Art of the Genre: The Art of Sad Puppies

Art of the Genre: The Art of Sad Puppies

What is the Wizard's First Rule?
What is the Wizard’s First Rule?

Before I get into this, I want to first make it clear that John O’Neill goaded me into writing today. When I mentioned that I found myself siding with Larry Correia, and God forbid Vox Day, on the hot topic of the week [Hugo vs Puppies, which we recently summarized here], John baited me with this gem:

And I’m fascinated to hear that you take the Puppies side in this…. hard as I try, I’m not able to warp my head into their liberals-have-stolen-the-Hugos-year-after-year-with-their-lies-and-secrets way of thinking. I’ve been trying to find someone to do a Puppy-friendly take to counter my posts… you interested?

I told him, and I quote:

LOL, I’ve no real depth to anything I would write, just a gut feeling, and in the end I’d probably alienate the bulk of any fellow BG bloggers I’ve come to know over the years. Now obviously that doesn’t mean anything to me as my fans are gamers who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Hugo, but still, it could get very ugly, very fast.

And it’s true, I write Art of the Genre, not Words of the Genre, so I’ve really no dog in this fight, but as someone who is on the outside, and enjoys breaking down numbers, my opinion did provide some puppy love. So I started thinking a bit more on my view.

Now first and foremost, I’m a liberal, I voted for Obama, I live in Southern California, I think private ownership of guns in this day and age is ridiculous, I find the ‘red states’ to be populated mostly by backward-thinking, bible-thumping lunatics that I can’t relate to in any way. I group the politics of Larry Correia and Vox Day firmly in the ‘insane’ category and what is truly horrible about humankind. But that said, I refer directly to the famous saying that ‘a broken clock is right twice a day.’

In my mind, the Hugo is not only broken, but a farce. It resides directly beside the almighty Wizard in the proverbial Oz, and unfortunately for a mass of liberal elitists [yes, Virginia, there is such a thing], the puppies pulled back that curtain to expose the doddering old man.

Why do I think this?

Because, like Correia, I’ve been to Worldcon [Reno 2011], and aside from that, I’ve studied the numbers. So, I’ll then break my thoughts [not arguments, because that would mean I intended on trying to change folks minds, which in this case I see as impossible] into two parts. Part One will deal with Worldcon’s image, and Part Two will be about the numbers.

Easy? Good, then let’s begin.

Oh! And I almost forgot, as I don’t really care about this subject one way or the other, and am doing this as a favor to John O’Neill’s need to see how many hits Black Gate can get this month, I WILL NOT be reading any comments posted to it, so if you are directing anything toward me, know that it is being shot into a void like space garbage from a Star Destroyer.

Worldcon’s Image

Hugo Award skinny-smallNow, concerning the Hugo. I’ve been lead to believe, as a writer, that the award is the Oscar of science fiction and fantasy writing.

Who led me to believe this? Well, the industry I’d assume, although I can’t point a finger directly at anyone. And if the Hugo is the Oscar, then the Nebula is the Golden Globe, as it comes out before the Hugo and allows the winning author the inside track to a Hugo.

Now perhaps Worldcon had nothing to do with that and the image is just humanity’s desire to have a comfortable order to the world where things are safe and make sense, like having all McDonald’s hamburgers taste the same from Maine to SoCal. We like to force things into relatable categories, and if one famous industry has a top award, than ALL industries must therefore have an equal counterpart, right? Well, not really.

So, fairly or unfairly, with forethought or without, the Hugo has become something it rightly isn’t, the Oscar of fantasy. But truth be told, it has no place being that, as there is no over-arching ‘Academy’ of writers, editors, and publishers working industry-wide in a huge guild trying to recognize the cream of the crop from our genre.

Instead, a single entity — and a very small one at that, Worldcon — has this award that they select the winners of. Who exactly is ‘they’? I don’t know, just like the bulk of you don’t know, but according to The Wizard’s First Rule:

People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.

*Aside [If there really were a true Hugo, Terry Goodkind should have won it for the above line alone. However, in 1994 he didn’t even get nominated. Why? He doesn’t play by the rules, isn’t warm and fuzzy, and didn’t have a backlist of favors and fans to get his voting numbers up. However, in my mind there has never, ever, been a more profound paragraph written in fantasy that directly interacts with the real world on a daily basis. It is pure genius.]

Therefore, we believe there is some higher genre power of incredible and unbiased literary masters who each year spend countless hours debating until a Hugo winner is born. That, I’m afraid, is not the case. Like Correia attests, the Hugo is little more than a ‘cool kids’ clique inside the ‘high school’ that is Worldcon.

I’ve been there, I’ve seen it and watched all the ridiculous back-slapping and ego-stroking that would make a frat party pale in comparison. If this isn’t a high-brow, high money, and high self-worth ‘your parents are out of town’ kegger, then I don’t know what is.

And these folks, for all you people still reading, are the ones that will award the lofty Hugo. If you are popular enough, if you can find your way into the in-crowd, smile when you should smile, drink when you should drink, bow when you should bow, then you just might have what it takes to take home that spaceship (or whatever it is).

I know exactly why Correia was so taken aback by what he witnessed, and because of who he was, the fat kid that had different ideas, how could he not be exiled, ridiculed, and might I even say bullied, by those in this club. That, to me, is the most amazing thing about all this.

Sweep Correia's Leg!
Sweep Correia’s Leg!

These forward-thinking, highly-educated, liberal writers seem unable to see that they are the Johnny Lawrence in this version of The Karate Kid. Because right-wingers like Correia aren’t what you are ‘supposed’ to be as a fantasy writer, they are branded with a scarlet letter and run out of town on a rail.

It ceases to be about the writing, and instead becomes solely about the writer, and THAT is where the Hugo Awards fail. It is a shell game, and the internet is buying it. It is politics! Go out on the street and ask anyone if they want free healthcare and they will say ‘yes.’ But Republicans don’t ask that question, instead spinning it to ‘Do you want the Democrats to tell you what healthcare you can have?’

Worldcon and George R.R. Martin, and most everyone else is doing the same. The real question is ‘Are the Hugo’s a sham?’ but they are instead asking ‘Isn’t it horrible how the crazy, gun toting, Mormon, right-wingers are attacking the Hugo?’

It is a bait and switch, people, and that is what pisses me off. Really, why should we give a crap about WHO Sad Puppies are, when we should be applauding them for finally trying to show the Hugo for what it is, or in this case isn’t?

It turns my stomach to see so many truly good writers championing the banner of Worldcon against the Mongol hordes of the Puppies when Worldcon and the Hugo winners ARE THE 1%! They don’t need your help! They are going to be just fine, and guess what, there WILL be Hugos handed out next year for all of Martin’s blather about them being ‘broken’.

But I promise you this, they are laughing all the way to the bank that the liberal class writers beneath them are going for the throats of the right-wing writers. It is the great shell game, and yes, once again the Wizard’s First Rule! For the sake of all that is, wake the hell up and see that this isn’t about Correia, or Vox Day, or Puppies, but about the illusion that the Hugo is honorable and worthy of support at all. While you tear down Correia, Worldcon is parking its boat inside its boat and laughing at you.

And why do I attest that the Hugo isn’t worthy? Well, let me get to Part Two.

The Numbers

Can you tell me who has won the most Hugo Awards for Best Novel? Since you are so vested in defending of the honor of the award I’m sure you MUST know, right? In all honesty, I doubt it, but given a few shots and you might get it. That lofty honor goes to… drum roll, please.

Robert A. Heinlein.

Mr. Heinlein won the award 5 times on eleven nominations. By contrast the most Academy Awards for Best Actor [the best comparison I can use, considering movies can’t be nominated year after year] goes to Daniel Day Lewis with 3 wins. Two other actors, Spencer Tracy and Tom Hanks have won the award twice. Otherwise no actor has won the award multiple times.

Hugo Awards for Best Novel, however, come in much bigger bunches, especially if you are popular with that small group of ‘they.’

Lois McMaster Bujold has received 4 Hugos for Best Novel, and Isaac Asimov, Connie Willis, and Vernor Vinge, have each won 3 times. An astounding 9 other authors have won it twice.

And the winner is... Michael Whelan, AGAIN!
And the winner is… Michael Whelan, AGAIN!

And don’t get me started on Hugo Awards for Professional Artists! As good as Michael Whelan is, how, HOW, can he have won 13 Hugos!? Or how about Frank Kelly Freas with 11?!

Doesn’t this disturb you at all? Do you have any idea how many incredible fantasy and science fiction artists are out there and yet these two, TWO, artists have somehow captured two and a half decades of awards!

It is a FIX, a joke, a travesty to what awards are truly supposed to be about. ‘They’ aren’t looking at the whole picture, but instead playing a game of pork barrel politics that makes a mockery of what is supposed to be the pinnacle of fantasy and science fiction achievement.

Hell, Phil and Kaja Foglio saw it in 2012 and no one dragged them through the mud to be tarred and feathered. Their Girl Genius books won the Graphic Story Hugo in 2009, 2010, and 2011 before they refused the 2012 nomination in order to show that the category was a ‘viable award’ with quality competitors besides themselves. See, Billy Idol gets it!

Phil and his wife Kaja tried to tell everyone the problem in 2012, assuming you read between the lines. For the Hugos to truly be a viable award, there needed to be some change, some true variety, some real weight put on judging, nominating, and validation of the craft.

But you see, people LIKE Phil and Kaja, hell, I adore them, so everyone just let this one slide as them being selfless and honorable to the Hugo. The bottom line, however, was that they were trying to affect change on the Hugo, even if passively, while Sad Puppies decided to go another route as the outsider looking in. The Puppies saw the same problem, but the only way they could do anything about it was to take the offensive and force a ballot inclusion.

Were they wrong? I can’t say, but did folks who would never have sniffed a Hugo ballot, but were justly deserved, get nominated? Yes they did, including Black Gate!

*Aside II: Did you realize that John O’Neill has been running Black Gate for over a dozen years, has posted thousands of articles on science fiction and fantasy for free, by hundreds of incredibly talented writers [also working for free] with over a million page views a month and no one from Worldcon even looked his way until Sad Puppies?

Now some folks accepted the nomination, some didn’t, but the bottom line is that we saw action taken, and the ‘cool kids’ did NOT like it, not one bit. But thankfully they had downtrodden authors like Matthew David Surridge to fight for them against the very people who tried to get them on the ballot. You know, because that is what Worldcon needs, more empowerment to govern the industry they really have no right to lord over in the first place.

So there you have it, my take on The Art of the Sad Puppies, and alas, I went over my word total by 63 words [2000 is my high end], but that is what authors do right, challenge the pre-conceived norms of society, both in fantasy and reality? Well, not if you want a Hugo I guess…

If you like what you read in Art of the Genre, you can listen to me talk about publishing, and my current venture with great artists of the fantasy field, or even come say hello on Facebook here. And my current RPG Art Blog can be found here.

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matthew David Surridge

Hi, Scott.

I know you said you’re not going to read comments, but as you’ve mentioned my name I wanted to make a brief statement. That’s this: I don’t accept your definition of me as downtrodden. And I was not and am not fighting for anyone in this Hugo issue.

I don’t care about the Hugo the way so many people do, be they Puppies or anti-Puppies or, say, you. As I tried to make clear in my piece, I’ve got my own opinions on what works ought to get awards. And so what? The Hugos never claimed to represent my choice for awards. Nor am I aware of Worldcon having made any claim to ‘govern’ me.

I’d rather not be involved, and rather would not *have been* involved. But here we are. I disagreed with the Puppies’ positions on literature and on literary awards, I said so, and that’s an end of it so far as I’m concerned.

(I’ll actually add one more point: If you’re right about the Foglios withdrawing from the Hugos in an attempt to make the awards better, I’d argue their move was a great success. The Best Graphic Story category has rewarded some excellent work lately, and for the most part this year’s group of nominees looks excellent as well.)


As an attending member of Torcon II (1973), Discon II (1974), and a supporting member of Aussiecon (1975), I considered it a true privilege as a fan to be able to nominate, and vote for, the novels and stories, etc., that would contend for the Hugo awards. I felt like I had a voice in helping to select the writing (and writers) that had given so much to me as a reader, and this was a way for me, and other readers, to say “Thank you” for making our drab, dreary workaday worlds a little more tolerable to get through. I drifted away from keeping track when I got into graduate school in the 1980s, and when I could no longer afford to keep buying SF & fantasy when I began teaching college, and it’s only been since 2011 that I renewed my interest in nominating and voting. In that lengthy interim, it appears that MUCH HAS CHANGED. I’ve spent a few hours over the last few days reading and responding to a lot of the controversy over the 2013 and 2014 nominees/winners, and suddenly I feel like an ignorant fool. In one comment, I said that in the 50+ years I’ve spent reading SF & fantasy, I’ve never felt let down; as David Hartwell has commented, even the barest bit of the spark of wonder that 90% of the genre may sometimes give readers, it’s still better than what we can find in other types of reading. I will clutch that to my chest desperately, regardless of what others in the field may say or think, and if I never have truly had a voice with respect to who gets the Hugo nod, I’ll never betray my own loyalty to the genre that has given me so much. Once more I’ll quote Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: “I love you sons of bitches.”


I’ve been a Hugo voter since 1998. The way you talk about the awards and Worldcon is exceptionally bizarre. It bears no resemblance at all to the process I’ve participated in or the people who have won over that span. Up until this slate nonsense, I saw no evidence of groups gaming the vote. People nominated and voted for what they liked and some good works, great works and the occasional clunker won. That’s how it goes with awards.

Sad Puppies organizer Larry Correia admitted to me on his blog that he has zero evidence the Hugos were ever unfairly manipulated. His explanation for that? “Luckily for you, they’re not that stupid.” They hid their tracks too well for there to be evidence, see! The whole foundation of his campaign is as gossamer thin as birther logic.

“Worldcon and the Hugo winners ARE THE 1%”

The 1% of what, exactly? If your suggestion is that Hugo winners are powerful, rich and connected, you don’t understand the SF/F market very well. There are some rich novelists on the ballot, no doubt, but the rest is a bunch of fans making no money and pros trying to scratch out a living. Nobody is joining the 1% of anything writing novelettes.

Some of them *are* connected, though. They have friends and colleagues across the Worldcon membership because they’ve been involved in it for a long time. If Correia had kept going to Worldcons after 2011 instead of just staying away and talking about them incessantly, he’d be connected too.

When you claim that Terry Goodkind didn’t win in 1994 because he “doesn’t play by the rules, isn’t warm and fuzzy,” and so on, you’re using the weakest anti-Hugo argument possible: “Because I loved X and X didn’t win, the awards must be rigged.”

In 1994 Kim Stanley Robinson won best novel for Green Mars. There were also well-respected novels by William Gibson, Greg Bear, David Brin and Nancy Kress on the ballot. You picked a particularly bad year to claim a novel was wrongly excluded. KSR’s Mars trilogy may be the best SF to come out of the entire decade.


I really need to write down this blog post so I can remember to nominate it next year…


In 1974, I voted for Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” and Harlan Ellison’s “The Deathbird” in their respective categories, and when I attended the convention and got to see them named as winners, I felt I helped make that happen. For a 23-year-old fan, that really made me feel like I belonged to something, that nothing else in my life had ever made me feel. I wish I could recapture that, but I’m thinking now that that will never happen again, and I am profoundly saddened by that.

James McGlothlin

“I find the ‘red states’ to be populated mostly by backward-thinking, bible-thumping lunatics”

I find it incredibly disappointing that this sort of unabashed name calling is allowed on Black Gate. And I don’t care if it’s meant as a joke.

Wild Ape


Webster defines bigoted as, “utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion other than one’s own.”

I think Scott proved his credibility for being fair minded. He listened to the Sad Puppies and weighed it against his own experiences and then defended people who have different beliefs and opinions than the one he shares.

George Martin and Scalzi both admitted that there are circles and lists and that there are politics in the Hugos. rcade, you must have read the posts BEFORE then because the proof was provided and confirmed that it exists. Further, there is proof that there were talking points among the various news medias that engaged in character assassination of the Sad Puppy leaders. That is a fact. I was asked in an earlier post the proof and I said that it was there but Correia did not recognize it. Twitter and other social media applications exist where people can be added to hashtag editors and put on certain lists like rape apologists, wife beaters, racists, etc. That is how Larry Correia and Thorgerson were instant maligned anonymously. How do you explain the similar talking points? How do you explain the accusations? How is it that they got their facts mixed up but most of the world now thinks Correia beats his wife and Thorgerson is a racist and rape apologist?

Do you mean to tell me that people were sitting on evidence of these writers all along? Why did they wait until the Hugos and the Sad Puppy list?

As for the 1%, I think you don’t understand what he is saying. I don’t think you understood what he was saying about Goodkind either. He is talking about why you have to schmooze the in crowd in order to get accepted and to have a better chance at the award.

The Sad Puppies proved how easy it was to block vote in your candidate. They also predicted the hostile reaction which came down on them because the choice of the picks was not what the in crowd wanted and now the connected are working the crowd.

No one has checked the credibility of the list that the Sad Puppies made. I and others have pointed out the where we find last years winners objectionable. Kindly point out rcade where the Sad Puppies are wrong with their choices and who is better on the list or who should have. Use specifics please. I’m willing to change my vote if you can convince me. I have an open mind about my vote. I am not afraid to stray from the Sad Puppy list for a better vote. Please show us rcade.

John ONeill

I’ve just deleted a comment from Greg Q, for rude content.

I’ve said this a few times: this isn’t a public forum. It’s my blog. Think of it as my front porch. I enjoy a good debate, and especially enjoy the company of those on both sides who can argue persuasively and politely.

But I won’t tolerate rudeness. Those comments are deleted.

Thank you.

Wild Ape

@rcade–I understand your claim that Goodkind might have “bitter grapes” syndrome because he lost. That is possible but I have heard from winners and losers that there is a degree of schmoozing those with connections that are a part of winning the Hugos. Think of the writer who lost, that must be a hard pill to swallow but I think most are wise not to sound like sore losers. I think Scott makes a good case.

I also think that with all the talented artists it is shocking that Micheal Whelan has beaten out Boris Vallejo to a shut out. Frank Frazetta only won once that I can recall. How has Whelan dominated so long? He must be a Michael Angelo. At some point you just have go say hmmm.

@James McGlothin—I don’t hold that against Scott. I think he was just trying to show that he should not be mistaken as a conservative. He was showing his liberal creds. It shows to me that he thinks the Sad Puppies have a valid argument but he is separating from their political leanings is all.


“The Sad Puppies proved how easy it was to block vote in your candidate. They also predicted the hostile reaction which came down on them because the choice of the picks was not what the in crowd wanted and now the connected are working the crowd.”

The opposition to bloc voting is about the tactic, not the works put on the ballot. If you think Hugo voters would have liked any slate of nominees to fill most of the ballot because people voted in lockstep, you don’t understand the awards at all.

“I understand your claim that Goodkind might have ‘bitter grapes’ syndrome because he lost.”

I never said a word about Goodkind’s thoughts on losing. I was talking about the argument used in this blog post, which claims Goodkind’s loss in 1994 as evidence of an unfair vote.

If your favorite author losing a Hugo vote is evidence, I’ve got evidence from every year I participated. Feeling that your favorite got robbed is the norm. That’s what happens when you participate in a process where several thousand other people get to have an opinion on a concept as subjective as “excellence.”


@rcade: “Feeling that your favorite got robbed is the norm. That’s what happens when you participate in a process where several thousand other people get to have an opinion on a concept as subjective as ‘excellence.’”

You hit it right on the nose. I voted for Neal Stephenson’s “Anathem” as best novel for 2009. I thought it detailed, inventive, and genius. It lost out to Neil Gaiman’s “The Graveyard Book” and Cory Doctorow’s “Little Brother,” both of which I liked a great deal. Gaiman’s novel touched my heart, but it was more fantasy than SF, and Doctorow’s a sort of 21st century “1984.” “Anathem” was unlike anything else I’d read before, and that’s one reason why I gave it the top vote. I was disappointed with the final tally, but with the possible exception of “Zoe’s Tale,” the entire slate of novels was quite strong, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading them all.

(A minor correction to an earlier comment, above: I’d thought I’d not voted again after 1975 until 2011, but as I’ve just stated here, I got involved again in 2009.)

Bob Byrne

‘I find the ‘red states’ to be populated mostly by backward-thinking, bible-thumping lunatics that I can’t relate to in any way.’

I can’t help but think that if I made a comparable comment about the non-Christian Left in my column, I’d be roasted alive here. Neither should be acceptable.


“I find the ‘red states’ to be populated mostly by backward-thinking, bible-thumping lunatics”

Bigot. I quit reading there.

Wild Ape

@Bob Byrne—who was it that said,“But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.”? I think we should be the voice of reason and the blind partisans on the left will either succumb to fear mongering or they will listen. Scott Taylor may be as sociable as Vox Day but he is listening to the Sad Puppies case even though it puts him in the same camp as people he loathes. We need to go one fight at a time and Scott is a battle that is won.

@rcade—no one is debating whether or not to pout if your writer loses. That will happen every year. You are evading my premise? Do you have any criticism towards the Sad Puppy list that you can show other than paranoia about right wing people? How does the Sad Puppy list stack up to say—2013 winners? Why do they not deserve a Hugo?

As for slate voting both George Martin confirmed it as did an editor from Tor. They both said that no one did it to the scale of the Sad Puppies but it had been done. Scott Taylor said as much and even showed an example of two people winning 25 years worth of Hugo awards. The competition is far to stiff for this to happen. The math is unsound to support that. Why do you avoid his argument? It seems to me that you want to convince people not to vote out of fear that some conservatives will steal the Hugo. You haven’t proven your case.

Martin Christopher

The whole idea of “art awards” seems very shady to me. How can those ever be anything but a popularity contests. Whether you go by public vote, jury, or sales numbers, it’s popularity. Which is usually completely arbitrary and not directly linked to the content at all.

James McGlothlin

ONeill: “I won’t tolerate rudeness.”

I’m confused by this statement when a post at Black Gate claims that ‘red states’ are “populated mostly by backward-thinking, bible-thumping lunatics”.

Irony? Joking? It seems rude to me.

John ONeill

James – I don’t blame you for being confused.

I apply different standards to those who are my invited guests (like Scott), and individuals leaving comments here.

I don’t censor my guests. I may (and frequently do!) disagree strongly with what they’ve said but, beyond some basic requirements that they don’t slander others and get their facts right, I give them plenty of latitude (and in some cases, enough rope to hang themselves.)

Folks are welcome to make comments here, and disagree strongly. But I will police the comments for rudeness towards anyone — especially my invited guests.

That means invited guests can (and do) get away with some things I wouldn’t tolerate in a comment.

Hope that makes it clearer.

James McGlothlin

Clarification appreciated, though I find it a bit disappointing.

But, as you say, it’s your front porch.


“I think private ownership of guns in this day and age is ridiculous, I find the ‘red states’ to be populated mostly by backward-thinking, bible-thumping lunatics that I can’t relate to in any way. I group the politics of Larry Correia and Vox Day firmly in the ‘insane’ category and what is truly horrible about humankind.”

Hey- I represent that remark! I think Scott Taylor must do the Superior Dance (like Church Lady).


BTW, Larry Correia wasn’t even an official part of Sad Puppies 3; he even turned down his nomination for “Monster Hunter Nemesis”.

The person who was in charge this year was Brad Torgerson, who was attacked as being a white racist for simply being part of SP. Never mind he’s been married to a black woman for 21 years, and has a beautiful mixed race daughter. In fact, the attackers of the puppies doubled down and insisted that not only was he still a racist, he only had his wife and daughter to use as shield to hide his racism behind.

VOX DAY had NOTHING to do with Sad Puppies. He got a nomination last year simply because Larry was suggesting people nominate regardless of politics, and like the broken clock being right twice a day, he actually had something well written that was worthy of a nomination. Vox, of course, paid the puppies back by co=opting the Puppy name for his Rabid group, and stealing most of the suggested nominations list from the puppies for his own group, without asking.

Note: The term “Slate”. Most definitions are “a group of people we suggest you vote for”
The progressive definition, like what happens in union newsletters “This is who we expect you to vote for”. Analysis of the actual nominations and voting indicates:
1. The only bloc nominating was from the Rabid Puppies (Vox’s group); that some of Vox’s nominee list was stolen from the Sads and therefore overlapped, meant that of course, some of them got higher amounts.
2. The only bloc voting for the actual award was by the “No Award” crowd, which may have included a significant number of Vox’s Rabids. Note that one of the Sad Puppy nominees, a very liberal lesbian, declined nomination because either a. she couldn’t handle people with different beliefs nominating her and liking her work, or b. the list of nominees got out via current & former Tor employees, and efforts were made to get liberal nominees selected by the Sad Puppies to decline nomination. You pick which is closer to the truth.
3. Ignoring the “No Award” votes, the two highest vote getters in “editor, long form” BOTH got more votes than the previous record for the category. Toni W. Quadrupled the record (1200 vs 300), and the next person doubled the record. No Award amazingly got DOUBLE Tony’s vote (2500), after there were a couple thousand last-minute purchases of additional voting memberships at a time when there were already preliminary running vote counts known to the insiders.
BTW, the only reason Editor got split into long and short forms was because one of the head puppy-kickers (PNH) wanted to win, because he wasa book editor, and magazine editors always won, so he organized a movement for the split – and has won most of the Hugos in the long category since the split.
4. You want to see a REAL silly number of nominations/wins? Forget Whelan & Freas, look at GLYER, with almost FIFTY Hugo nominations!!!

5. grouping Larry’s politics with Vox’s is like grouping MLK with Louis Farrakhan. Same goes for tryign to make the SP & RP out to be the same.

6. Lastly, look at the video of the farce that was the ceremony this year, as it shows the real face of the Hugo clique. For further evidence, go to (Sarah’s one of the people running Sad Puppies 4) and look at the blog entry “The Goat Kicks Back”, and a compilation of some of the reprehensible things that the anti-puppies did during the year, not limited to libelous magazine articles, and creating a fake blog (complete with buying the domain name!) for the SP to try to make them out to be blithering idiots.


Oops – one last bit of irony. The only reason why Sad Puppies didn’t have the Best Novel winner on their nomination list, was because Brad and others didn’t even hear about it in time, and one of the requirements in Sad Puppies was that he read everything before deciding on nominating it.

Similarly, VOX DAY didn’t get a chance to read it either, but after reading it, it was HIS CHOICE for best novel (despite it not being on his slate), and his minions were asked to vote for it.

So, the Hugo clique, and the man they hate the most, combined to get Vox’s choice voted Best Novel.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x