There are such things as punching up and punching down. Punching down is when someone with privilege attacks someone with less privilege. Punching up is when someone with less privilege attacks someone with more privilege. These are not absolutes, these are situational. Context matters. Someone who's a white, straight, man talking shit about a gay African-American woman is punching down. Period. A gay African-American woman talking shit about a rich, white, straight, man is punching up. Period. Do you ever wonder how things change over time? How history bends towards justice? It's because of people punching up.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

windsong said:


> I'm half asian and female. Yes, I've had to deal with my share of racism. But that doesn't mean I'm insensible to other people's feelings. In a civil society, when someone speaks up, the polite, civil thing to do is apologize (if necessary) and move on. Not mock, belittle, or tell them their feelings don't count. Otherwise, that makes us no better than the people we rail against.


You know, it's unreal to me the thread has shifted to offended men instead of the issue. But I agree. If I had called someone "white dude" and it had upset him, I would have apologized regardless of my opinion of his reasons for being upset. No problem. So I apologize to anyone in this thread whom I referred to as a white dude. Which happens to be nobody. You wouldn't think that, given the conversation.

To illustrate the straw man of the discussion of being offended at someone's reference to a group of white men they don't belong to as "dudes," here's every instance of me using it.

First, I've been lectured on what my words and phrases meant, on the definition of words and my own motives. And there's this



> It's as if I claimed you were using a condescending phrase "in an effort to get back at other white males who treated you badly in the past," which is not something I'm saying (except for an example).


The quoted phrase isn't mine, in word or implication. Both the lecturing and that offend me. Somehow I'll manage. See Steve Hughes.

Here's my every use of "white dude" for easy judging.



shelleyo1 said:


> I'd rather see people encouraging readers to read books from more diverse authors than to say don't read a book by a white dude for a year, sure . . . What are the odds that a year of some people reading books by authors other than white dudes is going to completely shift the balance of power so that the white guys' books aren't getting read and nominated?


No one claimed offense.



shelleyo said:


> If there were more blacks in good roles . . . if more science fiction and fantasy readers looked beyond the older guard white dudes . . . .





> I know the sad puppy thing is basically a revolt against what a bunch of white dudes believe is the social justice takeover of the Hugo's.


No one said anything about being offended yet. Then Davout even used the term as told to him by someone else, without mentioning it offended him. Nobody else said it was an offensive term yet, either.



Davout73 said:


> But, as expressed to me by a voter when I asked what they had done after their ballot had been sent in it was "Oh look, a book about an old white dude, two old white dudes talking, and a podcast that's nominated every year." And that wasn't an outlier.


Then in a reply to me:



> Well, its more than just white dudes, but hey, whatever fits your unbiased narrative, go with it.


I said it was a good shorthand, so I'd stick with it.



David VanDyke said:


> Shorthand, or bigoted stereotype? Seems as if when one agrees, it's the former, while if one disagrees, it's the latter. Personally, it would raise the debate to avoid such "shorthands" - read _labels_ - in the future.





> *Being part of the targeted minority, white men, it's clear to me that calling me a "dude" is an attempt to diminish me.*


Of all the issues I have with this sentence, the relevant one is that I never called him dude.



> I guess the reason that you can judge my words by a standard you don't want yours judged by is because you didn't like me calling a bunch of white men white dudes? If no one can know what you're thinking and your experience, how can you know mine


Last time I used it. And that's all my uses of it, all compiled for easy judging of my bigotry, which is a charge so ridiculous I can't even bring myself to be offended by it.

Now to toss straw men arguments aside, I know at least one person declined a nom because he discovered he was on the SP slate ballot. I don't expect anyone to do that. People on there without having pushed the sp agenda weren't consulted and there's every chance that people on that slate would have been nommed without it. It already sucks enough for them that they'll never know, and have their wins tarnished in some people's eyes no matter what. That's already horribly unfair and when you factor in how many will vote no award automatically because of that slate well, I feel for the authors. Some of them, I have no doubt deserve the nom, and Annie happens to be one. If you don't know, go read Goodnight Stars. The anthology it's in, The End is Now, doesn't even cost anything if you have Kindle Unlimited.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> No one is saying the SP _is_ GamerGate. They're just an completely identical movement only for books instead of videogames. They have the same blatant 'dur we don't want politics in our thing' lie as their cover story, they're both being used by the same political entities to desperately grasp at relevant in a popular culture that no longer cares about them, they both have a reaction to social justice akin to a vampire to the presence of the True Cross, they both like to talk like they are literally in a war when they think they're talking in private forums (and incidentally, both seem to not get that anyone can read and follow their links when they use that hashtag, pretty much forgetting the whole point of their adorable private forums), and they both pull the 'no, you're the real racist' thing when called on it.
> 
> There's probably a LOT of crossover, but when I say they're essentially the same organization, I mean they're identical, not that they're literally the same thing.


I wouldn't say it's completely identical, rather it's nearly identical.



Jennifer R P said:


> I'm starting a campaign to encourage Hugo voters (I am pretty sure that if you pay $40 for Sasquan membership NOW you can vote) to take this pledge:
> 
> "I will nominate and vote for the Hugo awards based off of the artistic merit of the work or works presented and, as best as humanly possible, ignore the ethnicity, gender, sexuality, politics, religion or other personal factor of the author, editor or artist presenting the work."
> 
> Who's with me?


There's only about 400-600 people who actually nominate for these things and only 2000-3000 who actually vote. The process is kind of borked, you have to pay the $40 membership fee, you get to cast a vote for the final Hugo award this year, then nominate next year. If you want to vote on the final Hugo award next year, you have to pay another $40 membership fee, which also gets you nominating rights for the following year. Such a goofy system. Looking at some of the numbers for years past, you can see how a small but dedicated group of trolls can drastically sway the outcome.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet, please take the time to listen to a little, personal story of mine, I promise I'll be brief: 

Once upon a time a white lady went out to the corner store because she was out of milk. Leaving the store, she met a very bad man, who happened to be black, who kidnapped her at gunpoint, drove her to the woods, raped her and killed her. When he was caught and asked why he did it, he said "I decided I was going to kill the next white person I saw."

That lady was my aunt Connie. According to your philosophy, the man was just "punching up." "Period." I reject your narrow views on race relations.

Now with all this in mind, I would ask you to look over my comments again and tell me where I said people of color were not disadvantaged. I disparaged "punching up" and the idea that racism can never apply to whites. All the rest of what you inferred came from your own echo chamber.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

I agree. The only reason I have mentioned Vox Day and John C. Wright at all is because I have read their blogs and they are quite, quite open about being SP supporters (and in Day's case a gamergate supporter).

Now, that doesn't actually mean they didn't deserve to be nominated. John C. Wright has won at least one Locus award from 2003 through 2008. I haven't read his stuff, but he's probably a decent writer. Maybe he did deserve 6 Hugo nominations. Maybe he deserves to win. Like I said, I haven't read him. I just did a quick read inside of a randomly chosen book of his on Amazon - and I don't think I'd like his stuff, but that's based off of pure aesthetics and voice.

Merit.

Or, if you prefer a more "popular term" - did you like the book? I like some of Orson Scott Card's work despite disagreeing with his politics. I also have good friends, people I love to hang out with online or at cons, who's work I quite simply...don't like.

We're awarding the work, not the person.

As for feeling for the authors - that's why I'm asking people to try and ignore the scandal and vote on merit. We CAN untaint this year's awards if we get enough people to publicly state they're voting on artistic merit.

(As for a small group of trolls skewing the outcome - there was a higher number of nomination ballots in this year. It looks more like they got all their friends to pay the $40 and nominate. I mean, you don't have to even think about it if it's a slate like that. Not saying that's what happened, but a record number of nominations...)


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> Fishbowl Helmet, please take the time to listen to a little, personal story of mine, I promise I'll be brief:
> 
> Once upon a time a white lady went out to the corner store because she was out of milk. Leaving the store, she met a very bad man, who happened to be black, who kidnapped her at gunpoint, drove her to the woods, raped her and killed her. When he was caught and asked why he did it, he said "I decided I was going to kill the next white person I saw."
> 
> ...


Wow. You are equating someone making a joke or saying something "mean" on a blog to actual physical violence? So in your mind someone writing the sentence "down with ******" is exactly the same as a black man raping and murdering your aunt. I can see why you'd have the views you do, but I'm sorry, that's still fucked up.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Michael McClung said:


> That lady was my aunt Connie. According to your philosophy, the man was just "punching up."


My condolences on your aunt, that's horrible. But the examples given of punching up and down were a person of one race talking crap about a person of another race, not committing physical violence or murder. Please don't make it about something it's not.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> You are equating someone making a joke or saying something "mean" on a blog to actual physical violence?


No, I am linking RH's many threats of violence and murder, and those who acted as apologists for her, to the faulty logic of "punching up." And with that, I'm done conversing with you, as you have no intention of ever changing your views.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Please don't make it about something it's not


I've made my point several times. If you refuse to see it, then I have nothing more to say to you either.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> No, I am linking RH's many threats of violence and murder, and those who acted as apologists for her, to the faulty logic of "punching up." And with that, I'm done conversing with you, as you have no intention of ever changing your views.


You are talking about Requires Hate, I am talking about punching up and punching down. Calling for actual violence is over the line, and clearly not what I'm talking about. Twist and distort what you think I'm saying so you can insulate your opinion all you want. What you think I'm saying is not what I'm actually saying. Not that facts seem to matter.


----------



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

Michael McClung:  That is horrifying and I am so sorry to hear about your aunt.  I can't imagine what it's like for a family to live with the legacy of such violence and loss.

The murderer sounds like a psychopath--he could have said anything or nothing and it wouldn't have changed his deed.  

A friend of mine walked home after sitting beside me at the high school talent show when we were 17.  She was also raped and murdered.  Both killer and victim were white.  I can say that she was attacked because she was young, female, pretty... but in the end, a mindless horror that is beyond understanding.  

I am sorry for your loss.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Patrice, 

It was a long time ago, and I only brought it up because time and again I see certain elements in the social justice sphere saying that, by definition, racism against whites is impossible. It's nonsense, and infuriating nonsense at that. Racism is possible by any group, towards any ethnic group. 

I also have no patience for the "punching up" crowd, for reasons already expressed.

As for whether the man had psychological issues, I don't know, though his actions would tend to support the idea. Didn't make his hate any less real. Racism itself is a mental disease in my opinion.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> It was a long time ago, and I only brought it up because time and again I see certain elements in the social justice sphere saying that, by definition, racism against whites is impossible. It's nonsense, and infuriating nonsense at that. Racism is possible by any group, towards any ethnic group.


Except that's not what they're saying at all. They're defining racism in an academic sense and saying it's a _systemic _bias based on race, not a _personal _bias on race. They are saying that someone who has the power of society backing their bigotry is categorically different than someone who doesn't.

I, personally, think trying to impose a strict academic definition onto vernacular is a losing cause. But I'm in favor of Le Hot Dog too. That's their fight, but they are not saying that it is impossible for non-whites to have bigoted and hateful views.

You're also talking about a tiny group of people, most of them undergraduates with too little time on their hands, with little or no power and no connection whatsoever to the Hugos.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Except that's not what they're saying at all. They're defining racism in an academic sense and saying it's a systemic bias based on race, not a personal bias on race. They are saying that someone who has the power of society backing their bigotry is categorically different than someone who doesn't.


Then they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They're also excluding other-than-American race dynamics, such as Irish denigration by the English, which make a hash of it all. When an idea is so laden with exceptions and qualifiers, it becomes ripe for misinterpretation, appropriation and abuse. It is, in short, functionally useless at best.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It is entirely possible to be racist against white people.

The act of not letting them be first and most lauded at everything by virtue of being white (or rather, NOT being 'other') and/or be jackasses about their privilege is not it.

Recognizing that the playing field is not equal BECAUSE of race, gender and orientation bias and correcting for it is not it.

I have no idea who the hell Require Hate is and I don't care because they have nothing to do about it and are just another tangent to distract from the fact that #sadpuppies is an oozing sore on SpecFic's buttocks.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

She *is* tangentially related to the whole sordid mess, Vaal. But I find your take refreshing, straightforward and honest


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> You're also talking about a tiny group of people, most of them undergraduates with too little time on their hands, with little or no power and no connection whatsoever to the Hugos.


Look, I get that. I was young and pseudo-smart once as well. I chanced across a copy of The Fountainhead and thought I'd discovered the answer to all of the world's ills, until someone older and far, far wiser sat me down and had a long, patient talk with me.

And if it really were just undergrads without any real connection to SFF, I'd shrug it off. Life is short, and I've got a deadline. Sadly, it isn't just undergrads. I'm not going to name names in a public forum, but there are award winning writers and editors who really do think this way. There are others who are apologists for such sentiments.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Michael McClung said:


> That lady was my aunt Connie. According to your philosophy, the man was just "punching up." "Period." I reject your narrow views on race relations.


By the gods, did you really just play that card?

A criminal who happened to be black raped your aunt, therefore any attempts by African Americans to fight back against their marginalization in our society is wrong? You just dropped trying to organize getting more minorities on a friggin ballot into the same cesspool as rape?

This is the same mentality that says "All Muslims are terrorists because a terrorist said he was Muslim."

You just played right into the very marginalization we are discussing. Because when a white man commits a horrific crime, he is always a lone wolf crazy. Politicians don't get up on their soap boxes when a white man commits a crime and demand apologies from the white community or demand congressional hearings on white crime. When a minority commits a crime, he is a representative of his entire ethnic or racial group and evidence that the whole lot of rotten. By linking the SadPuppy situation to the rape of your aunt, you basically implied any attempt by minorities to enact change is the same thing as raping a white woman.

And to clarify race and privilege. A black man claims he raped a white women because he wanted to kill a white person, he goes to jail. Meanwhile, the courts of full of white men that raped black women and walked away thanks to the Old Boy's Network. 70& of the race-related crimes in this country, according to the FBI, are anti-black bias. Despite the overwhelming percentage, the actual prosecution rates for white on black crime are woefully low, either due to prosecutor's not pursuing charges or offering plea deals for lesser charges, or for juries accepting "self defense" (i.e. the "scary black man" trope you so eloquently reinforced). Because when a white man shoots an unarmed black person, it is because the black person was "scary" and the white person felt threatened. When a black person shots a white person (which is actually rather rare statistically), he can't play the 'scary white man' card and get-out-of-jail free.

I'm out of this thread.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> I'm out of this thread


Since you deliberately misconstrued or ignored everything I said, I'm relieved to hear it.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

And now, in an attempt to bring this thread more on topic, a post from Justin Landon regarding the kerfuffle:

http://www.pornokitsch.com/2015/04/justin-landon-on-the-hugo-awards-an-entity-at-war-with-itself-.html


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

She didn't misconstrue anything. You invoked about ten dozen fallacies to try and shout down the oppostion.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Sometimes, in real life, there really is a bad guy. And this time, it's #SadPuppies
> 
> That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, of course. I don't personally view my own opinions on the matter as ridiculous or insulting, but rather principled. And I hope you're not inferring that I'm pressuring anyone to do anything. There will of course be, and already are, others who are pressuring the nominees. They'll do what they want, and I'll judge them by their actions. Personally I couldn't stomach finding out I'd been nominated by the same crowd that nominated Wright and Kratman, but YMMV.


So, in the future, should one of your works being nominated for an award, your OK with your work not being judged on its craft, story, construction, and popularity, but what your personal points of view on the issues of the day are?


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

"It might be that the tastes of people like Vox Day are no longer mainstream."  

No, it certainly doesn't, but the whole idea of "mainstream" when prior Worldcon voting populations numbered in the hundreds (not the thousands or millions of SF readers) puts the whole idea of "mainstream" into serious question.


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> I hope the works that deserve to win do win based on their own merits rather than because a bunch of voters voted a blind slate because sad puppies.


More importantly (IMO) is that those works that deserve to win do win, rather than "No Award" because those opposed to Sad Puppies and the figures behind them choose to vote "No Award" only because those works were on the Sad Puppies slate, rather than based on the quality of the work.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> 1. Correia is not the be all and end all of what happened to the nominations this year, and to suggest he is is more than a little disingenuous. You're chopping out Torgersen and Vox Day. VD in particular is relevant, because


Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are two different slates. For whatever reason, Vox has his many supporters. And after what happened last year, expecting those supporters to be quiet on the sidelines is a fantasy worthy of its own book.

Correia put together the SP2 slate the way he did because he wanted to make a point. He was using a sledgehammer to try and make that point, and it mostly worked. Torgerson put together SP3, a pretty diverse slate of works from authors of all stripes. In some cases, I believe the SP slate and the Rapid Puppies slate overlapped. Its why Wright has so many nominations this year. Do you know how Torgerson put together this years slate? He asked readers for suggestions, and the most popular made it



> 2. Seriously, do you not think VD might have correspondence with some small fraction of those who identify with GamerGate? That just strains credulity.


And if he did? In that same vein, do you honestly think campaigning for votes has never ever happened in the past either? 
Look at the number of nominations this year as compared to years past, and look at the nominations breakdown. In some is the smaller categories its possible to have a work be nominated with just a few tens of votes. If there were gamergate involvement, it would have been known before the nominations were closed, and it would have been known a great many other placed before Neilsen made that accusation on her website. If there were any voting irregularities, we would have heard about it by now. Frankly, if anything the accusation that Gamergate is ultimately responsible for this years nominations is just going to get more of them involved.



> 3. 21,000 nominations? At $40, or is it $50 bucks a pop? I think not.


 You probably right in that respect. But if Gamergate were really invested the number it would certainly be a greater number than the 2100 or so total that voted this year. There's a breakdown of the votes on the Hugo site in terms of Category: Works nominated, votes received, and range. And the final is always released after the awards. And there's supposed to be a motion to lower the $40, but I doubt that will go to far his year. It takes 2 years to get a rules changes in WSFS anyhow.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Sela said:


> That's what I wonder.


Your 2008 Hugo winners were decided by a grand total of 483 voters. 
And it hovered arouns 200-250 for a few years as well...consider that if a couple of hundred people who are nominating works put forth by the SP Slate can get them nominated, how much work would it have taken back in the day to get twenty or thirty people to vote the same way. There have been more than a few established names in the field who are certain such things have happened. And more than a few nominees have taken themselves out of consideration after winning multiple awards because they've gotten the impression voters were just nominating the familiar and overlooking some deserving works. Frank Wu is one example. I'm not sure if thats the reason Foglio stopped accepting nominations either.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Jennifer R P said:


> The SP is not gamergate. However, the SP includes Vox Day who admits on his blog to being a gamergate supporter. He's also nominated for short form editor, but if I manage to vote I would definitely pick Jennifer Brozek or Mike Resnick anyway. Long form editor I'm less sure on - the only one I really have a vibe about there is Toni Weisskopf.


More than a few have nominated Weisskopf the past few years. I had hopes shed be nominated without the SP slate, but as that hadn't happened in previous years, I didn't have high hopes. I'm glad shes on this year.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

whbacon said:


> More importantly (IMO) is that those works that deserve to win do win, rather than "No Award" because those opposed to Sad Puppies and the figures behind them choose to vote "No Award" only because those works were on the Sad Puppies slate, rather than based on the quality of the work.


I read in a comment section somewhere, I wish I could remember it, that if "No Award" does win a category, it should be known that that particular category was "Scalzi'd" Right after I read that comment a friend pointed out that horrendous ew.com article on the Hugos, and I closed my browser down by mistake when navigating over there to read it.

I'd also like the works to be judged on their merit. If the majority of voters do that, its all good.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

Yeah. I did more research.

SP isn't so bad.

RP (Vox Day) is. He's responsible for Wright being nominated so much AND he recommended himself on his own slate.

This doesn't change my plans.

There are things on the SP and even the RP slates that deserve Hugos. There's also a ton of stuff I haven't read on both.

What I am saying and saying publicly is that I want more people for whom $40 isn't a huge amount of money to pick up a supporting membership RIGHT NOW so that they can vote, then PUBLICLY state that they will be voting on the merits of the work presented.

I know full well that my nod for Dramatic Presentation, Long Form will go to something from the slate and my nod for Short Form will not.

Both blindly voting the slate AND blindly voting AGAINST the slate are wrong. I just noticed Brozek and Resnick are also both on the slate. As is Toni Weisskopf.

The SP list is actually not terrible at all. The problem is not the slate, the problem is that it's too easy to game the system for such a prestigious award.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> She didn't misconstrue anything. You invoked about ten dozen fallacies to try and shout down the oppostion.


That's just a drive-by, Vaal. What fallacies did I invoke, and when did I shout?


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> So, in the future, should one of your works being nominated for an award, your OK with your work not being judged on its craft, story, construction, and popularity, but what your personal points of view on the issues of the day are?


Should my works be nominated as part of a slate that includes bigots, misogynists, etc, and I don't withdraw? Yes, judge me accordingly. (And I saw what you did there. It's called intellectual dishonesty)

Edited to add: the rest of your points aren't worth rehashing to me without coffee.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I realize that this is an issue people feel strongly about, but I'd ask that the rhetoric get toned down a bit and that words not actually posted not be attributed to people and that people practice their mind reading skills elsewhere.  By which I mean respond based on words actually said, not what you think they mean or what you think is the motivation behind them.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Jennifer R P said:


> Yeah. I did more research.
> 
> SP isn't so bad.
> 
> ...


Torgersen has basically said (in his Nutty Nuggets post) that he wants to exclude everybody who doesn't write the sort of SFF he personally likes from the genre. It's not just that he doesn't like some works and doesn't want to read them (which is perfectly acceptable, since not everybody likes everything), but that he doesn't want these works to exist or at least doesn't want them labeled as SF. How is this not bad?

This doesn't mean that every work or author on his slate is bad. I like Jim Butcher's and Annie Bellet's work for example, I like Guardians of the Galaxy and The Flash, I think some of the magazines and editors are good and I will vote for those SP nominees I like. Plus, many of the people on the SP slate didn't know anything about the controversy until the nominations came out.

However, let's not forget that these slates are a deliberate attack on an SFF genre that is evolving away from the tastes of those represented by the SP/RP, even if they also managed to get some good works and authors/editors that don't necessarily shares their politics on the slate.

Let's also not forget that some SP/RP folks are vicious about attacking those who disagree with them. Some SP-affiliated people sent trolls to my blog last year and I'm not the only person who has had this experience with them. There are deliberate attempts to silence people who disagree and drive them out of the genre going on here. And those attempts are aimed overwhelmingly at women, at people of colour, at LGBT folks, at people who are not American, though there have also been attacks on straight white US/UK men.

As for the Requires Hate issue (and her identity wasn't commonly known when she was nominated for the Campbell in her writer persona), you do know what Laura J. Mixon, the only fan writer nominee not on the SP/RP slate, is nominated for?


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> you do know what Laura J. Mixon, the only fan writer nominee not on the SP/RP slate, is nominated for?


This:

http://laurajmixon.com/2014/11/a-report-on-damage-done-by-one-individual-under-several-names/#comment-523


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Tone is hard to gauge on the internet. Would it not be better to cite your sources for:

1)


> Torgersen has basically said (in his Nutty Nuggets post) that he wants to exclude everybody who doesn't write the sort of SFF he personally likes from the genre. It's not just that he doesn't like some works and doesn't want to read them (which is perfectly acceptable, since not everybody likes everything), but that he doesn't want these works to exist or at least doesn't want them labeled as SF. How is this not bad?


and 2)


> Let's also not forget that some SP/RP folks are vicious about attacking those who disagree with them.


To be fair, there has been a fair amount of vitriol thrown from a number of people, so it can hardly be considered unique to the SP folk. I've read the tweets and twitter feeds. The Rabid Puppies is something else altogether. The reason I would ask for actual words that Brad himself wrote, rather than a basically said summary, is that as he isn't here to defend or explain his words, it's only fair that his words and the context within which they were given stand for him.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

Right. I don't know where people are getting the impression that anyone was asked if they wanted to be on the slate, or even told they were except for one person who refused the nomination over it.

What I was saying wasn't bad was the actual list of works. Not Torgersen or his motivations (I haven't read much of what he's written, to be honest). I just pulled up the Nutty Nuggets post, though - it's easy enough to find. Uh...wow. I don't want to give him the backlink, but he's basically saying that he wants SF&F to be all pure action adventure and not about any issues. Let's see here. Read any Heinlein, Mr. Torgersen? Starship Troopers, maybe? Are we going to say Brave New World and 1984 aren't science fiction? The Left Hand of Darkness (or anything else by LeGuin). (Now, I actually would like to see more action adventure, especially in the YA category, but that's besides the point). Oh, and he refers to Star Trek as part of what's being pushed aside, indirection, but quoting "To Boldly Go Where No ONE Has Gone Before." Uh, Mr. Torgersen, you do realize it was changed from No Man to No One to satisfy the female fan base. By, you know, feminists. Okay, your point about Torgersen is taken.

The point is I'm not punishing the people on the slate for what happened - most especially in the dramatic form sections. (That said, I don't plan on voting for the Flash - I really like the show and think it's excellent and worthy - but not as excellent or as worthy as either Doctor Who or Orphan Black. But I wouldn't cry if the Flash won).

I *do* have major issues with Vox Day but, as I've said before, my issue is with the entire principle of recommending your own work for an award publicly like that. (As opposed to awards that specifically allow private self-nomination and/or best ofs that allow authors to submit their own stories).

And I have issues I didn't know I had before today with both him and John C. Wright as people, based off of their own writings.

Which means they may decide to troll my blog or send me anon hate on tumblr. So be it. They aren't going to drive ME out of the genre or off the internet. Ironically, I think I like a lot of the same stuff they do. I like a lot of the classic, old school SF... I love Michael Flynn's work even if I think I make him a weeeee bit uncomfortable. (I have a habit of wearing a bi pride shirt at conventions and I looked him up at one because we've shared an Analog TOC not once but twice - which I think says there might be some similarity in our work).

What I'm taking a stance against isn't so much the social conservatism as the block voting and gaming. I wouldn't be happy if it was liberals doing it either.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

And here's another view from Dan Wells:



> http://www.fearfulsymmetry.net/?p=2282


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Jennifer R P said:


> I just pulled up the Nutty Nuggets post, though - it's easy enough to find. Uh...wow. I don't want to give him the backlink, but he's basically saying that he wants SF&F to be all pure action adventure and not about any issues.


Yeah, I found it, too. Type in "Torgensen nutty nuggets" and it's the very first hit on Google. It's a completely asinine post, basically a whole lot of whining because SFF isn't only action/adventure.

And hey, action/adventure SFF is the stuff I prefer to read as well. But I'm not so arrogant as to believe that all SFF should be only the kind that I like.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> I read in a comment section somewhere, I wish I could remember it, that if "No Award" does win a category, it should be known that that particular category was "Scalzi'd"


ROTFL The guy is so harmless. He's a good hearted simple headed geek who, ironically, writes what are largely the kind of adventure SF that these right wing clowns pretend they're in favor of. Turning Scalzi into the Stalinist Devil of the EEEVIL SJWs is so utterly ridiculous it doesn't even merit consideration. Yeah he won the Hugo two years ago. He won because he wrote a geek-humor story that was like catnip to the fannish, but the far right nuts think it was some kind of ideological thingie. Hint: if you write and extended insider geek joke about "red shirts" you will be popular in Fannish circles whether your politics are Schickelgruber or Uncle Joe. (Unless you're English, then you'll get ignored. Sorry Terry.)

He's also funny as hell. His live tweeting of his daughter's slumber party complete with "OMG NO! NOT THE BEEBER" was the funniest social media thing I've ever read in my life.

Seriously, if this guy is your mark of far left oppression, then you are just plain nuts. OTOH, let's be honest, anyone supporting Vox "honor killings benefit women and I think shooting Malala in the head was justified because educated women are bad" Day is pretty much bat**** in itself.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

windsong said:


> Tone is hard to gauge on the internet. Would it not be better to cite your sources for:
> 
> 1)
> and 2)
> To be fair, there has been a fair amount of vitriol thrown from a number of people, so it can hardly be considered unique to the SP folk. I've read the tweets and twitter feeds. The Rabid Puppies is something else altogether. The reason I would ask for actual words that Brad himself wrote, rather than a basically said summary, is that as he isn't here to defend or explain his words, it's only fair that his words and the context within which they were given stand for him.


As Percival said, type "Torgersen Nutty Nuggets" into Google and you get the post.

As for attacks, apparently Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia have been getting death threats and that's completely beyond the pale. But so are the attacks of some commenters on their blogs (since it's not actually the authors but their followers) on those who disagree. And the less sad about Vox Day, the better.

And for the record, I plan on giving every nominated work a fair shot, whether SP/RP or not, and ranking those I enjoy or at least don't mind. Works I dislike will be put under No Award, whether SP/RP or not. In fact, last year I ranked several Hugo nominated works under No Award, because I couldn't even finish them and not all of those were SP nominees.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2015)

I did, and I read it, and I was confused as to which part led you to this conclusion. That's why I asked. 

What I got was that before the last decade or two, certain covers promised to contain certain stories, and that isn't the case anymore. That it isn't the covers that have changed so much as what's between the covers. Nowhere did he say that he wants to exclude anyone who doesn't write what he personally likes to read. He doesn't personally care for issue books, but he went on to say:



> Which is not to say you can't make a good SF/F book about racism, or sexism, or gender issues, or sex, or whatever other close-to-home topic you want. But for Pete's sake, why did we think it was a good idea to put these things so much on permanent display, that the stuff which originally made the field attractive in the first place -- To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before! -- is pushed to the side? Or even absent altogether?
> 
> We've been burning our audience (more and more) since the late 1990s. Too many people kept getting box after box of Nutty Nuggets, and walking away disappointed. Because the Nutty Nuggets they grew to love in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, were not the same Nutty Nuggets being proffered in the 2000s, and beyond.


The link: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/sad-puppies-3-the-unraveling-of-an-unreliable-field/
(I've lurked for years, but can't remember off the top of my head if linking in order to cite sources is allowed or not. Apologies if it is not.)

This is a valid complaint, and I've seen a fair number make it. It is also valid that modern SFF has stories that also appeal to people and should be recognized as well. Personally, I think the field is big enough to support both sides, as well as every other flavor beyond and in between.

For a parallel, this has happened to me in the YA genre. The YA genre as it was ten or so years ago is very different from the genre it is today. (I'm thinking part of that might have been for the popularity of Twilight.) I no longer buy sight unseen, because the expectations I had going in (covers, blurbs, genre) are more in line with what they used to be than how they are currently. And eventually I basically stopped reading YA. Until now, where there's more selection than what is offered in the book stores, and I can find the stories that drew me to the genre in the first place. The fact that the genre has shifted away from what initially attracted me doesn't make me good or bad or the genre, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't grateful for Amazon making it more feasible to self-publish so I could find those stories I want to love again.

ETA: I agree that there is no room for attacks on either side. And, to be fair, the attacks have come from both sides, as well as the media. Again, tone is hard to hear online, so I try to give people the benefit of doubt, especially as I tend to be a rather blunt person. On the comments front, Larry:


> Mary, I appreciate your showing up here.
> I would ask all of my readers to be polite and respectful in their disagreements.


 Which is definitely appreciated.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

That article is so stupid, I think part of my brain just turned to cheese.

He complains about politics in Sci-fi... by quoting Star Trek.

Star Trek. The show that had Russian characters to show that the Cold War was one of the things left behind in humanity's ascension to the stars.

Star Trek. The show whose creator fought tooth and nail to show an interracial kiss.

Star Trek. The show that included a character of mixed heritage specifically to highlight the plight of people of mixed race being alienated in both societies.

Start Trek. The franchise whose most iconic film is an extended allegory on the futility of revenge?!

Did this guy even _watch_ Star Trek?

Was there like, another Star Tek that was like 'Forget this 'having meaning stuff'--WHHHEEEEEEE SPACE!'?

Deos he come from another universe and look suspiciously like me if I had a goatee?!


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

I don't think that anything stops you from reading the type of stories that you want. Disenchanted with today's fantasy, I've been rereading books from the 70's and having a fabulously good time. The books did not go bad.

What they book market did was change every decade. The booksellers chased the biggest market, leaving the smaller markets behind. Sooner or later, that gets to be you. Nothing will stop that. But the old books are still there and still quiet readable. With indies, there are now writers in every sub-genre out there, even the old ones that were supposed to be dead.

Life is good.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Was there like, another Star Tek that was like 'Forget this 'having meaning stuff'--WHHHEEEEEEE SPACE!'?


*cough* Reboot *cough*


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Touche, my good robot. Touche.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> They were little, just a dozen or two dozen people using the Hugos as their own personal Linkedin level-up system


In broad strokes, I agree, though I think it's more nuanced than that. The problem with the Hugos isn't necessarily that a small number of people vote; that's fine, it's their (worldcon's) party. It's that the Hugos cast an oversized shadow because of who have been voting (industry insiders, to a large degree).

But in my opinion, that doesn't excuse much of what the Sad Puppies have done, and none of the Rabid Puppies. Slate voting is bad no matter who does it, if the award is actually supposed th be about the merits of the individual works.

As I've said before, a plague on both their houses.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

I agree that what has happened with the Hugos is disgraceful. As they say, ants at a picnic.

I believe the only reason that people care is because it's THE HUGOS, what has traditionally been the gold standard, hallmark award within sci-fi -- the Hugos carry value because they remind us of the golden age of scifi -- the days of Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Heinlein and all the other legends, when the field was young and new and showing us a future beyond the Cold War mentality of "OMG, the Ruskies are going to nuke us in our sleep." (And of course, nostalgia makes "remembering" that era a lot more gilded than it actually was, but that's human nature.)

And now we find out that, in some cases, a couple of dozen nominations and votes can get you a rocket ship trophy and it's become this whole tawdry political mudslinging fest between a couple of very small, very vocal, militant, extreme groups.

I think the Hugos are diminished because so few fans are involved in recent years. I find it hard to believe that something acquiring 1,000 votes represents the whole of spec fiction -- somebody earlier described this kerfluffle as a popularity contest, like voting for Prom Queen and King. They are right -- except most Prom Kings and Queens get more votes.

I believe the Hugos have been leaning more left in recent years is because the people most involved in the process tend to be industry insiders and writers and the most hard-core fans, who at this time, tend to be more left leaning. (It wasn't that long ago that sci-fi was the "manly men with sliderules" brigade...sci-fi has changed a lot, as has socciety.)

I disagree with Sad Puppies' political positions in almost every respect, but I do think that the Hugo award winners tend to not well represent what most sci-fi and fantasy fans are reading. But that is no different than the Academy Awards recognizing art house films year after year while people flock to see Avengers movies -- me, I'm an Avengers guy.

To me, I shrug and say, "Hey, the Hugos is just not my dance." I'm going to write the stories I love, read the kinds of stories I like, praise them to my friends and online and go on with my business. Sure, I'd like to see the Hugos be more representative of the best of sci-fi and fantasy (there's my bias coming out) -- what I enjoy most in sci fi and fantasy -- but if they are not, that is the Hugos' problem, not mine.

Now, just for fun...can you imagine the collective head exploding that would happen if a bunch of Indie authors joined and voted an entirely indie author slate for next year? 

Not saying I think it should be done, not advocating it ...just saying it would be immensely entertaining as both groups, engaged in a fight to the death, would immediately unite to say, "Shoo, you dirty, filthy mudblood-indies, this is our tea and crumpets party."

The Hugos has always been about and for trad publishing and both sides of this particular mud-sling fest tend to be heavily invested in traditional publishing -- that's part of why the fight is so vehement, both sides are trying to get through the small gate into the "magic kingdom" of awards and contracts and literary approval.

With indie publishing, we don't need the approval of some editor in New York or wherever -- just do your own thing, write great stories, find your audience.

Speculative Fiction has room for everyone and every voice, let the readers decide.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Jennifer R P said:


> Yeah. I did more research.
> 
> SP isn't so bad.
> 
> RP (Vox Day) is. He's responsible for Wright being nominated so much AND he recommended himself on his own slate.


Scalzi's recommended himself numerous times. And there's nothing wrong with that either, but being upset that one person does it and ok when another does is a bit much.

Wrights a good writer. I don't agree with his particular brand of Catholicism, but the man can write.



> This doesn't change my plans.
> 
> There are things on the SP and even the RP slates that deserve Hugos. There's also a ton of stuff I haven't read on both.
> 
> ...


A sentiment I share as well.



> Both blindly voting the slate AND blindly voting AGAINST the slate are wrong. I just noticed Brozek and Resnick are also both on the slate. As is Toni Weisskopf.
> 
> The SP list is actually not terrible at all. The problem is not the slate, the problem is that it's too easy to game the system for such a prestigious award.


It is. And back in the day when the voting contingent was lower it took even fewer people to manipulate. Correia saw a problem, talked about it, and the Powers that Be said "Well, do something about it, and get your friends to help if you need to" And he did.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> Should my works be nominated as part of a slate that includes bigots, misogynists, etc, and I don't withdraw? Yes, judge me accordingly. (And I saw what you did there. It's called intellectual dishonesty)
> 
> Edited to add: the rest of your points aren't worth rehashing to me without coffee.


Noone, unless they real know him, is aware of Jim Butchers politics. But because he's on a slate with some people whose views i find horrendous, I should find him horrendous as well, and therefore not vote for, let alone read, his story? I can take the moral high ground in my Intellectual Honesty with that point of view?


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Torgersen has basically said (in his Nutty Nuggets post) that he wants to exclude everybody who doesn't write the sort of SFF he personally likes from the genre. It's not just that he doesn't like some works and doesn't want to read them (which is perfectly acceptable, since not everybody likes everything), but that he doesn't want these works to exist or at least doesn't want them labeled as SF. How is this not bad?


That's not at all what Torgersen said in that post. He decried authors using the symbols of more classic SFF in what he thought of as a misleading fashion - using space operatic cover images on a work that doesn't follow the normal tropes of space opera. He suggested (albeit strongly) that those "switcheroos" are a significant factor in the decline of SFF sales. Exclusion wasn't even mentioned. Instead, Torgersen said that the genre may not be able to hold _as a genre_ with this sort of "unreliable packaging." Its a market warning, even a prediction, not a call for action.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

Can anyone explain why voting is limited to specific people at WorldCon or those who pay? Why can't voting be an online process open to all members?


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

BillSmithBooksDotCom said:


> I agree that what has happened with the Hugos is disgraceful. As they say, ants at a picnic.
> 
> I believe the only reason that people care is because it's THE HUGOS, what has traditionally been the gold standard, hallmark award within sci-fi -- the Hugos carry value because they remind us of the golden age of scifi -- the days of Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Heinlein and all the other legends, when the field was young and new and showing us a future beyond the Cold War mentality of "OMG, the Ruskies are going to nuke us in our sleep." (And of course, nostalgia makes "remembering" that era a lot more gilded than it actually was, but that's human nature.)
> 
> ...


Agree with almost everything here.

Its interesting because there is certainly a possibility that the tradpub SFF world is starting to take exactly that attitude toward the "mudblood-Indys." A good number of the writers involved with SP are hybrid indy/tradpub authors - usually published by Baen. If you look at the publishing houses impacted most by the SP success you'd find it was mainly Tor, whose employees and former employees are very vocal about which "sort" of fans the Hugos "belong" to (and it isn't fans of those mudbloods).

To me (and this is an essay I've been working on all week), its amazing how often people who make a fetish of democracy in some areas are highly disturbed by it in others.

Personal note: I've been lurking here for some time. I'm surprised (and somewhat amazed) that its taken this issue to make me actually post and not the occasion of finishing my first novel (still in the near future). I'm even more surprised that this issue (and not this discussion) has made me go and put down $40 for a Worldcon supporting membership so I can vote.


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

bethrevis said:


> Can anyone explain why voting is limited to specific people at WorldCon or those who pay? Why can't voting be an online process open to all members?


Members of what? Voting is currently limited to those who purchase a membership at Worldcon - either attending or supporting. Since Worldcon (as a floating institution) created the Hugos, it (and the umbrella organization that names a particular Con as Worldcon for that year) owns the Hugos and the World Science Fiction Society (the umbrella org) makes those rules. Membership in WSFS is defined as the membership of the upcoming Worldcon. So, in effect, voting _is_ an online process open to all members.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

whbacon said:


> Members of what? Voting is currently limited to those who purchase a membership at Worldcon - either attending or supporting. Since Worldcon (as a floating institution) created the Hugos, it (and the umbrella organization that names a particular Con as Worldcon for that year) owns the Hugos and the World Science Fiction Society (the umbrella org) makes those rules. Membership in WSFS is defined as the membership of the upcoming Worldcon. So, in effect, voting _is_ an online process open to all members.


Open all members of SFWA is what I meant, but you explained in your answer, thank you! I got mixed up re: the organizations.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

Davout, excuse me, but has there been any evidence on this board that I'm a Scalzi fan?

I don't even read his blog (or his work), so I missed him recommending himself - but if he has, then I feel the same way about it. I think that publicly asking people to nominate your work for an award is tacky and in poor taste. It also implies you aren't confident in your work.

Please don't criticize me for something I didn't actually do - I'm sure you can find plenty to criticize in what I've actually said .

Bethrevis - common confusion! Nebulas = SFWA. Hugos = World Science Fiction Society .


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> Open all members of SFWA is what I meant, but you explained in your answer, thank you! I got mixed up re: the organizations.


That would be the Nebula and would limit voting to professional writers.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Noone, unless they real know him, is aware of Jim Butchers politics. But because he's on a slate with some people whose views i find horrendous, I should find him horrendous as well, and therefore not vote for, let alone read, his story? I can take the moral high ground in my Intellectual Honesty with that point of view?


I am not saying, nor did I ever say, I know Jim Butcher's politics. I am not saying, nor did I ever say, I find him horrendous, nor will I because he was put on a slate with people I do find horrendous. Clear so far? Because those are your words or at least conclusions, not mine.

Let me be perfectly clear: *if* Jim Butcher or anyone else was nominated on the Sad Puppies or Rabid puppies slate, and does not refuse the nomination, I *personally* will think far, far less of them and likely not buy any of their work in future, because A) they are choosing to be part of a slate that includes bigots, homophobes, misogynists and all around awful people, and my moral code reads that as them putting an award above king a stand for human decency. B) they're choosing to be part of a slate system that will simply break the awards system, or at least whatever vestiges are left, turning it into a political sideshow in which actual merit is meaningless.

I can't make my meaning any more plain than that. If you still don't understand my position, I'm sorry I can't help you any further. You are free to disagree with my position, of course.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> That would be the Nebula and would limit voting to professional writers Active members of SFWA.


Fixed that for you.  I think SFWA has talked about opening up Nebula voting to Associate members as well, but for now it's just Active members who can vote (but Active and Associate members can nominate works).


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Torgersen has basically said (in his Nutty Nuggets post) that he wants to exclude everybody who doesn't write the sort of SFF he personally likes from the genre. It's not just that he doesn't like some works and doesn't want to read them (which is perfectly acceptable, since not everybody likes everything), but that he doesn't want these works to exist or at least doesn't want them labeled as SF. How is this not bad?


I don't think that' s what he said, and we are free to disagree on that. For everyone who thought "If You were a Dinosaur My Love" was a porrly written story with no Science Fiction in it, there were a few who thought it was a well written Science fiction story worthy of a Hugo.

If you think that's what Torgerson said and believes in his post, then yes, its bad.

Its as bad as someone calling him a racist, and then someone else tweeting tweeting that even racists can marry black people after he posts a picture of his wife and child on his site. Or someone else saying his wife can't really be black because shes A. Mormon, B, living in Utah, and C, married to him. Or calling his wife and daughter "Shields".

And no, the people saying those things are not Sad Puppies supporters.

Are they Cora?



> However, let's not forget that these slates are a deliberate attack on an SFF genre that is evolving away from the tastes of those represented by the SP/RP, even if they also managed to get some good works and authors/editors that don't necessarily shares their politics on the slate.


There are quite a few of us that believe SF/F is growing, not evolving. That as more authors are writing more stories, and more people are reading them, more individuals like and tastes are being served, and as a result the pool of SF/F readership is growing and becoming more diverse, and that's not a bad thing. You like to read A, I like to read B, we're both happy with what were reading. I could read C and love it, you could read it and not like it. Readers tastes vary. Thats to be expected.

Then there are quite a few people who believe that in this growing field, only certain elements in it are being recognized and rewarded. And there are some people who believe that some of those elements aren't the best works. The best recent example is eople who hated "IYWAD" did not hate it because Swirsky is a woman. And some of those same people saw works they liked by authors they liked getting left off, for a variety of reasons. The voting pool for the Hugos has until recently been tiny, cliquish, and to an extent, lazy. When multiple nominees and winners are recusing themselves from consideration because they feel people are voting for them on name recognition alone to the detriment of others, that's not a good thing. And when good authors and good books are repeatedly unrecognized by such a small and cliquish group, some people take notice of that, and start asking why? It's not because they are bad authors, or that their stories are substandard, or that their editorial efforts are bad. Could it be because those authors works don't appeal to that small voting pool, for whatever reason? Sure. So whats the solution? Increase the voting pool, and get the works you'd like to see nominated actually nominated.

And thats what Correia did. With a sledgehammer. And not to well. He saw what he perceived as a problem, was told how he could fix it, and has done so in a pretty open and upfront manner. Although considering who is is and what he's done in the past for a living, he couldn't very well sneak around and do it behind the scenes.



> Let's also not forget that some SP/RP folks are vicious about attacking those who disagree with them.


Your right, they are. But lets not forget, some of the anti-SP/RP folks aren;t exactly paragons of virtue, tolerance and acceptance either.

Are they Cora?


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

bethrevis said:


> Can anyone explain why voting is limited to specific people at WorldCon or those who pay? Why can't voting be an online process open to all members?


Because those are the rules as written in the WSFS charter.

And the charter is also written so that changing those rules in a thorough PITA process.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> Then there are quite a few people who believe that in this growing field, only certain elements in it are being recognized and rewarded. And there are some people who believe that some of those elements aren't the best works.


Except "best works" is extremely subjective. I thought Avengers was a far better movie than any of the 2013 Oscar nominees and of the nominees, I thought Django Unchained was far better than Argo. But just because Avengers didn't get a nomination and Django Unchained didn't win doesn't mean there's some sinister campaign designed to prevent my preferred tastes from winning or even being nominated.

If you don't like the works that have won Hugos in the past, then join up and nominate ones you do think are deserving. But if your argument is that the best works aren't winning or being nominated because of some vaguely-defined clique, then you're shooting yourself in the foot by engaging in slate voting because it's perpetuating the very thing you claim to be against.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Jennifer R P said:


> Davout, excuse me, but has there been any evidence on this board that I'm a Scalzi fan?
> 
> I don't even read his blog (or his work), so I missed him recommending himself - but if he has, then I feel the same way about it. I think that publicly asking people to nominate your work for an award is tacky and in poor taste. It also implies you aren't confident in your work.
> 
> ...


RE the calzi thing, no. FOr better or worse his actions in the past have made him a convenient point of reference with regards to many of the arguments being made against Sad Puppies.

FWIW, I think we agree on more than we disagree on, especially in that reading the works is a must before voting.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

{quote]


Michael McClung said:


> I am not saying, nor did I ever say, I know Jim Butcher's politics. I am not saying, nor did I ever say, I find him horrendous, nor will I because he was put on a slate with people I do find horrendous. Clear so far? Because those are your words or at least conclusions, not mine.


Let me be perfectly clear: *if* Jim Butcher or anyone else was nominated on the Sad Puppies or Rabid puppies slate, and does not refuse the nomination, I *personally* will think far, far less of them and likely not buy any of their work in future, because A) they are choosing to be part of a slate that includes bigots, homophobes, misogynists and all around awful people, and my moral code reads that as them putting an award above king a stand for human decency. B) they're choosing to be part of a slate system that will simply break the awards system, or at least whatever vestiges are left, turning it into a political sideshow in which actual merit is meaningless.

I can't make my meaning any more plain than that. If you still don't understand my position, I'm sorry I can't help you any further. You are free to disagree with my position, of course.
[/quote]

Right, your judging him based on who he's been included with, not what he's written, and as a result of him not agreeing with your moral point of view, are going to punish him by never buying any of his works, which you could like, ever again. That will show him.

Good Thing Delaney wasn't nominated this year for anything...


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

Sorry. I tend to get a little bit knee jerk when taken to task on things. But no.

Self nomination is fine if allowed by the rules of the specific award - some do, some don't.

Publicly begging for votes is what I have a problem with. I also have a problem with both Vox Day and John C. Wright based off of the content of their blogs - I never want to bump into either of them at a convention.

My argument against Sad Puppies is simple: The system is too easy to game. I would have the same problem if it had been gamed to get a bunch of LGBT+ fiction up there.

There's two layers to this: My personal dislike of SOME of the individuals involved and their views and my dislike of gaming the system in general.

Honestly, I want to see good diversity on the Hugos - and I include political conservatives in that diversity. They shouldn't dominate, they shouldn't be locked out. People should be nominating and voting for what they like, and if we can get the voting pool up (I also like the idea of limiting nominations per category to a number lower than the 6 work shortlist) then the diversity should happen completely naturally if people vote and nominate honestly.

My husband pointed out another problem - that being that people don't have time to read enough of what's published and then it becomes rather easy to nominate for things people recommend to you. Or only read things you're recommended - I mean, I read a LOT and I still can't keep up with the field. I'm only now adding the FIRST Dresden book to my to be read pile (along with Hugh Howey's Wool and Andy Weir's The Martian).

And THAT problem I'm not sure how to fix, except that it will keep the voting pool down no matter what changes might be made to the system (which is apparently a PITA to change).


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

"Good Thing Delaney wasn't nominated this year for anything..."

Sam Delaney? The NAMBLA supporter? Now you're just being confrontational.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm not up on all the inside baseball stuff, just a long time sci-fan and reader. I have read and liked Scalzi, Butcher and Correia. In my personal reading, a Hugo on a book cover used to mean that I should grab it as I probably enjoy it. In the last several years it has meant avoid it because it will probably remain unfinished like the Norton Anthology of Sedatives you already have on the shelf. 

I think the Hugo's have changed and "evolved" to the point where, for a lot of sci-fi readers it is a guidepost for what to avoid. Much like Academy Awards as Bill said that usually help me rule out the pretentious products that the highbrow think I should like.


----------



## JVRudnick (Sep 12, 2014)

Personally....I'd like to write a great SciFi novel, have it picked up by the first Agent I tendered it to, published by one of the big 5...and THEN win a HUgo.

Least for me (maybe this is a Canuck thingy, eh?) that's what world be best in my world...


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Chad Winters said:


> I'm not up on all the inside baseball stuff, just a long time sci-fan and reader. I have read and liked Scalzi, Butcher and Correia. In my personal reading, a Hugo on a book cover used to mean that I should grab it as I probably enjoy it. In the last several years it has meant avoid it because it will probably remain unfinished like the Norton Anthology of Sedatives you already have on the shelf.
> 
> I think the Hugo's have changed and "evolved" to the point where, for a lot of sci-fi readers it is a guidepost for what to avoid. Much like Academy Awards as Bill said that usually help me rule out the pretentious products that the highbrow think I should like.


I should have clarified when I look back on my fav authors, Moon, Cherryh, Norton, McCaffrey, Rusch, etc are near the top, although I don't tend to pay attention to the author's gender, race etc. As long as the book is good I don't care if you are gay/straight, right/left, red/black or green skinned with a funky mohawk and you hug trees as a hobby. On the other hand if your book is all about how you are gay and what your skin color is, I'm not interested in reading it unless I am for some reason interested in your autobiography

On the gripping hand, I have some unread Marion Zimmer Bradley books on the shelf that I am having trouble picking up due to the recent revelations about her and her husband and child abuse..... so I have a line or I'm hypocritical...not sure which yet.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Jim Butcher and Kevin J. Anderson are stand-up guys. I have known Kevin personally through my work with Lucasfilm. I have never met Jim in person, but many friends have and they all universally rave about how gracious and fun he is. 

I would hate to see their work and consideration discredited by association through no fault of their own.

I also know that at least the "Adventures in sci-fi Publishing" podcast gang have said they were not contacted ahead of time by SP before being put on their slate, so they had no chance to refuse or bow out -- nor should they disqualify themselves. Adventures in Sci-Fi publishing is a great podcast.

I don't think being nominated by a particular advocacy group should exclude you from consideration for an award -- honestly, if that became the case, it would be easy for a group of extremists to deliberately start nominating people just for the sake of the uproar it would cause to the target. (On the other hand, if you disagree with them, distancing yourself by a declaration is never a bad thing, IMHO.)

I honestly think SP nominated Jim and KJA because they are mainstream and I am sure they enjoy their works -- but on the other hand, if they do win, it will be because their work is mainstream and enjoyed by a broad spectrum of spec fic readership -- but the SP gang may start crowing, "See, our guys won." when it was more of a case of, "Hey, we jumped on the bandwagon, too."

Notice SP didn't nominate Captain America: Winter Soldier even though it was a major mainstream success. I suspect it was because of the politics of the movie, i.e. suggesting that authority figures and government organizations shouldn't be blindly trusted and noting that seemingly worthwhile groups can be infiltrated by "evil-doers" with their own nefarious agenda. Although that has been a running theme in American politics (on both extreme sides of the political spectrum) when the party they are opposed to is in power.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Why bother writing something worth reading when you can have your friend set up a "publishing house" then pay the equivalent of $1600 for Hugo nominations. I'm mean, look at JCW... three of five novella nods. I bet he had to swallow a few swords for Torgersen and VD. Interesting initials those.



BillSmithBooksDotCom said:


> Notice SP didn't nominate Captain America: Winter Soldier even though it was a major mainstream success. I suspect it was because of the politics of the movie, i.e. suggesting that authority figures and government organizations shouldn't be blindly trusted and noting that seemingly worthwhile groups can be infiltrated by "evil-doers" with their own nefarious agenda. Although that has been a running theme in American politics (on both extreme sides of the political spectrum) when the party they are opposed to is in power.


Funny that. It's always "never trust authority" till they're the authority.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> Funny that. It's always "never trust authority" till they're the authority.


EXACTLY. On both sides. In spades.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> I would hate to see their work and consideration discredited by association through no fault of their own.


Please don't misunderstand me, I did not say they agreed to be nominated (Torgersen said he contacted the nominees beforehand, but several said they were not contacted). That's not the issue.

The issue is, now they know they have been nominated. What are they going to do? Are they going to say "no thanks" and reject the nomination, refusing consideration? Some already have. Or are they going to accept it?

I never said it was an easy decision, or one that was pleasant. But it isn't complicated.

BTW, I have every Dresden book. Choosing not to read any more of Harry's adventures isn't easy or pleasant for me, but it is simple. There's right and there's wrong. To me, that's the right stand to make.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm sure Butcher will miss you.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

No Cat said:


> I'm sure Butcher will miss you.


Of course he won't. That's not the point. As a matter of fact *I* will miss *him*. This is not some outrage performance.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Michael McClung said:


> Please don't misunderstand me, I did not say they agreed to be nominated (Torgersen said he contacted the nominees beforehand, but several said they were not contacted). That's not the issue.
> 
> The issue is, now they know they have been nominated. What are they going to do? Are they going to say "no thanks" and reject the nomination, refusing consideration? Some already have. Or are they going to accept it?
> 
> ...


If it were me, I would interpret this stance as saying "I won't vote for Jim" or that "I won't read his books anymore" because of the SP support is like saying you won't watch a Marvel movie because some racist dork praises Marvel movies on his blog. It's just not Iron Man's fault. 

I don't think Jim should be required to recuse himself from an award because a small group of people decided to back him.

Now, it would be one thing if Jim explicitly endorsed some of the positions that the SP/RP backers have endorsed -- it will be a cold day on Hoth before I ever send a penny Vox Day or John C. Wright's way simply because of their abhorrent public posts -- but Jim, to my knowledge, has never, ever said or done anything even remotely discriminatory, bigoted or hateful to anyone ... except fairies (in his books). And we all know they are not to be trusted.


----------



## SeanDGolden (Jan 28, 2015)

There are always two sides to everything, even though many people seem to find that concept incomprehensible at times. I've been pulled into some Sad Puppies altercations because I personally know some of the nominees that were on the Sad Puppies ballot. The Sad Puppies proponents point out that their ballot is more diverse than the ballots from previous years, with a lot of women and minorities included. What the Sad Puppies originators say is that there were too many people who were being excluded based on their ideology and they just wanted to return the Hugo to an award for merit, not for holding the proper ideological perspective.

I don't know if that's true or not, the whole thing seems to go back years. But I do know some of the people involved and the accusations of racism, misogyny and other abhorrent things that are being flung at them do not match my personal knowledge of the people under attack.

I personally wish it hadn't happened, and I hate to see writers going at each other like they have been this past week or so. I'm hoping this blows over and we can get back to writing and enjoying each others' work. But I do just caution everyone not to believe everything they read. Entertainment Weekly published an article so egregiously biased and factually incorrect that they published a huge mea culpa when they were called on it, and retracted the accusations that were in the original story. They might still get sued though, their original story pretty much called the Sad Puppy originators racists, misogynists and worse.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> If it were me, I would interpret this stance as saying "I won't vote for Jim" or that "I won't read his books anymore" because of the SP support is like saying you won't watch a Marvel movie because some racist dork praises Marvel movies on his blog. It's just not Iron Man's fault.
> 
> I don't think Jim should be required to recuse himself from an award because a small group of people decided to back him.


Hey, I get that, especially the second part. He's not required to do anything. I do however think your analogy is flawed. It's not that a small group of people decided to back him; it's that he is a nominee *because* a small group of people decided to back him. People whose politics are abhorrent. People who chose to use the slate method of voting.

As much as I love the Dresden Files, Skin Game is the 15th book in the series. The 15th book in a series does not win a Hugo. This is a dispassionate observation. Do I think Jim should have been recognized before now? Yes. Is that why he was added to the slate? I think it likely. If everything on the slate was all whack jobs and wing nuts, it would be pretty easy to shout it down. Snow White wouldn't have bitten an apple that looked rotten.

At the end of the day, each of us draws their own line according to their own conscience. I'd rather just draw mine now, since I think I know, in general terms, what will happen down the road: slate voting will become the norm. The Hugos will lose whatever credibility they have. Merit will become a punch line, whereas now it is, at least, an aspiration.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Here's GRR Martin's thoughtful take:

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


----------



## SeanDGolden (Jan 28, 2015)

Thanks for posting that link Michael, it was a good read.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

I quite liked this article on the topic, which includes GRRM's quotes:

http://www.themarysue.com/hugo-awards-george-rr-martin/

and a post with more articles linked here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/YAwriters/comments/31xkm5/george_rr_martin_and_others_speak_out_over_hugo/


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> "Good Thing Delaney wasn't nominated this year for anything..."
> 
> Sam Delaney? The NAMBLA supporter? Now you're just being confrontational.


How about less confrontational then? Last year, none of the nominees removed themselves from consideration or spoke out against Benjanun Sriduangkaew's inclusion as a Campbell award nominee. If they did, I have not found it. Therefore, using the standards espoused by some against Butcher, Anderson and other participants this year, they all tacitly endorse and support her actions and behavior.



> I honestly think SP nominated Jim and KJA because they are mainstream and I am sure they enjoy their works -- but on the other hand, if they do win, it will be because their work is mainstream and enjoyed by a broad spectrum of spec fic readership -- but the SP gang may start crowing, "See, our guys won." when it was more of a case of, "Hey, we jumped on the bandwagon, too."


From the podcast I heard, both Butcher and Anderson were nominated because they are good authors who wrote some good stuff last year. And yet, despite being long time contributors to the SF/F community, neither of them had been nominated before, despite previous well written good works. Mainstream and popular winning an Hugo, the audacity of it all.



> Why bother writing something worth reading when you can have your friend set up a "publishing house" then pay the equivalent of $1600 for Hugo nominations


What, like TOR?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

The nomination straregy has become so devisive I'm not sure it can become equal.  Maybe it should be left up to a new system. Have every member pick their top ten for the year with all ten equal. Then judge on which books/stories appear on the most lists.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

I'm sure many people would rather GRRM have worked on the next _Game of Thrones_ novel, especially the Sad Sacs.

But damn, over on his Not a Blog GRRM *wrecks* the entire premise of the platform.


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2015)

Larry Correia's response to GRRM's post: http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/09/a-response-to-george-r-r-martin-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/


----------



## Mromeo (Apr 8, 2015)

As if there wasn't enough hatred in the world, now it seeps into my sanctuary. Storytelling. 
Damn, I am literally at a loss right now. 
My thought was #happycats <-- combat the #sadpuppies but even that draws lines and causes sides to be chosen. Jesus....


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Also HappyCat is already a meme.

And in cast anyone things SP is an honest attempt to nominate worthy writers and works for the good of the Hugos et al: let's not forget that Correia has said numerous times that he _hates_ Worldcon and would rather be set on fire than go.

So even if you buy the 'Oh, well SP just want good works to be nominated and it's Rabid Puppies who are the bad guys', he's still more or less sabotaging the flagship award of an organization he doesn't like. Don't buy the innocent act.

Edit: hahaha. Oh my, that response article. 'I AM BITTER AND ANGRY AND YOU WILL PAAAAY'. People generally don't get that delusionally vengeful until at least Batman has accidentally knocked them into a vat of acid.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Also HappyCat is already a meme.
> 
> And in cast anyone things SP is an honest attempt to nominate worthy writers and works for the good of the Hugos et al: let's not forget that Correia has said numerous times that he _hates_ Worldcon and would rather be set on fire than go.
> 
> ...


His post was a_ lot _of words, saying the same thing over and over and over.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> His post was a_ lot _of words, saying the same thing over and over and over.


Summary: People didn't vote for me that one time so I'm going to call them SJWs and campaign to take away their toys.

In bold print.

ETA: and seriously, I need to ban myself from this thread. It depresses me. There's just this horrible fascination about white, cis, straight Christian men who seem to genuinely think they're being persecuted by women and minorities just having any slice of the pie at all.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

GRRM chimes in with smart, reasoned things to say: http://grrm.livejournal.com/418643.html


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Damn, Tapatalk ate my post. Anyway, this article is worth reading, and puts it in historical context: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/the-culture-wars-come-to-sci-fi/390012/


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2015)

For an article that puts this in historical context, it sure lacks a lot of context. :/ It also fails to live up to journalistic integrity in regard to fact checking. A simple google search would have helped pin down exactly when gamergate was linked with Sad Puppies. It would also reveal a number of people involved in gamergate who have gone on record stating when they'd heard about Sad Puppies. (From my research, it wasn't until accusations were made, and even then, not until after the voting for nominations had ended.) It is also interesting that the author tied people who support Sad Puppies with the accusations of death threats from gamergaters when it was Larry and Brad who were on the receiving end of the death threats.

A simple google search would also reveal that Larry Correia has repeatedly posted that people should read the works and vote for the ones they think are the best. He put forth a slate of suggestions, and ran a number of book bombs to raise awareness for the works and to encourage people to actually read them. Research would also reveal a number of people took the slate as it was intended--they looked, they read, and nominated those works they felt were most deserving--not necessarily those on the slate.

Another simple google search would show, in Larry's own words, why he started the Sad Puppy campaign, why he ran it the second year, and that he had intended the second year to be the last. It would also show an explanation of why Brad Torgersen decided to run it this year. *It would also show the number of hit pieces ran on the same day, or near proximity, one of which hastily retracted some of their statements and wrote an apology. It would also show that, despite claims to the contrary, Sad Puppies is *not* the same thing as Rabid Puppies. They do not have the same goals or slates, and despite what has been claimed, Vox Day is not on the Sad Puppy slate, nor are they marching in lockstep there.

I understand people being upset by the slates. I'm still working out how I feel about it. (It should also be noted here that Larry has addressed this issue, why it happened, etc.) I really don't care if people agree with Sad Puppies or not, or how they intend to vote. The only reason I spoke up after lurking here for a number of years was that the only way to combat misinformation is by presenting the facts or the actual words that were spoken and not a summary. I've been online long enough to see that people are more apt to take other people's words (news articles included) than to go directly to the source. Putting myself in their shoes, I would hope that if ever people were having conversations about me and were misinformed about what I'd actually said or stating their opinions about my motivations as though they were fact, that someone would stand up to correct the misinformation. 

ETA: Forgot to add my notation.
* Unless I'm missing something, the list and links have been removed. I know there has been talk of involving lawyers against the libel, which may have been the reason, but is only speculation on my part.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

1) Vox Day's publishing company is ROBUSTLY represented on the SP slate.

2) Vox has also been in the GG corner since before they were GG.

3) A 'simple google search' would not provide historical context to GG because GG has only been called GG since September '14 when Adam Baldwin named them in a post that also included slanderous video links. GG has gone through a number of aliases included Quinnspiracy and BurgersAndFries. Their slime trial reaches far back into time.

4) What Correia states on the spot and what he says when not directly addressing the issue are two different things. Before SP3's slate came down, he stated 'making SJWs cry' is a side goal, for example. So SP is not clean because RP is worse. They're just not getting their hands as dirty.

And oh my, just check out that hashtag. I will not repeat the slurs they toss around (tossed around while claiming that the only reason a straight white male would attack them is to try and get laid) here, but those are not the words of people who just want to promote good sci-fi.

But yeah:

"Actually it's about ethics in [strike]games journalism[/strike] ebook awards."


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

Larry explains in that article why he "hates" WorldCon - he felt he didn't fit in there.

Ironically, I hung out with the Barflies at RavenCon last year and intend to hang out with them again at RavenCon this year (That con attracts a lot of military science fiction people - there was one point when I was in a full panel room and suddenly came to the intimidating realization I was the *only* person in that room who had never served in the US armed forces). They're good people and they bring good booze, and while we don't agree on the best kind of science fiction (I like some mil sci-fi, but not the really hardcore stuff that goes into excruciating detail about types of gun and the like - which is what most of the Barflies write)...they're still good people. And I hung out with some of them while wearing a bi pride shirt, so...I figure they're pretty safe .

On the other hand, Larry also apparently feels he was robbed of the Campbell because of his politics. I wonder how true that is. I certainly am not going to hate somebody for being a conservative or a libertarian - as long as they aren't spewing vitriol and hate, calling me names, saying women can't write good science fiction, or any such behavior - and that's not politics.

That's plain rude.

And I DO think it's important to keep the line. There's a difference. Take Sad Puppies (the people there seem to be reasonably decent people who just want to promote their own favorite kind of science fiction, perhaps a little bit too much over the rest of us - Torgersen seems to want more anthropological sci fi "removed from permanent display" which is, well, too much). I even like their kind of science fiction. Heck, you're talking to a woman who's been published in Analog twice, and you don't get much more hard core, old school science fiction than that. Transpecial is quite intentionally a homage to Heinlein (without the sexism and extreme libertarianism ). I'm happy to see what they like on the ballot, as long as it's not the only thing on the ballot. (In fact, Analog has always been shut out and it took SPs to get it on the ballot. As a long term Analog reader...what can I say? I won't let it taint Analog or Trevor Quachri. I think Analog's transparent style is simply less preferred by the kind of person who votes for Hugos in a normal year than the more literary flavor preferred by Sheila Williams. One of the ironic jokes I like to make is that if Isaac Asimov was a new writer sending in his first story today, Asimov's would not buy it - but Analog would. Asimov is one of my exemplars).

Rabid Puppies, on the other hand? Putting themselves on their own slate, openly supporting Gamergate, John C. Wright's blog... THAT is where the real poison is.

I disagree with the Sad Puppies tactic and probably with their politics at many levels, but I'd still feel comfortable hanging out with Larry Correia or Brad Torgersen if we happened to end up at the same con. Michael Flynn was a Sad Puppy nominee and is, I believe, a libertarian, and also an author who's work I love.

That's the thing. I think there is a place for all reasonable and civil people in fandom. Conservative, liberal, as long as you're a decent person I'm fine with you. I'm not fine with bloc voting, and I'm not fine with the idea that the Hugos are going to turn into a US election with political parties. But other than that, I don't have a problem with many of the people involved with this (Like I said, Torgersen's comments about trying to get rid of stuff he doesn't consider good DO bother me, even though I suspect he might like my stuff if I read it). We have a lot of confusion between two different groups that happened to put up overlapping slates.

And yes, there are some...uh...unpleasant people. On both sides - Torgersen getting death threats and having his wife basically called a beard disgusts me just as much as Vox Day's open racism.

I want it all to stop and for us to get back to reading and enjoying science fiction.


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2015)

Vaalingrade said:


> 1) Vox Day's publishing company is ROBUSTLY represented on the SP slate.
> 
> 3) A 'simple google search' would not provide historical context to GG because GG has only been called GG since September '14 when Adam Baldwin named them in a post that also included slanderous video links. GG has gone through a number of aliases included Quinnspiracy and BurgersAndFries. Their slime trial reaches far back into time.
> 
> 4) What Correia states on the spot and what he says when not directly addressing the issue are two different things. Before SP3's slate came down, he stated 'making SJWs cry' is a side goal, for example. So SP is not clean because RP is worse. They're just not getting their hands as dirty.


Which would mean Sad Puppies is doing what it said it was doing: picking stories they thought were the best. (Brad had an open thread where he asked readers to weigh in with books they thought should be nominated.) Larry has said this repeatedly. Whether or not you believe him doesn't mean he's lying. Only Larry would be able to tell you that, and for that to happen, you would need to address him personally. A lot of people like John Wright's books. A lot of people don't. *shrug* Choosing books you admire does not necessarily mean you support the publisher. It means you (in general) liked the story. It's hardly honest to firmly declare that politics should be kept out and books should be judged by their own merit on one hand and then refuse to consider books *because* of an author's politics or how you feel about the publisher.

My comments were not about the historical accuracy of gamergate, but of the connection between gamergate and Sad Puppies. It's not that hard to figure out the timeline and, quite possibly, the origins of the accusations.

As for dirty hands, from what I'm seeing, there's enough dirt to go around--which includes spreading misinformation and lies. Personally, I don't have the time or inclination to be judge and jury. I meant what I stated earlier about my motivations for posting, and I stand by them.

ETA:


> I want it all to stop and for us to get back to reading and enjoying science fiction.


I agree 100%.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

windsong said:


> Whether or not you believe him doesn't mean he's lying. Only Larry would be able to tell you that, and for that to happen, you would need to address him personally.


His own statements say he's lying.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Excellent explanation for why Matthew David Surrige, who was put on the SP3 slate, refused his nomination. Pretty much destroys the whole SP rationale as well as providing an excelling overview of how the field has always been political, ideological and literary, expressing the zeitgeist and concerns of the era.

http://www.blackgate.com/2015/04/04/a-detailed-explanation/


----------



## jimbro (Jan 10, 2014)

*Yes, SF has always been political. *Writers use the artifice of fiction (the future, alternate history, what if?, etc...) to throw a light (directly or indirectly) on the politics of today. That is and always has been *one *of Science Fiction's main roles.
Allowing our _personal _political views to _*override *_awards that should be based on quality work (regardless of the politics of the writer) is, however, *wrong*. IMHO it is wrong regardless of what one's actual personal politics (liberal, conservative, unclassifiable) are.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

windsong said:


> For an article that puts this in historical context, it sure lacks a lot of context. :/ It also fails to live up to journalistic integrity in regard to fact checking.


It's all about journalistic ethics in scifi?

I disagree with your "facts". Simple google searches would show that Correia does claim at times innocuous intentions, but also says a lot of things that give the lie to what he says. I prefer to believe he says when he is being unguarded rather than what he *says* he says. Simple google searches would show a lot of the same underlying hatreds and toxicities in Sad (and Rabid) Puppies and gamergate, the same pushback by angry white cis straight nerds about allowing anyone else any representation, and the same people. And the very same insistence that if anyone enjoys and admires anything they don't see themselves reflected back in, it's part of a conspiracy or "whisper campaign" or ebil SJWs who aren't even gamers, sorry, speculative fiction readers.

Long before the hashtag, long before the unseemly and really difficult to credit misogynist and antiSemitic obsession with a certain game developer's love life and a certain cultural critic's Kickstarter, gamergate was a thing, a thing of hatred and hostility. And, like Sad Puppies, a lot of it manifested in fury that games that weren't "their" kind of games, games that intellectually and culturally and politically challenged their limited world views, were gaining increasing critical acclaim and attention, while "their" games weren't getting the 100% positive attention they thought they deserved, and a terror that it would mean less of "their" kind of games being made.

Similar tactics, too. GGers organised a hashtag, #notyourshield, with a lot of openly fake--but it did attract some real people--women and minorities to, ironically, use as a shield. They stated at the time that "SJWs" (i.e. people who care about terrible things like diversity, justice, representation, inclusiveness and fairness) are unable to criticise anything if someone is of colour, because that is actually what people like that think progressives think. A "simple Google search" will find them on the record about that. This year, SP is using the same kind of tokenism to try and deflect criticism. Well done?



> Research would also reveal a number of people took the slate as it was intended--they looked, they read, and nominated those works they felt were most deserving--not necessarily those on the slate.


Research would also reveal a number of people celebrating (with ugly and violent imagery) that "there's not one trans lesbian POC on there", giving a very different--and ugly--message about what the slate was about and who they are using it to exclude. Again, I didn't need to make a simple Google search, I was reading it all as it went down. All I'm doing, really, is standing by their own words.



> They do not have the same goals or slates, and despite what has been claimed, Vox Day is not on the Sad Puppy slate, nor are they marching in lockstep there.


Just his press and proteges? And he *has* been on their slate. SP is pretty definitely associated with one of the most extreme bigots in the manosphere. I also distinctly recall Correia defending his racism on a SP reaction post. (Actually, a "simple Google search" to jog my memory: " I honestly don't think he's a racist". Which is... sadly hilarious.) It's not a random association.



> It's hardly honest to firmly declare that politics should be kept out and books should be judged by their own merit on one hand and then refuse to consider books *because* of an author's politics or how you feel about the publisher.


Yeah, well, I at least have never actually said that. Because of cultural hegemony, anything that focusses on experiences that are not immediately accessible to white cishet men are seen as "political" because, as so SP adequately demonstrates, its very existence is seen as a political statement. The SP supporters see politics as a valid reason a book is of less merit (looking at Correia moaning that books on the ballot had themes including a negative view of bigotry, or anyone saying they don't mind if an author is black or gay as long as it's not "about" (i.,e. specific to the experience of) them, while plenty of us see books that bring in different perspectives as having additional merit.

It's not actually possible to keep politics out, although there are plenty of people who seem to believe that a white cishet male perspective is magically politics free.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

My problem with the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies slates and their reasoning behind them is its simply not true.  And by that I mean they're using revisionist history to support their claims that this is about something other than them just not liking the 'kind of authors' who have been winning the Hugos in recent years.

All this talk about taking back the Hugos and reclaiming it from the liberal left is just....its just not true!  The Hugos have NEVER been what they're claiming it used to be.

Sure, Heinlein and Orson Scott Card have both won multiple Hugos in decades past.  But Lois McMaster Bujold and Connie Willis have won just as many.  Bujold's won more Hugos than anyone else except for Heinlein, actually, and three of her Hugo wins came from well before 2000.  (Not sure when this supposed leftist hijacking of the awards was supposed to have happened, so by all means correct me if there's an exact date we're supposed to be using for that).

Torgensen and Day and Correia all talk about how the award has become too literary and doesn't accurately reflect what the average sci-fi fan consumes.  The Hugos have stopped awarding shoot em up space adventures and good old fashioned sci-fi fun.  Umm, when exactly have the Hugos ever focused on that kind of sci-fi?  Have they read any of Asimov's Hugo winning works?  How about Arthur C. Clarke?

Then there's the bit about how there's this current obsession with subversive tropes, like revealing the military protagonists are actually the bad guys, or how the humans are colonizing the aliens' planet and are in the wrong.  What, this focus on subversive tropes is new?  Even though Philip K. Dick, C. J. Cherryh, Roger Zelazny and more were using all of these and more all the way back in the sixties and seventies.

But yes, the liberal left and social justice warriors have conspired to dominate these awards in recent years.  That's why Zelazny's 1968 Hugo winning novel LORD OF LIGHT featured a main character using Buddhism as a weapon of faith in his war against his fellow false gods, the king of whom was transgender and born a woman, and where the dark devil figure of the pantheon was a former Christian preacher with an army of mindless zombies at his command.  Yup, nobody was nominating books like that before SJWs started stuffing the ballot boxes.  Oh, and David Brin winning the Hugo for two different novels in his series where humanity used genetic manipulation to uplift chimpanzees and dolphins into sentience - novels which IN THE STORY ITSELF discussed right wing religious conservatives protesting that very plot point - those were a fluke too.

The fact that a woman, Ursula K. LeGuin won the Hugo multiple times over her fellow male nominees who wrote the kind of sci-fi the Sad Puppies love (her competition on more than one occasion included Robert Silverberg, Piers Anthony, and Kurt Vonnegut)....that was obviously due to the work of the post-2000 leftist liberal cabal, because who would have voted for her over Piers Anthony otherwise?

Of the roughly sixty winners of the Hugo Best Novel award since its inception (there have been years when its been a tie), approximately forty of them are men and twenty women.  Since 2000, six of the fourteen Best Novel Hugos have gone to women - that could be symptomatic of the kind of vote-rigging the Sad Puppies claim to be protesting.  Problem is, those six women included Lois McMaster Bujold - long time repeated Hugo award winner and writer of the kind of militaristic space adventures that are exactly the kind of sci-fi the Sad Puppies claim they want to see represented - and JK Rowling, and well, if you want to award the sf/f works that are actually being consumed by the average sf/f fan, I guess you kinda have to give the award to the writer of the most read fantasy work of all time, right?  So, why is it a problem that they won, exactly?

I just don't understand how anyone can look the breadth of the Hugos as a whole in the sixty years or so since their inception and actually accept at face value the Sad Puppies' claim that what they're doing is a reaction to SJWs and hard left liberals hi-jacking science fiction's most prestigious award.  For their premise to have ANY merit whatsoever, there would HAVE to be some history of the Hugos actually representing the kind of works and authors they're claiming have been excluded in more recent years, and that's just not true.

The Hugos have NEVER been what they're trying to claim they used to be in the good old days, before they were 'hijacked'.


----------



## horrordude1973 (Sep 20, 2014)

I don't get these awards at all.

I don't like awards and don't take part in them. They are only about who can get the most votes and the people voting may not have even read the book.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

horrordude1973 said:


> I don't get these awards at all.


I suggest we change this with a KBoards slate.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Last year, none of the nominees removed themselves from consideration or spoke out against Benjanun Sriduangkaew's inclusion as a Campbell award nominee. If they did, I have not found it. Therefore, using the standards espoused by some against Butcher, Anderson and other participants this year, they all tacitly endorse and support her actions and behavior.


Sorry, your reasoning is seriously flawed there:

1. While I despise RH, and personally believe BS should never have received the nomination, the fact is, it was not known at that time of nomination that BS *was* RH. Her outing came later. I may expect a lot from people, but being able to_ see into the future_ isn't one of them.

2. Even if somehow people had known that BS was RH, she wasn't put forth *as part of a public slate*. You get that, right? Because that's the crux of the matter. If you don't get why I think slate voting is wrong after all the words I've written in this thread instead of my WIP, then I despair. I'm showing you an apple, and you keep trying to compare it to various ingredients in a fruit salad.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> Torgensen and Day and Correia all talk about how the award has become too literary and *doesn't accurately reflect what the average sci-fi fan consumes*.


You know, I have seen several references to them having said that and I have to wonder, where are they getting their information about 'the average sci-fi fan'? _Their_ fans who like _their_ brand of science fiction may not but _their_ fans are not representative of the whole, no matter how much they want them to be.


----------



## Indecisive (Jun 17, 2013)

I have been staying out of this discussion because I don't really feel like I have anything new to contribute, but yesterday Twitter sent me a link to this blog post by Mary Robinette Kowal about how she's offering to buy supporting memberships to WorldCon for 10 people who can't afford them. This allows you to vote on the Hugo Awards.

http://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/talk-with-me-about-being-a-fan-of-science-fiction-and-fantasy/

Well, I feel a bit lame, but honestly this is the first time that I realized that I could vote on these things. It simply hadn't occurred to me before. So, I'm thinking maybe I could look at these nominees and maybe even vote.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

I bought Red Shirts to honor my feelings about the puppers.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I read SFF occasionally. I read wide and am not entrenched in any genre, although I know more about the romance community since I was in it for a good while. I find all of this confusing and depressing. So I have to ask - do SFF readers really look up an author to find out their race, political affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. before they read a book? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that. I have never looked up an author prior to reading them. Ever. In fact, I have met authors at conferences where I have then discovered they were a minority, male, gay, etc. I simply can't fathom what any of that has to do with their work, which should be judged on its own merit.

In fact, until I read something here, I didn't even know about MZB. I was horrified and got rid of my books because some things cross lines that I can't stomach having in my home, but my point is I never knew. I never googled her. Never checked up on her personally at all. 

So I'm going to take Jennifer up on her plea. I'm going to pay the fee, read every work nominated, and actually vote on the work. I encourage others to do the same.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I read SFF occasionally. I read wide and am not entrenched in any genre, although I know more about the romance community since I was in it for a good while. I find all of this confusing and depressing. So I have to ask - do SFF readers really look up an author to find out their race, political affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. before they read a book? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that. I have never looked up an author prior to reading them. Ever. In fact, I have met authors at conferences where I have then discovered they were a minority, male, gay, etc. I simply can't fathom what any of that has to do with their work, which should be judged on its own merit.


I'd say the majority of SFF readers couldn't care less. Like with GamerGate, we're dealing with a vocal minority of neckbeards who feel like their clubhouse is being invaded. The Internet has just given them a loudspeaker, so their numbers seem larger than they actually are.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

I certainly don't look anyone up.

I don't care about an author's politics. However, one thing that makes SFF different is the degree to which an author's policies tend to inform their work. You can usually tell where on the spectrum somebody is by reading their books. The kind of future or alternate societies somebody designs often (but far from always) tell you something about that author's politics. And that's more common with conservatives and libertarians - the latter in particular tend to promote their ideals in their works. (There are definite exceptions - C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen/Regenesis demonstrates a future society that I doubt very much Cherryh would actually support - but she writes it disturbingly well and pulls you in in a manner that makes you come out going "...wow...okay...maybe that's why people support societies like that").

Personally, my buying habits are seldom affected by anything other than whether I enjoy the work. The exceptions are a small handful of people who's behavior at conventions or online has caused me to decide I don't want anything to do with them as people. I'm not going to name names, but refusing to shut up and let other panelists get words in edgewise, talking about absolutely nothing but your own books regardless of the topic, being overtly racist/sexist/homophobic or creeping on people... (On the contrary, I've bought books by people I like and sometimes been disappointed).

So, basically, I don't go looking for bad behavior, I don't care about politics. But I DO care to some degree about, well, authors who insist on being out and out jerks towards me or others, especially face to face.


----------



## Dormouse (Nov 10, 2012)

Jennifer R P said:


> I certainly don't look anyone up.
> 
> I don't care about an author's politics. However, one thing that makes SFF different is the degree to which an author's policies tend to inform their work. You can usually tell where on the spectrum somebody is by reading their books. The kind of future or alternate societies somebody designs often (but far from always) tell you something about that author's politics. And that's more common with conservatives and libertarians - the latter in particular tend to promote their ideals in their works. (There are definite exceptions - C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen/Regenesis demonstrates a future society that I doubt very much Cherryh would actually support - but she writes it disturbingly well and pulls you in in a manner that makes you come out going "...wow...okay...maybe that's why people support societies like that").


But that mostly only holds true to US-writers. Europe for example has a very different definition of left and right than the US. In the comment section of Mary Robinette Kowals blog-entry a few Non-US readers and writers have spoken up about how US-centric the whole Hugo-debate feels to them and that they don't really consider the SFF community very inclusive. Just like the social topics addressed are often social issues that concern the US while other countries and nations have other concerns.

And with the internet the SFF community is growing more and more international. That's something people might have to keep in mind and maybe in some instances adjust to.

I especially found this comment by Sokyrka very interesting: http://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/talk-with-me-about-being-a-fan-of-science-fiction-and-fantasy/comment-page-2/#comment-200318


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> My problem with the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies slates and their reasoning behind them is its simply not true. And by that I mean they're using revisionist history to support their claims that this is about something other than them just not liking the 'kind of authors' who have been winning the Hugos in recent years.
> 
> All this talk about taking back the Hugos and reclaiming it from the liberal left is just....its just not true! The Hugos have NEVER been what they're claiming it used to be.
> 
> ...


Very well said. Too bad it will largely be ignored. Entrenched opinions are not swayed by facts.



Perry Constantine said:


> I'd say the majority of SFF readers couldn't care less. Like with GamerGate, we're dealing with a vocal minority of neckbeards who feel like their clubhouse is being invaded. The Internet has just given them a loudspeaker, so their numbers seem larger than they actually are.


And a whole lot of this.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2015)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I read SFF occasionally. I read wide and am not entrenched in any genre, although I know more about the romance community since I was in it for a good while. I find all of this confusing and depressing. So I have to ask - do SFF readers really look up an author to find out their race, political affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. before they read a book? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that. I have never looked up an author prior to reading them. Ever. In fact, I have met authors at conferences where I have then discovered they were a minority, male, gay, etc. I simply can't fathom what any of that has to do with their work, which should be judged on its own merit.
> 
> In fact, until I read something here, I didn't even know about MZB. I was horrified and got rid of my books because some things cross lines that I can't stomach having in my home, but my point is I never knew. I never googled her. Never checked up on her personally at all.
> 
> So I'm going to take Jennifer up on her plea. I'm going to pay the fee, read every work nominated, and actually vote on the work. I encourage others to do the same.


Like all readers, some do and some don't. Personally, I don't search things like that out, and generally only find out an author's leanings, etc. if I stumble across them online.

But I have seen people (authors and readers alike) give recommendations based on race, sex, etc. I have seen at least one reviewer (not the blog type of reviewers) openly state that they will not review a specific race or sex. An editor replied to that sympathetically, and wished that their job would allow them to do the same.

Like Jennifer said, sometimes you can get a feel for an author's politics (esp. in SFF) by what and how they write about. I'm fine with that so long as their political leanings don't come before story. Other readers appear to enjoy that sort of thing. I think it's a good thing that both authors and readers are diverse.

I hear you about MZB. I only found out about her (and a few other authors) due to a big blow up, last year I believe. It was the same with another author who writes books for children. I only found out about this particular author because I'd been looking to see if the sequel had come out. :/

Despite the name calling, I believe Perry is right about most readers. Most of us just want to read the book and couldn't care less about what's going on in the wider scheme of things.



> So, basically, I don't go looking for bad behavior, I don't care about politics. But I DO care to some degree about, well, authors who insist on being out and out jerks towards me or others, especially face to face.


I agree 100%.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> 1) Vox Day's publishing company is ROBUSTLY represented on the SP slate.


They pay above industry rates, and some of the better known self published genre writers publish through them.



> 2) Vox has also been in the GG corner since before they were GG.


Which, given his history, online and industry wise, shouldn't be a surprise.



> 3) A 'simple google search' would not provide historical context to GG because GG has only been called GG since September '14 when Adam Baldwin named them in a post that also included slanderous video links. GG has gone through a number of aliases included Quinnspiracy and BurgersAndFries. Their slime trial reaches far back into time.


Yet their first mention in this years Hugos came after nominees were being told they were nominated, but before the official announcement. If Day, or someone else, had put the call out for Gamergate support before hand, do we honestly think the the vote total would have increased only 200 votes from last years? IIRC, Hayden was the first to suggest everything that had gone wrong was the result of Gamergate influence. Anyone think that was a good idea for not getting them involved?



> 4) What Correia states on the spot and what he says when not directly addressing the issue are two different things. Before SP3's slate came down, he stated 'making SJWs cry' is a side goal, for example. So SP is not clean because RP is worse. They're just not getting their hands as dirty.


 Him getting nominated for a Campbell was enough to make some people cry, and not tears of happiness either. The outrage, faux or otherwise, over last years campaign (which if you believe some people arguments against this years slate had an more acceptable rate of maybe 1-2 works a category), was more than enough evidence for many. Not all of last years complaints were just about Days inclusion.



> And oh my, just check out that hashtag. I will not repeat the slurs they toss around (tossed around while claiming that the only reason a straight white male would attack them is to try and get laid) here, but those are not the words of people who just want to promote good sci-fi.


I was going to read some, but was too busy picking the gunpowder out of my eyes with my flaming sword...and then I realized doing so could break my promise to not read any tweets written by straight, cisgendered white males for the rest of the year.



> "Actually it's about ethics in [strike]games journalism[/strike] ebook awards."


As long as they are the "right" ethics of course.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> They pay above industry rates, and some of the better known self published genre writers publish through them.


LOL. Wow. Really? I just looked at VD's "publishing" company and saw that they have what... eight "authors" signed up, including VD himself. Don't make it sound like it's some big to do when it's just VD footing the bill for some of his ideological buddies. And those "better known self-publishers"... I don't recognize a single name up there for their actual fiction. I can spot the names of two people who are violently intolerant, but I don't see a name I recognize for being a well-known self-publisher.



> Yet their first mention in this years Hugos came after nominees were being told they were nominated, but before the official announcement. If Day, or someone else, had put the call out for Gamergate support before hand, do we honestly think the the vote total would have increased only 200 votes from last years? IIRC, Hayden was the first to suggest everything that had gone wrong was the result of Gamergate influence. Anyone think that was a good idea for not getting them involved?


Yes. Because the GG crowd are loud and rabid, but they're generally cheap and not readers.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

The puppies artist nominee was disqualified from the ballot. Apparently the puppies nominated him not because of his politics, but because of the great art he put out during the year that impressed them. Unfortunately, the artist didn't actually put anything out in 2014 at all. But, of course, he wasn't nominated for his politics, but for his art. The art that he actually didn't do any of during the year.

They should cancel the entire ballot and either not award anything or hold a "town meeting" at the actual Worldcon with actual attendees to decide the winners.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

One person I agree with is GRRM, who says the rules should not be changed to block such maneuverings in the future. That leads to a death spiral. If you don't like the politics, organize your own side better than the opposition. That is the way of democratic-type organizations.

Other than that, I don't really care. Of _course_ it would be fun to have a silver rocket sitting on my desk. What sf/f writer hasn't always dreamed of having one of those? But there is no conceivable scenario by which I'd be in the running. It is always going to be political, and no political angle would possibly favor a politics-allergic indie writer. So I say let them have their internecine squabbles.


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> The puppies artist nominee was disqualified from the ballot. Apparently the puppies nominated him not because of his politics, but because of the great art he put out during the year that impressed them. Unfortunately, the artist didn't actually put anything out in 2014 at all. But, of course, he wasn't nominated for his politics, but for his art. The art that he actually didn't do any of during the year.
> 
> They should cancel the entire ballot and either not award anything or hold a "town meeting" at the actual Worldcon with actual attendees to decide the winners.


Either of which would prove the puppies right: That the awards are blatantly political and rigged in favor of certain flavors of political opinions.


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> LOL. Wow. Really? I just looked at VD's "publishing" company and saw that they have what... eight "authors" signed up, including VD himself. Don't make it sound like it's some big to do when it's just VD footing the bill for some of his ideological buddies. And those "better known self-publishers"... I don't recognize a single name up there for their actual fiction. I can spot the names of two people who are violently intolerant, but I don't see a name I recognize for being a well-known self-publisher.
> 
> Yes. Because the GG crowd are loud and rabid, but they're generally cheap and not readers.


Gamers (whether GG or not) may not generally be readers, but cheap? Have you priced video games?


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

whbacon said:


> Either of which would prove the puppies right: That the awards are blatantly political and rigged in favor of certain flavors of political opinions.


I keep seeing this, but it's applied to everything. Literally no matter what happens, someone on the SP side of things seems to think it proves them right. If they win, it proves them right. If they lose, it proves them right. If they illegally nominate someone and they're caught, it proves them right. If they nominate an ineligible work and they're caught, it proves them right. [expletive], if Santa Claus shows up with a uzi, somehow it still proves them right. It's a great piece of rhetoric, but it kind of shows how warped their thinking is that no matter what happens, they'll still think it proves them right.



whbacon said:


> Gamers (whether GG or not) may not generally be readers, but cheap? Have you priced video games?


And they'd rather have that 4/6th of a video game than poke someone in the eye.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Jennifer R P said:


> On the other hand, Larry also apparently feels he was robbed of the Campbell because of his politics.


I booked into LonCon3 in time to get my voters pack of freebies, included Larry Correia's novel. I cannot tell you why Correia did not win the Campbell in 2011, but can tell you why he did not win best novel in 2014 - it was not very good. I had not picked up about the 2011 nomination and I have not read through this whole thread, so is this sad puppies thing one long author with a meltdown because he thought his book was great and not everyone agreed?

I just did the Google search someone recommended and came across Correia lamenting that his first campaign did not get his own book into Best Novel and then going on to complain that the Hugos are biased against all Baen authors (his publisher) so really just a long-running self-promotion campaign.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/04/01/the-sad-puppies-hugo-campaign-sorta-successful-for-everybody-but-me/

I did not nominate for 2015 as a LonCon3 attender because I only read one eligible book and I am still amazed that Ancillary Sword (Imperial Radch Book 2) got the nod as its not even a pale shadow of Ancillary Justice (Imperial Radch Book 1).


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> I keep seeing this, but it's applied to everything. Literally no matter what happens, someone on the SP side of things seems to think it proves them right. If they win, it proves them right. If they lose, it proves them right. If they illegally nominate someone and they're caught, it proves them right. If they nominate an ineligible work and they're caught, it proves them right. [expletive], if Santa Claus shows up with a uzi, somehow it still proves them right. It's a great piece of rhetoric, but it kind of shows how warped their thinking is that no matter what happens, they'll still think it proves them right.


Maybe that's because they're right? 



Fishbowl Helmet said:


> And they'd rather have that 4/6th of a video game than poke someone in the eye.


Pretty much, yeah. Which also puts quit on the idea that the Puppies brought GG into the Hugo mix (with very few exceptions) - If they had, the number of nominating voters would have been much *much* larger.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

whbacon said:


> Maybe that's because they're right?


More like they're nutters.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Nope, he's totes taken out of context.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

I confess I stopped reading this thread several days ago when I realized it was violating the WIBBOW principle, and I probably won't check it again for some time, but just in case this hasn't been offered: GRR Martin's take.

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

and an analysis of it from the conservative Castalia House blog. (I'm not endorsing it, just putting the information out there). http://www.castaliahouse.com/hugo-awards-a-history-of-recommendation-lists/#more-15111

and one from more or less the other side, John Scalzi, who has a reputation for being left of center (from 2014, but just as applicable today): http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/04/20/no-the-hugo-nominations-were-not-rigged/


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> LOL. Wow. Really? I just looked at VD's "publishing" company and saw that they have what... eight "authors" signed up, including VD himself. Don't make it sound like it's some big to do when it's just VD footing the bill for some of his ideological buddies. And those "better known self-publishers"... I don't recognize a single name up there for their actual fiction. I can spot the names of two people who are violently intolerant, but I don't see a name I recognize for being a well-known self-publisher.


Wright has been with Tor almost 15 years now. Lind And van Crevald are two of the recognized experts in their field, and Kratman has been very successful publishing through Baen. And if you don't recognize Pournelles name, then thats your loss.

Nuttalls' one of the top self published SF authors out there in terms of sales. His Ark Royal book has sold around 50K copies IIRC, and that was just the first in the series. Kennedy has also been self publishing few years now as well, and has solid sales. Calling any one of them "Authors" does your basic googling skills a disservice.

Oddly enough, if you want to use Amazon customer rating as a barometer, the average score of the works put forth by either Puppy slate this year rank higher than the works nominated the past ten years.


> Yes. Because the GG crowd are loud and rabid, but they're generally cheap and not readers.


Uh Huh, anyone spending what they do on games, custom rigs and equipment isn't cheap. And considering they could buy a Supporting membership the same price as the latest Battlefield Release, they would have participated in droves if mobilized beforehand.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> I keep seeing this, but it's applied to everything. Literally no matter what happens, someone on the SP side of things seems to think it proves them right. If they win, it proves them right. If they lose, it proves them right. If they illegally nominate someone and they're caught, it proves them right. If they nominate an ineligible work and they're caught, it proves them right. [expletive], if Santa Claus shows up with a uzi, somehow it still proves them right. It's a great piece of rhetoric, but it kind of shows how warped their thinking is that no matter what happens, they'll still think it proves them right.
> 
> And they'd rather have that 4/6th of a video game than poke someone in the eye.


You know quite a few people who post here are gamers. You might want to pull back on the generalized insults of all gamers.

Edit: That is not a defence of gamergate. I suggest reading GRR Martin's comments on those hate-spewing people. He pretty much nailed it. I happen to be a Hugo voter & will take into consideration whether a work was a block nomination as well as other factors in my vote. Anyone who doesn't like that can lump it.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> Edit: That is not a defence of gamergate. I suggest reading GRR Martin's comments on those hate-spewing people. He pretty much nailed it. I happen to be a Hugo voter & will take into consideration whether a work was a block nomination as well as other factors in my vote. Anyone who doesn't like that can lump it.


Thats ok, I'm pretty sure my votes will cancel out yours and it will be a wash...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

*shrug* Don't think I asked.


----------



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

Well, at least one more person has withdrawn because of all this.  I'm not a puppy, but I'm sad about that.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Here's a rundown:



> http://www.locusmag.com/News/2015/04/hugo-award-nomination-withdrawals/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


I intend to keep an eye out for future works from Kloos and Bellet. Doing the right thing ain't easy.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

lilywhite said:


> Lord:
> 
> _But then Vox Day and his followers made it impossible for me to remain silent , keep calm, and carry on. Not content with just using dirty tricks to get on the ballot, they're now demanding they win, too, or they'll destroy the Hugos altogether. When a commenter on File 770 suggested people fight back by voting for "No Award," Vox Day wrote: "If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities."_


My god, he's nothing more than a petulant little brat throwing a temper tantrum.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I am really saddened that deserving authors are dropping out because of the stigma of being associated with this year's awards. Annie Bellet is a wonderful person and a great writer. She deserved her nomination, but I don't blame her for not wanting to play in the cess pool.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> My god, he's nothing more than a petulant little brat throwing a temper tantrum.


Did you expect anything more from someone who defends the Taliban shooting little girls because they want an education?


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> Did you expect anything more from someone who defends the Taliban shooting little girls because they want an education?


Jesus...  I just did a search for this. How does this troglodyte have any sort of following?


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Perry Constantine said:


> Jesus...  I just did a search for this. How does this troglodyte have any sort of following?


That's something I ask myself every time he's mentioned.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

I gotta tell you, this whole Hugo award thing reminds me of the social manipulation subplot in Ender's Game where Peter and Valentine built huge followings by taking opposite and extreme views.  

Does anyone else feel like this is a big experiment?


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Several authors and presenters have declined to participate in the 2015 Hugos -

Matthew David Surridge: Nominated for BEST FAN WRITER 
http://www.blackgate.com/2015/04/04/a-detailed-explanation/

Connie Willis: Presenter for the _Campbell Awards_
http://azsf.net/cwblog/?p=116

Annie Bellet: Nominated for BEST SHORT STORY - _Goodnight Stars_
https://overactive.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/hugo-story-withdrawn/

Marko Kloos: Nominated for BEST WRITER -_ Lines of Departure_
http://www.munchkinwrangler.com/2015/04/15/a-statement-on-my-hugo-nomination/


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

MyraScott said:


> I gotta tell you, this whole Hugo award thing reminds me of the social manipulation subplot in Ender's Game where Peter and Valentine built huge followings by taking opposite and extreme views.
> 
> Does anyone else feel like this is a big experiment?


Nope. It's not both sides with extreme views. It's right wing monkeywrenchers who would rather destroy something than lose.


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

Perry Constantine said:


> Jesus...  I just did a search for this. How does this troglodyte have any sort of following?


"In light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable."

But it's purely empirical! You can't argue with empirical sciencey stuff.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> or future works from Kloos and Bellet. Doing the right thing ain't easy.


Just to be clear, a group of supposedly misogynistic white guys put an avowed liberal bisexual author on the slate because her story is _that good._ I believed it had a solid shot at winning

She didn't withdraw because she was being treated poorly by the Sad Puppies crowd.

Her work wasn't being judged on what she wrote, but who she was nominated with.

Why should anyone be happy with that standard?


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

MyraScott said:


> I gotta tell you, this whole Hugo award thing reminds me of the social manipulation subplot in Ender's Game where Peter and Valentine built huge followings by taking opposite and extreme views.
> 
> Does anyone else feel like this is a big experiment?


The big experiment would be getting Card nominated today for anything he writes without any sort of outcry.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> Just to be clear, a group of supposedly misogynistic white guys put an avowed liberal bisexual author on the slate because her story is _that good._ I believed it had a solid shot at winning
> 
> She didn't withdraw because she was being treated poorly by the Sad Puppies crowd.
> 
> ...


And now you understand why slate voting is wrong. Right?


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> And now you understand why slate voting is wrong. Right?


Well, about 50% of my noms were the same as Sad Puppies. Slate Voting?

But by all means, lets punish her for how she got on the nominations, that will show future writers what to expect.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Davout73 said:


> Just to be clear, a group of supposedly misogynistic white guys put an avowed liberal bisexual author on the slate because her story is _that good._ I believed it had a solid shot at winning
> 
> She didn't withdraw because she was being treated poorly by the Sad Puppies crowd.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but are you the author(s) in question? No? Then why are you speaking for her? I believe there are blog posts by the various authors explicitly stating why they've withdrawn their works from consideration. Maybe this is a bit weird of me, but how about we let the authors themselves speak to their motivations and reasons for doing what they do? You know, instead of injecting what you think is going on and speaking on their behalf. They're writers. They can pick their own words.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Again like GG, they put some people on the slate so they could claim #notyourshield.

It's like when GG created Vivian James to totally prove they don't hate women because would anyone who hates women create this female gamer character...and then immediately start drawing porn of her?

Yes. That happened. They couldn't even finish their spiel about how they had created a positive female gamer character before objectifyng the hell out of her. Just like SP can't finish talking about how 'diverse' their slate is before cozying up to Day or Wright.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> You know quite a few people who post here are gamers. You might want to pull back on the generalized insults of all gamers.


He did specify the GG crowd and if it wasn't for the fact that they can obviously write the c-word and post it to twitter, there would be little proof that they can read at all.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> Well, about 50% of my noms were the same as Sad Puppies. Slate Voting?


By definition, no. Slate voting is when you vote for everything on the slate.

I'm going to make one more stab at this. When a group of works are put forth as part of a slate, and people vote on that slate, they are not voting on the merits of the individual works. At this point, any award that comes as a result of the slate is worthless because it is no longer based on merit.

I never said the individual works did not have merit. I believe I have been very patient in addressing your criticisms of my points, pointing out where I thought your logic was flawed. Every time I do, you shift to another point without acknowledging my response. You are free to disagree with me; people on both sides of the argument have. I refuse to be pigeonholed by either side, because neither side has a patent on the truth.

I honestly don't know what else to say to you at this point. You are free to say and do what you wish. You are free to ignore any points I might make, and discount any inconvenient logic therein. But nothing you've said so far has moved the needle on my own position, and I very much doubt I'm going to be having any road to Damascus conversions regarding sad puppies or slate voting, so maybe it's best if you just leave off?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

MEDIA RELEASE #2015-4
Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention

19-23 August 2015 at Spokane WA USA

http://www.sasquan.org

[email protected]

Hugo Awards Final Ballot - REVISED AGAIN: FINAL VERSION

Spokane, 16 April 2015

Since the version of the ballot sent out two days ago, a few more changes have happened. They are detailed at the start of this Media Release, followed by the final version of the ballot.

In the Best Novel category, Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos has been withdrawn by its author. It has been replaced by The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu (translated by Ken Liu).

In the Best Short category, "Goodnight Stars" by Annie Bellet has been withdrawn by its author. It has been replaced by "A Single Samurai" by Steven Diamond.

In the Novelette category, the listing for "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" (by Thomas Olde Heuvelt) originally did not include the name of the translator, Lia Belt. That has now been corrected.

It is believed that this is the first time that multiple fiction finalists were originally written in languages other than English.

The ballot is now going to the printer and there will be no further revisions.

Previous changes:

The nominees that follow were chosen by popular vote of members of Loncon 3 (the 2014 Worldcon), Sasquan (the 2015 Worldcon) and MidAmeriCon II (the 2016 Worldcon). Note that this is revised from the first ballot which was released on 4 April 2015. In particular:

In the Best Novelette category, "Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus" by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House) was replaced by "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014) - it had not been substantially revised since its original online publication in 2013;

In the Best Professional Artist category, Jon Eno was replaced by Kirk DouPonce.

We also misnamed Adventures in SciFi Publishing.

A total of 2122 valid nomination forms were received (2119 online and 3 paper).

A list of the top 15 nominees in each category, along with the number of nominations received by each, will be released after the Hugo Awards Ceremony on Saturday, 22 August, 2015 at Sasquan.

Best Novel (1827 nominating ballots)

Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc Books
The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)

[The Three-Body Problem was originally published in Chinese in 2008. The 2014 publication by Tor was the first English-language version, and therefore it is again eligible for the Hugos, according to section 3.4.1 of the WSFS Constitution.]

Best Novella (1083 nominating ballots)

"Big Boys Don't Cry" by Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
"Flow" by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
"One Bright Star to Guide Them" by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
"Pale Realms of Shade" by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
"The Plural of Helen of Troy by John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)

[Both Big Boys Don't Cry and One Bright Star to Guide Them were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication. Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.]

Best Novelette (1031 nominating ballots)

· "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium" by Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card's InterGalactic Medicine Show, May 2014)
· "Championship B'tok" by Edward M. Lerner (Analog, Sept 2014)
· "The Day The World Turned Upside Down" by Thomas Olde Heuvelt, Lia Belt translator (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014)
· "The Journeyman: In the Stone House" by Michael F. Flynn (Analog, June 2014)
· "The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale" by Rajnar Vajra (Analog, Jul/Aug 2014)

Best Short Story (1174 nominating ballots)

· "On A Spiritual Plain" by Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, Nov 2014)
· "The Parliament of Beasts and Birds" by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
· "A Single Samurai" by Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)
· "Totaled" by Kary English (Galaxy's Edge Magazine, July 2014)
· "Turncoat" by Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)

Best Related Work (1150 nominating ballots)

"The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF" by Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
"Why Science is Never Settled" by Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
Wisdom from My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

Best Graphic Story (785 nominating ballots)

Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt (Marvel Comics)
Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
Saga Volume 3 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

Dramatic Presentation (Long Form) (1285 nominating ballots)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
Edge of Tomorrow screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
Guardians of the Galaxy written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
Interstellar screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
The Lego Movie written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO Systems A/S Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

Dramatic Presentation (Short Form) (938 nominating ballots)

Doctor Who: "Listen" written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
The Flash: "Pilot" teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
Game of Thrones: "The Mountain and the Viper" written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves (HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
Grimm: "Once We Were Gods", written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)
Orphan Black: "By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried" written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions; Space/BBC America)

Best Editor (Short Form) (870 nominating ballots)

Jennifer Brozek
Vox Day
Mike Resnick
Edmund R. Schubert
Bryan Thomas Schmidt

Best Editor (Long Form) (712 nominating ballots)

Vox Day
Sheila Gilbert
Jim Minz
Anne Sowards
Toni Weisskopf

Best Professional Artist (753 nominating ballots)

Julie Dillon
Kirk DouPonce
Nick Greenwood
Alan Pollack
Carter Reid

Best Semiprozine (660 nominating ballots)

Abyss & Apex Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Burtsztynski
Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Wendy N. Wagner, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton and Christie Yant
Strange Horizons Niall Harrison (Editor-in-Chief), Brit Mandelo, An Owomoyela and Julia Rios (Fiction Editors), Sonya Taaffe (Senior Poetry Editor), Abigail Nussbaum (Senior Reviews Editor), Rebecca Cross (Columns Editor), Anaea Lay (Podcast Editor) and Tim Moore (Webmaster)

Best Fanzine (576 nominating ballots)

Black Gate, edited by John O'Neill
Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Alissa McKersie, Colin Harris, and Helen Montgomery
The Revenge of Hump Day edited by Tim Bolgeo
Tangent SF Online, edited by Dave Truesdale

Best Fancast (668 nominating ballots)

Adventures in SciFi Publishing Brent Bowen (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward, Shaun Ferrell & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
Dungeon Crawlers Radio Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)
Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
The Sci Phi Show Jason Rennie
Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman and Peter Newman

Best Fan Writer (777 nominating ballots)

Dave Freer
Amanda S. Green
Jeffro Johnson
Laura J. Mixon
Cedar Sanderson

Best Fan Artist (296 nominating ballots)

Ninni Aalto
Brad Foster
Elizabeth Leggett
Spring Schoenhuth
Steve Stiles

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (851 nominating ballots) 
Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).

Wesley Chu*
Jason Cordova
Kary English*
Rolf Nelson
Eric S. Raymond

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

Direct administrative questions about the 2015 Hugo Awards to the Sasquan Hugo Administrators.

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

For more information about the Hugos, please see http://sasquan.org/faq-hugos/

Full details of how to become a member of Sasquan are available at
https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

ENDS
For general media enquiries about
Sasquan please contact [email protected]

ABOUT THE WORLD SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION

Founded in 1939, the World Science Fiction Convention is one of the
largest international gatherings of authors, artists, editors,
publishers, and fans of science fiction and fantasy. The annual Hugo
Awards, the leading award for excellence in the fields of science
fiction and fantasy, are voted on by the Worldcon membership and
presented during the convention.

Sasquan is organized under the banner of the SWOC: http://swoc.org/contact.php

"World Science Fiction Society", "WSFS", "World Science Fiction
Convention", "Worldcon", "NASFiC", "Hugo Award", the Hugo Award Logo,
and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Trophy Rocket are service
marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary
society.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Annie Bellet withdrew because she didn't want to be standing in the middle of a fight that she didn't pick. The Hugos this year have become about "sides" and politics and lots of stupid things. Nobody is free from blame on any "side," in my opinion.  She withdrew because she loves great fiction, and this award season has become about people yelling at each other and not about the work. 

Hopefully people will get back to thinking about awesome stories and not about who is with or against or for or not for or voting or whatever.

That said, I encourage people to get memberships in Worldcon. Read the stories. Vote for what you love. Make it about the fiction again.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I would love to be there to see the blood shoot out of Day's eyes when Ms. Marvel wins Best Graphic Story.

And really, there's not much hope for the others. As much as I love Rat Queens, I haven't met anyone who doesn't love Ms. Marvel. It's everything a comic ought to be.


----------



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

Here's what Annie Bellet said about why she decided to withdraw, in her own eloquent words: https://overactive.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/hugo-story-withdrawn/


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> I would love to be there to see the blood shoot out of Day's eyes when Ms. Marvel wins Best Graphic Story.
> 
> And really, there's not much hope for the others. As much as I love Rat Queens, I haven't met anyone who doesn't love Ms. Marvel. It's everything a comic ought to be.


I would normally say what I hope such a shock would cause Day, but I don't want to be cattle-prodded.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Perry Constantine said:


> I would normally say what I hope such a shock would cause Day, but I don't want to be cattle-prodded.


Wise move.


Betsy


----------



## S. Elliot Brandis (Dec 9, 2013)

I think this whole kerfuffle is turning off readers.


----------



## Error404 (Sep 6, 2012)

My god, there's such vitriol against the Sad Puppies and GG crowd that I'm surprised the Mods haven't shut this thread down.  More hearsay, rumors and lies than a quilting party full of the town gossips.  Thanks, guys, for reminding me why I don't come to this forum much


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

S. Elliot Brandis said:


> I think this whole kerfuffle is turning off readers.


I doubt most readers are even aware of it. But, if they are, they're only hearing one side of it (the anti-SP side). I suspect the real question ends up being "What difference will it make to most readers if there are no Hugos awarded this year?"


----------



## whbacon (Oct 15, 2014)

Michael McClung said:


> And now you understand why slate voting is wrong. Right?


As opposed to the informal clique voting and logrolling that was happening before?


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

S. Elliot Brandis said:


> I think this whole kerfuffle is turning off readers.


Its definitely made me more skeptical that "Hugo Winner" = something I need to read.

I felt in the middle and not sure what was going on but a funny thing happened when discussing on the Goodreads Sword and Lazer forum. I had read Brad Torgerson's short story "The Exchange Officers" (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22399099.The_Exchange_Officers ) last year before any of this and thought it was a pretty good near future military sci-fi short fiction involving a surprise attack by Chinese astronauts on a US space station where the ground based remote operators of maintenance bots had to fight off the invasion. I thought it was pretty good for what it was (not sure I would have picked it for a Hugo)
but I reccomend if you are interested to read the story, then read the recent Goodreads reviews since this kerfuffle. To read the reviews this is a racist "Yellow Peril" story that dehumanizes people and celebrates killing peole to protect property and was just a terrible story that no one should read.

In discussing I realized I had talked myself into agreeing with the SPs, because if the extent of PCness we have now is that no near future sci-fi can have a political opponent except the "Evil American Empire" without being racist and should be blackballed then those stories are going to get old fast. If this has truly been a bias in the Hugo's I appear to be a Sad Puppy... Not that I would ever blank vote on a slate. I mean its a reasonable pick for an author looking for an antagonist in space in the near future, and should not be out of bounds.

I don't know much about Brad Torgerson, but found it ironic that the politics of personal destruction automatically branded him racist without much evidence, and the fact that his wife is African American didn't seem to matter

To me it has just brought to light that Hugo's may not be for me, I don't agree with slate voting and there is a lot of Alinsky type politics of personal destruction going on if you speak up. 
Also strawman arguments and guilt by presumed association (cough... Vox Day) tends to win arguments these days even among very intelligent people.

I think Eric Flint though had some really good well reasoned arguments on the Anti-SP side without the strawmen
http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2015/04/16/some-comments-on-the-hugos-and-other-sf-awards/

"You get a de facto division of authors into "award worthy" and "not award worthy," and the division is often based on completely accidental factors.

The problem isn't who gets the awards. The problem is the large number of possible nominees and winners who simply get ignored year after year after year-especially when you realize that they include the big majority of the field's most popular authors.
As time goes by, the Hugo and Nebula contests have become increasingly incestuous. Every year it's basically the same thing: "round up the usual suspects." This incestuous situation reached perhaps the height of absurdity with the Hugo award for best artist. For nine years in a row, between 1996 and 2004, that award went to two artists-Bob Eggleton or Mike Whelan. Bob or Mike, Bob or Mike, Bob or Mike, Bob or Mike, year after year after year. Finally-glory be-Jim Burns and Donato Giancola were able to break through. But many other excellent artists are still continually ignored."
......

"What the mass audience wants, first and foremost--and this has been true and invariant since the Sumerians and the epic of Gilgamesh--is a good story. Period.

"Tell me a good story." Thazzit.

But, sooner or later, that stops being sufficient for the in-crowds. At first, they want more than just a good story. Which, in and of itself, is fair enough. The problem is that as time goes by "more than just a good story" often starts sliding into "I really don't care how good the story is, it's the other stuff that really matters."

Eventually, form gets increasingly elevated over content. "Originality" for its own sake, something which the mass audience cares very little about--and neither did Homer or Shakespeare--becomes elevated to a preposterous status. And what withers away, at least to some degree, is a good sense of what skills are involved in forging a story in the first place.

To put it another way, every successful author has to master two skills which, although related, are still quite distinct: they have to be good story-tellers; and they have to be good writers.

Of those two skills, being a terrific story-teller but a journeyman writer will win you a mass audience, and is likely to keep it. On the flip side, being a journeyman story-teller but a terrific wordsmith will win you critical plaudits but won't usually get you much in the way of an audience."


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

whbacon said:


> I doubt most readers are even aware of it. But, if they are, they're only hearing one side of it (the anti-SP side). I suspect the real question ends up being "What difference will it make to most readers if there are no Hugos awarded this year?"


It won't make much difference to me since I never read Hugo/Nebula award-winners anyway, unless they happen to be of the classic variety.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Error404 said:


> My god, there's such vitriol against the Sad Puppies and GG crowd that I'm surprised the Mods haven't shut this thread down. More hearsay, rumors and lies than a quilting party full of the town gossips. Thanks, guys, for reminding me why I don't come to this forum much


I've got a friend who works in gaming journalism and she's been relentlessly attacked by the GG crowd, and she's one of the ones who hasn't gotten it as bad as others. So any vitriol that's been directed at them in this thread (or anywhere for that matter) is tame compared to what they've spewed and far less than they actually deserve.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

There's a few people on the east coast con circuit who like to issue random diversity challenges during panels, sometimes not even "diversity" panels per se - I'm one of them and it's a lot of fun.

The last one I did was "Write a story with a female protagonist who is not a "strong female character" (per the trope) or otherwise "conventional"?"

I've also done "Write a story in which the protagonist differs from you in ethnicity, gender, and/or sexuality"

(And I'm looking for a good opportunity to do "Write a story about a protagonist who is at least 50 or the equivalent and has not benefitted from rejuvenation" - when did you last read a story about an old person?)

I would LOVE to make diversity challenges a regular thing on this board, although I generally prefer not to specify length.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

whbacon said:


> As opposed to the informal clique voting and logrolling that was happening before?


So two wrongs now make a right?


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> I'm sorry, but are you the author(s) in question? No? Then why are you speaking for her? I believe there are blog posts by the various authors explicitly stating why they've withdrawn their works from consideration.


If she had stayed in and actually won, who do you think would be booing her?



> Maybe this is a bit weird of me, but how about we let the authors themselves speak to their motivations and reasons for doing what they do? You know, instead of injecting what you think is going on and speaking on their behalf. They're writers. They can pick their own words.


Maybe this is weird of me, but how about we honestly judge the nominated authors this year on the works they wrote, and not who they may or may not associate with, be published by, or otherwise affiliated with?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

They weren't nominated for the works they wrote. They were nominated for this stupid agenda.

Or do you think Wright really deserves to be the most nominated single-year writer in history? Or that a collection of racist emails in one of the great sci-fi tales of our time?


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Error404 said:


> My god, there's such vitriol against the Sad Puppies and GG crowd that I'm surprised the Mods haven't shut this thread down. More hearsay, rumors and lies than a quilting party full of the town gossips. Thanks, guys, for reminding me why I don't come to this forum much


In this day and internet age, GRRM could post a photo of himself wearing a "Cruz for President '16" t shirt, and it would be less than an hour before he was getting some nasty emails from people promising never to read him again because of that shirt. And then he'd spend 5 days and seven blog posts on it, and the next ASOIAF book would be delayed....again.



> They weren't nominated for the works they wrote. They were nominated for this stupid agenda.


And that agenda would be what, getting good stories nominated? Torgerson was pretty transparent in putting SP3 together, soliciting suggestions, helping put together book bombs, its all out there. The loudest complaints this year aren't that the works SP3 put together are bad, and not worthy of consideration, but how they got on there, and who wrote/published them.



> Or do you think Wright really deserves to be the most nominated single-year writer in history?


 No, but he was nominated because of the Rabid Puppies group, which are not part of the Sad Puppies group. Frankly, I'm more upset that Scalzi has more nominations in 10 years than Arthur C Clarke did in 50, or that Jim Buthcer, Kevin Anderson, LE Modesitt and a few other writers haven't been nominated at all until recently.



> Or that a collection of racist emails in one of the great sci-fi tales of our time?


Thanks for proving my previous point.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

This whole thing is infinitely boring and so US-centric for something that claims to be internationally relevant on a worldwide scale that if anything it turns me off the whole package.


----------



## Dormouse (Nov 10, 2012)

Nic said:


> This whole thing is infinitely boring and so US-centric for something that claims to be internationally relevant on a worldwide scale that if anything it turns me off the whole package.


*nod* My thoughts as well.

I was rolling my eyes when I saw this breakdown of the Hugos based on nationality and how surprised some were by how US-centric the Hugo is:

http://aidanrwalsh.com/2015/04/16/whose-rocket/

It will be interesting to see if Liu Cixin wins. That would make him the first Hugo novel award winner from a non-English speaking country. For an award that is linked to *World*con and given out by the *World* Science Fiction Society.


----------



## Spinneyhead (Nov 4, 2010)

All the fuss over the Hugos has got me interested in them for the first time ever, to the extent that, if my Smashwords payout for the first quarter is over $35, I'm going to give serious thought to getting the voting membership package. I believe it'll include copies of most of the shorter works, so I'll read them and try to vote based upon their quality alone (though it's hard to impossible to support any work Day is involved with in any way).


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

They should open the Hugo Awards, so it becomes a voters choice situation.
The Hugo Awards, like any award that isn't viewers choice is going to be drowned out by politics.

That said, isn't this reaction a bit much?
It's no longer a boys' club. 
*Good.*

Without encouraging diversity there wouldn't be any in MOST award ceremonies. This is a fact. 
I don't find it likely that EVERY good SFF writer happens to be a straight, White man
^This is just proof of intentional or unintentional exclusionary voting.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Charmaine- the kerfuffle this year started because a bunch of straight, white men decided that they were being shut out of the Hugos and that there wasn't enough of the kind of fiction they wanted to read. The actual Hugo offerings and what's been winning have been increasingly diverse. 

Ironically, perhaps, though also somewhat intentional at least on the SP side (not the RP side, I doubt many of them read anything they nominated off the SP slate), the works and authors put forward was pretty diverse anyway. The story that Annie Bellet withdrew was a favorite to win that category from all signs (provided the No Award crowd didn't win) and was a story about a female non-white woman written by a liberal queer female author. Now it's *more* likely a straight white man will win.

I urge everyone to stop fighting and ignore the idiots on all "sides" of this thing. Read the works. Get involved in the process. Next year, nominate your favorite things. More engagement and more people talking about the fiction they love are what will help save the Hugos, not yelling at each other. That solves nothing and will just drive away good people who don't want to be a part of all the bs.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Davout73 said:


> And that agenda would be what, getting good stories nominated?


Even being as charitable as possible to SP and pretending they're not in bed with RP despite clearly being so, this whole thing was started because one guy was sad that he didn't get a Campbell award and decided to try and game a rocket out of the system the shady way. He didn't care if he was the best, he just wanted his award and also revenge on WorldCon.

And you really can't play the 'nominating the best stories' card unless you honestly believe a small, obscure publishing house has a near monopoly on the best of the best.

As for why super-popular folks don't win awards? Why should anyone care? Honestly, the awards boost does a better service to the genre by elevating relative unknowns or breakout works.

I love Butcher, Modesett and Sanderson, but what does slapping an award label on their stuff actually _do_ in the grand scheme of things. Anyone in the genre already knows they're there and produce good stuff.

Of course now, the award won't do anything anyway because it just means that the winner was either a scumbag or an unwitting pawn of scumbags.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Of course now, the award won't do anything anyway because it just means that the winner was either a scumbag or an unwitting pawn of scumbags.


Attitudes like that are exactly why good people would give their nomination. Sigh.

If you love SF/F, read more stuff, nominate what you love, read the stuff that gets nominated, and vote for what you like. It's not rocket surgery. And if people who you don't like get nominated or win, be kind. Kindness and compassion go a lot further and make things more safe for everyone.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, again....

Let's tone down the rhetoric.

*removes moderator hat*



No Cat said:


> I urge everyone to stop fighting and ignore the idiots on all "sides" of this thing. Read the works. Get involved in the process. Next year, nominate your favorite things. More engagement and more people talking about the fiction they love are what will help save the Hugos, not yelling at each other. That solves nothing and will just drive away good people who don't want to be a part of all the bs.


This. Getting involved in the process rather than yelling at each other is what I consider the solution in most situations.

Betsy


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

How much compassion can you possibly have for a man that wants to kill a little girl for wanting an education?


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> How much compassion can you possibly have for a man that wants to kill a little girl for wanting an education?


Not enough likes in the world. Anyone talking about this needs to say outright if they think honor killing, FGM, and shooting little girls in the head are a benefit as Vox thinks. Time to stop playing with this. Is shooting little girls in the head justified or not?

Which side are you on?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Being put on VD's slate without knowing about it doesn't mean you agree with him. Punishing people for that is just mean. VD is evil and possibly insane. No question.

Painting it all as a "if you aren't with us, you are for him" argument is just silly though. It's been made very clear that plenty of the nominees knew nothing about RP, don't agree with RP or VD, and yet people are still trying to tar everyone with the same brush.

It's not cool. It ain't fair. And it's just causing exactly what people like VD want, which is chaos, fighting, and people tearing into people who don't deserve it.  Nominees have already left because of this stupid US vs THEM thing. It's created nothing but pain.

Read the stories. If you don't like who authored them, skip those. I'll be No Awarding anything by VD, but that doesn't mean I think what I'm doing is fair. I can live with that because of my feelings about the man, and believe me, beyond him being a terrible person, he's hurt me personally, so I feel utterly justified. 

But there are plenty of people on the Hugo ballot who write great fiction and don't deserve to be tarred with the same brush. They should be treated with kindness and understanding, not driven away.  They are victims in this, and they don't deserve the pain being lumped on them.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> How much compassion can you possibly have for a man that wants to kill a little girl for wanting an education?


I beg your pardon?


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Nic said:


> I beg your pardon?


Don't forget this gem:

"A few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability."

Oy.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Oh. 

I mean. Oh. I never came across this, as I skirted the whole mess in the background when reading up on this. Thank you for clarifying.

And they are talking even to this guy? Discussing his position with any sort of validation?


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

ChristinePope said:


> Don't forget this gem:
> 
> "A few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability."
> 
> Oy.


Honestly, just reading that is infuriating.

I honestly can't think of anything to say about my views on this guy that won't get me in trouble in some way....


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> It's ... messy, and complicated. The folks upthread saying "We can't tar everything he touches with the same brush" aren't wrong, they're really not ... but when you're looking at a force as ... repugnant as Vox Day, it becomes hard to keep your head on straight, because people are made of feelings and whatever.
> 
> For there to be so few degrees of separation between VD and the nomination of an openly queer woman's non-white female protagonist story just makes it hard for people to make any kind of rational statement. That shouldn't even happen in a rational world. I feel worse for Annie Bellet than for pretty much anyone else in this story right now.


This needs to be made more public than it is. As in more obvious and visible to interested outsiders looking in. I *have* been reading up some on the whole Hugo debacle, but never came across any of that. I thought Day is one of these grumpy semi-dead straight white beer guts with a loaded gun in his desk drawer who reminisced of the good old times of the 1950s when SciFi was young, the picket fence white and the housewife brought cold beer at a glance. Despicable enough. But I wasn't aware of this, even though I read a couple of dozen news articles and essays on the Hugo process this year.

This is completely, utterly horrible.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

In addition to those gems, he also believes that it would be less damaging for society to encourage men to rape at will than to encourage women to get educated and become part of the workforce. Also doesn't believe marital rape is possible--there's a contract, you can't withdraw your consent. Wish I were making it up.

His ideal world is one where women are broodmares of their owner husbands. One where everybody's white, because they're the only real **** sapiens.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Ah well. His views on the British and homosexuals also aren't exactly acceptable.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

He's also stated that white Americans don't rape these days and that unless a victim identifies her attacker as African American or Hispanic then her "claims" should be regarded with extreme skeptism.

I would like to remind everyone that on a post about SP, Correia explicitly stated that, in relation to nominating Day/Beale, he doesn't consider VD racist and cast doubt on him being a hatemonger.

Now ask again why the waters are muddied.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2015)

eleanorberesford said:


> He's also stated that white Americans don't rape these days and that unless a victim identifies her attacker as African American or Hispanic then her "claims" should be regarded with extreme skeptism.
> 
> I would like to remind everyone that on a post about SP, Correia explicitly stated that, in relation to nominating Day/Beale, he doesn't consider VD racist and cast doubt on him being a hatemonger.
> 
> Now ask again why the waters are muddied.


Larry's blog isn't easily searchable, but I remember reading a while back (a year or so ago?) about this. He'd had a back and forth conversation (email) with Vox, and from those emails (which, to my knowledge, he never posted publicly) he came to the conclusion that Vox was not racist according to the actual definition.

I'd be happy to email him for the link, if you'd like.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

I am only going to say on Vox Day - read his blog.

He's the kind of guy to go after people for libel for repeating his own words, so just go over there and read it. You'll learn very rapidly what kind of man he is.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

windsong said:


> Larry's blog isn't easily searchable, but I remember reading a while back (a year or so ago?) about this. He'd had a back and forth conversation (email) with Vox, and from those emails (which, to my knowledge, he never posted publicly) he came to the conclusion that Vox was not racist according to the actual definition.
> 
> I'd be happy to email him for the link, if you'd like.


That's not necessary, thank you. VD's racism is not subtle, secret or in any kind of reasonable doubt.

As for the post, it is easily found via Google for anyone who want to check. In it, Correia also downplays VD's vicious homophobia. I found it immediately.

I didn't link because I have a strict DNL policy for apologism for hate speech.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

No Cat said:


> Being put on VD's slate without knowing about it doesn't mean you agree with him. Punishing people for that is just mean. VD is evil and possibly insane. No question.
> 
> Painting it all as a "if you aren't with us, you are for him" argument is just silly though. It's been made very clear that plenty of the nominees knew nothing about RP, don't agree with RP or VD, and yet people are still trying to tar everyone with the same brush.
> 
> ...


You're missing the 'unwitting pawn of scumbags' part of what I wrote.

Like it or not, anyone nominated by the actions of SP aren't there on their own merit even if they deserve to be. They're there to serve SP's purposes and agenda and there will always be an asterisk next to this year's Hugos because we will never know who would have won on their own merits--even the people who weren't on the slates because thy weren't in competition with any other real nominees.

And yeah, that's what they want. If you read his blog, that's what the guy that started SP wants if he can't get an award for himself. The problem is that the existing rules make it o it can't be any other way.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

windsong said:


> Larry's blog isn't easily searchable, but I remember reading a while back (a year or so ago?) about this. He'd had a back and forth conversation (email) with Vox, and from those emails (which, to my knowledge, he never posted publicly) he came to the conclusion that Vox was not racist according to the actual definition.
> 
> I'd be happy to email him for the link, if you'd like.


I'm not sure what sort of bizarre definition Correia is using, but where I come from, if you're going around calling black people savages, that's pretty effing racist.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I'm going to lock this thread while we review and discuss. My initial impression is that the discussion has gotten away from the slate of nominees for the Hugo award. As I'm the only one around at this hour of the morning, I won't be able to discuss it with anyone until tomorrow, so I suggest y'all find something else to discuss in the meantime. Lots of other threads.

_After review, we decided this thread had run its course and will remain locked. --Betsy_

Betsy
KB Mod


----------

