Return Home

I Voted For the Hugos

Friday, July 31st, 2015 | Posted by John ONeill

2011 Hugo Award-smallYesterday, I cast my vote for the 2015 Hugo awards.

It was my first time voting for the Hugos (yay!). But I’ve never been nominated for a Hugo Award before either, so this is pretty much the year for milestones all around. For the record, here’s what I ranked in first place in each category:

Best NovelThe Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Tor Books)
Best Novella – No Award
Best Novelette – “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed, April 2014)
Best Short Story – No Award
Best Related Work – No Award
Best Graphic StoryMs. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal (Marvel Comics)
Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form) Edge of Tomorrow
Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”
Best Professional Editor (Short Form) – No Award
Best Professional Editor (Long Form) – No Award
Best Professional Artist – Julie Dillon
Best SemiprozineBeneath Ceaseless Skies, edited by Scott H. Andrews
Best FanzineTangent Online, edited by Dave Truesdale
Best FancastGalactic Suburbia Podcast
Best Fan Writer – Laura J. Mixon
Best Fan Artist – No vote cast
The John W. Campbell Award – Wesley Chu

In my vote preparation, I was greatly aided by Deidre Saoirse Moen’s Puppy Free Hugo Award Voter’s Guide, which conveniently whittled down the ballot to only those candidates not on the Sad Puppy or Rabid Puppy ballots (for those of you new to all this Puppy business, there’s a handy summary here).

Tangent OnlineMind you, I must admit I didn’t strictly follow Ms. Moen’s guidelines. For Best Fanzine (the category Black Gate was also nominated in), the Puppy Free Guide lists Journey Planet as the only untainted candidate. However, I’m a big fan of Tangent Online, and I’d enjoy seeing Dave Truesdale get a Hugo — even a tainted one.

Dave and I have had our disagreements in the past, but Tangent Online is an invaluable site, and Dave has been a tireless promoter of short fiction (and indeed the entire genre) for decades, and I didn’t want this Puppy business to get in the way of a well-deserved Hugo for Dave and his entire team.

Of course, there are folks who disregarded Ms. Moen’s form in its entirety, and who diligently read the entire short fiction ballot in preparation for voting. For those who felt compelled to do so, I salute you.

I did not feel compelled to so do. Because I feel, rather strongly, that this is in an illegitimate ballot.

I’ve explained my rationale elsewhere, and I won’t rehash all that again, but in short — regardless of how the voting goes, the Puppies have made it abundantly clear that their primary goal is to have their ballot accepted. Having the bulk of fandom acknowledge their ballot as legitimate, and having their nominees read and voted on, paves the way for future Hugo ballots to be decided the same way: through the Puppies aggressive form of slate voting, which I feel drowns out far too much worthy fiction in favor of the Puppies extremely narrow selection process (dictated almost entirely by two individuals).

Or to put it another way: Any slate in which Vox Day puts eleven works from his own tiny publishing house on the Hugo ballot — and nominates himself for two Hugos — will have a hard time convincing me that it is anything other than a naked Hugo grab, poorly masquerading as a reactionary literary movement.

So overall, I kept my ballot pretty much puppy free. Which meant that I couldn’t even list Black Gate in first place for the Best Fanzine category, despite the fact that I’m the founder and editor. Which was sort of a bummer. But, as I explained when we attempted to withdraw from Hugo consideration back in April:

My larger concern is with the integrity of the Hugos. Giving Hugos to members of the Rabid Puppies slate would be a tacit acceptance of slate voting as a legitimate way to award Hugos, and I feel this would permanently tarnish an award that has done an enormous amount to promote and celebrate some of the finest SF and fantasy this field has ever seen.

The strongest argument the Puppies can muster is that this shouldn’t matter, because there are very deserving candidates on the award ballot this year, and denying them a Hugo award without the regard they deserve is wrong.

The strongest argument I can muster is that I believe that Black Gate is a superb website, the product of thousands of hours of dedicated effort from dozens of the top writers in the field every single month, and if there’s even the slightest chance that giving it a Hugo would in any way diminish the reputation of the Awards, we, as an organization and as a team, categorically reject any involvement in that effort.

Not everyone agrees with me, of course. And that’s okay. George R.R. Martin even publicly wagged his finger at me for advocating a “No Award” approach for those categories thoroughly dominated by the Puppies.

Black Gate is advocating the nuclear option: vote NO AWARD… I understand his reasoning, but once more, I disagree. I will vote NO AWARD only in those categories where I find nothing in the category worthy of a Hugo. If I think a book or story or editor IS worthy of a Hugo, I’m going to vote to award one.

The Hugos can withstand a few NO AWARDs, in categories where all the nominees are crap. They can NOT withstand an entire evening without a single rocket being presented, where one envelope after another is ripped open and NO AWARD is announced, again and again and again.

I understand George’s concern. For a lot of folks, it just doesn’t sit right with them to vote “No Award” without reading and evaluating all the nominees fairly — regardless of how they got on the ballot.

I respect that opinion. If you’ve been following all the Hugo discussion over the past few months (and there’s no shame if you haven’t, believe me), there’s been no shortage of folks who dutifully read the entire short fiction ballot (that portion of the ballot that is nearly 100% Puppy-dictated) and gave the nominees careful consideration. There’s plenty of online commentary to choose from, but here’s a quick sample:

Rich Horton – The 2015 Hugo Shortlist, Short Fiction: A Review
Charlotte Ashley – Clavis Aurea #30: 2015 Hugo Awards edition (Short Fiction) (in Apex #74)

I’ve been watching the drama unfold, and from what I’ve seen Rich Horton’s response is fairly typical:

Having gone through the entire list, I’m annoyed again. The problem is, simply, that very few really good stories got nominated. I really want the Hugos to celebrate greatness, or at least “very-goodness.”

Undoubtedly many past Hugos come short of that, but at least they try. There are plenty of stories that, in my opinion, fit the parameters the Sad Puppies seem to want: bedrock Sfnal themes, solid and intriguing plots, lack of preaching, lack of emphasis on good writing at the expense of “story values”… I might not sign up for all those things, but I can sure understand the desire for them – but why not nominate more stories that really qualify?…

To me, it’s particularly distressing to see such worthy – and tremendously original, and strongly Science-Fictional – stories as “Schools of Clay,” “Sadness,” and “The Hand is Quicker –” get ignored.

In short, the Puppy slate just doesn’t measure up. Not much to tempt me to abandon my principled stand against slate voting, then.

I’ve listened to lots of Puppies over the last few months, and made good faith efforts to understand their grievances (and they do have very real grievances). I’ve had it explained to me (many times) that my principled decision to vote “No Award” in the face of blatant slate voting, without reading all the nominees, is “a slap in the face” to the Puppies.

I’m sorry to all those who feel that way — and I do understand that there are those who genuinely feel betrayed and hurt by my decision. But, as I’ve explained before, here’s the thing about principled actions: I’m called upon to do them, regardless of how they make you feel.

One thing I would like to state publicly is that a huge portion of the criticism aimed at the Puppies over the last few months has focused on their so-called pro-male and pro-white agenda. As those who’ve taken the time to closely read the ballot have pointed out, there really isn’t any such thing. The Puppy ballot is actually fairly diverse, all things considered.

The Puppies have reacted extremely negatively towards all the reactionary press aimed their way, and I don’t blame them. There’s plenty of legit reasons to critique them; we don’t need to start making crap up.

The last few months has been a remarkably dynamic and exciting time for fandom. The Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies accomplished something absolutely incredible: joining together to make a resounding statement about the current state of science fiction awards, and forcing the entire industry to sit up and take notice. They have, without question, been the single largest story in fandom this year.

Unfortunately, the subsequent discussion has been a Public Relations disaster for the Puppies. When the eyes of the world were upon them (and while they were admittedly being unfairly criticized by people who misunderstood what they were really about), the Puppies responded by relentlessly going on the attack, hurling bombs at “SJWs,” liberals, secret cartels controlling the Hugos, and (especially, and rather senselessly) Tor, the publisher that has tirelessly promoted and sold many of the authors they championed.

In short, four months ago the Puppies grabbed the microphone and stood on stage in front of the entire industry. They seized the genre by the throat, and had a golden opportunity to make their point. And instead, they simply proved that they had nothing of any real value to say.

Today, the Sad Puppies are already seen as a spent force. Irrelevant, misguided, and not particularly very interesting.

Perhaps I’ll be be proven wrong, and when the Hugo Winners are announced at Sasquan in Spokane, Washington, on August 22, the Puppies will sweep again, just as they swept the nominations.

But I don’t think so. I think the result will be quite the opposite, and the Puppies will be swept aside in a wave of NO AWARDs. When that happens, I’m sure there will be plenty of dark muttering about “next year.” But by then, the microphone will have been turned off, and the audience will be long gone. The Puppies are part of history; they just don’t know it.

You can still vote for the Hugos, until midnight tonight (Friday July 31, 2015, 11:59 PM Pacific time). All is takes is $40 to register as a supporting member of Sasquan, the 2015 Worldcon, and you can vote online. The registration page is here, and the Hugo voting page is here.

75 Comments »

  1. “In short, four months ago the Puppies grabbed the microphone and stood on stage in front of the entire industry. They seized the genre by the throat, and had a golden opportunity to make their point. And instead, they simply proved that they had nothing of any real value to say.”

    Perfectly said.

    Comment by ilgiallomondadori - July 31, 2015 4:06 am

  2. Thanks for sharing, John. I salute you for sticking to your principles and doing what’s right for you.

    Comment by Rachel Book Harlot - July 31, 2015 7:03 am

  3. Very similar to my own ballot in many respects.

    And really hoping BG gets a non-tainted nomination — I’d have loved to have voted for you under almost any other circumstances.

    Comment by Joe H. - July 31, 2015 7:51 am

  4. As someone that isnt voting a slate, either sad, rabid, or anti puppy…

    I am sorry you felt this way Mr Oneill, needless to say I disagree with you. But unlike many anti-puppies I think you should be able to vote and nominate as you see fit, that you shouldnt have to hold up people to ideological or identity standards in deciding what to vote for.

    Though I would like to say that the anti-puppies voting no award without at least an honest attempt at measuring quality of nomination, ie throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as you and others seem to have done is disappointing. I put those that do so in the same category as those that harrassed Ms Bellet simply because Vox put her on his ballot. (btw I find it deliciously ironic that those complaining the most about slates are in effect slate voting)

    “They seized the genre by the throat, and had a golden opportunity to make their point. And instead, they simply proved that they had nothing of any real value to say.”

    Racefail
    Fishboob
    Mammoth book of mindblowing SF
    Moongate
    SFWA Bulletin

    Same thing, just different actors…

    The world SF&F was borne by in the worldcon arguments of 1939, and it shall continue as it always has until there is no more fandom.

    “a non-tainted nomination”

    Tainted…because someone with a bad opinion liked something and told others about it…

    Oh no, someone with bad think likes something I like, it now has cooties…

    Would the the genre be so much better if those with badthink, who have wrongfun, leave?

    Will you then sit around in racially segregated safe rooms at wiscon and talk about how Omelas is so much better than the wilderness?

    Comment by TW - July 31, 2015 8:16 am

  5. Sad and Rabid Puppies, and really, a lot of people involved in this, need to stop playing victim. Write good stuff, promote it well, be happy with your own work, like what you want. Most of all:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fzGRyHANAU&t=0m13s

    Comment by ilgiallomondadori - July 31, 2015 10:22 am

  6. Thank you for sharing your votes and your reasoning, Mr. O’Neil.

    Being mostly on the fringes of fandom (I have attended 3 Worldcons), I have been trying to follow the arguments over the Puppies with some effort. One major difficulty that seems to be clouding the debate is a conflation, on both sides, of Puppies.

    It seems to me, based on analyses of the voting slates, like the one provided by File 770, that the issue at hand is the Rabid Puppies nominees being bloc-voted onto the Hugo ballot. The Sad Puppies only provided 3 non-Rabid nominees, 2 semi-prozines (Abyss & Apex, Andromeda Spaceways) and one fan writer (Dave Freer). So, the Hugo ballot issue is squarely with Rabid Puppies.

    Which means that “no Puppies” critics are often making overly broad statements that should properly only be targeted at Rabid Puppies (Mr. Theodore “Vox Day” Beale, his publishing concern, the authors it publishes) and not at Sad Puppies, as several commentators like Mr. O’Neill have been at pains to point out. Conflating the two is only confusing the debate.

    Unfortunately, the conflation also afflicts the “yes Puppies” side as well, whether intentionally or not. Sad Puppy defenders want to take credit for the Hugo ballot insertions, but at the same time also want to emphasize the distinction and remind us that “Sad Puppies are not Rabid!” I do not think that they can assume both positions. If they want to take credit for their coalition with the Rabids having a major effect on the Hugos (for good or for ill), then they need to admit that this Puppy government has a Rabid prime minister and cabinet. Otherwise, I tend to find their often lengthy arguments about anti-Puppy smears to be factually correct but irrelevant.

    In short, the whole kerfuffle suffers from a muddle of rhetoric that makes it sound as a transcription of the classic Bugs Bunny “rabbit season/duck season” shtick, bedeviled by confusion over “you” and “they” terms, deliberately or accidentally. As Daffy Duck would say, “Pronoun trouble!”, the result of which has been a continual series of impassioned pleas that, sadly, turn into cries of “Shoot me now! Shoot me now!”

    Comment by Eugene R. - July 31, 2015 11:36 am

  7. Great summation, Eugene R. I agree.

    Comment by ilgiallomondadori - July 31, 2015 11:59 am

  8. It looks to me like a vote against Vox Day. How many new writers and established writers need to get tossed under the bus does it take for people to vote their conscious and not vote against Vox Day? You’ve empowered your enemy John. Now he has the reverse Midas touch. When he said that the Hugos would rather set fire to the award rather than cave in to their narrative he was right. What will that accomplish?

    No, Sad Puppies are persona non grata. This is a vote to expel them and not one that accepts them as another part of fandom.

    “In short, four months ago the Puppies grabbed the microphone and stood on stage in front of the entire industry. They seized the genre by the throat, and had a golden opportunity to make their point. And instead, they simply proved that they had nothing of any real value to say.”

    It was probably hard to deliver the message to the tone deaf. It sure would have been easier if y’all wouldn’t start calling us Nazis. That might have helped. Maybe if folks like Rich Horton would have spoken the loudest it might have helped. At least he did his homework and gave an honest review. GRRM is not hated by a lot of the Puppies. I admire how he stood in the fire and reached out when tempers were at their hottest. He has been a real voice for fandom. He was asking for people to quit name calling and to read the nominations and vote. He seems to be interested in the health of the Hugos and is willing to listen to all sides. That doesn’t mean he supports Vox Day by the way. He is just asking people to be rational.

    @TW–“Would the the genre be so much better if those with badthink, who have wrongfun, leave?”

    That is exactly what they want. They want it to hurt too. They want us to shut up and leave. The more radical want us to bow down and submit. At least for now we have a free market and no one is forced to buy politically approved books. With the Kindle and other eReaders with the internet the hate fest that we are witnessing is just the death throws of a dying industry. It kinda looks like a temper tantrum to me but…hey. They will either adapt or die or be confined to a small niche of readers.

    John I find it telling that you voted for “Edge of Tomorrow” and “Orphan Black” which were the ones I voted for as well. Whenever a large audience is present you will find the votes fall in with an educated vote. When the category has a small population you get a skewed result (that is what Vox Day and his 390 minions proved).

    People should be thanking the Puppies. This will probably be the biggest Hugo vote in history. How did that come about? At least in the circles that I traffic in the discussion has been on books and stories unlike in previous years when we just get the results and cheer or boo. There has been a lot of booing in the past and that is because the Puppies and other fans have sat on the sideline and not participated. Again, this is real substance and good for all of fandom.

    I doubt that the Puppies will get a single award. The crowing will be loud and shrill and the insults at us will fly. The worst thing that could happen is that the voting goes down without a No Award. If there are a lot of No Awards then Vox Day will have truly set fire and destroyed the Hugo. I would hate to see that. That would be a true defeat for fandom. But hey, vote your principles.

    “But by then, the microphone will have been turned off, and the audience will be long gone. The Puppies are part of history; they just don’t know it.”

    I like that demoralizer you put in at the end John but it is just wishful thinking. The thing is that most of the Sad Puppies I know are vets and not little daisies so I wouldn’t count on them sniveling in a corner and crying. You don’t understand them. They sound mean and angry but it is just the way they talk, but we all share an understanding. If you want to win the battlefield you have to show up. If your tactics don’t work then you use better ones. The audience that you describe was in an echo chamber chanting lies and hate and we never had a chance of cracking that fortress. We are looking for all of fandom, not just the politically approved and especially the wrongfans who have been marginalized and bullied. The same audience that was cast aside by those in the echo chamber. In that battlefield we are winning. Most do not want to shell out $40 for what they consider a lefty award. Instead, they are being shown books of the variety that they thought were long gone. A lot of them are self published too and were tossed aside by the same group in the echo chamber.

    Share them with you? Hmmm. Considering how all it takes is a Puppy’s approval to ruin a writer I’m not sure that is a good idea. I’m more of a partisan for a writer than defender of literature award. So no.

    And yes, I’m looking forward to next year. I have no idea if there will be a Sad Puppy 4 list. If there is I will give it due consideration and then vote as I see fit. I’m sure there will be counter lists too. I will consider the source and read as I choose. The world will continue to revolve.

    Comment by Wild Ape - July 31, 2015 12:16 pm

  9. ‘In short, the Puppy slate just doesn’t measure up.’

    Riding the Red Horse is the first great mil-sf anthology since Jerry Pournelle tapered off back in the 90’s. There are honest ideological reasons to hate mil-sf. There’s no honest way to claim Hugo Gernsback or John Campbell shared your ideology.

    Comment by bruce99999999 - July 31, 2015 1:04 pm

  10. > Thanks for sharing, John. I salute you for sticking to your principles and doing what’s right for you.

    Thank you, Rachel.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 1:21 pm

  11. > And really hoping BG gets a non-tainted nomination — I’d have loved to have voted for you under almost any other circumstances.

    I appreciate that, Joe. There are a great many predictions about how Hugo voting will proceed next year, but I wouldn’t bet on too many Puppy favorites (including Black Gate) making a return appearance.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 1:24 pm

  12. > “They seized the genre by the throat, and had a golden opportunity to make their point. And instead, they simply
    > proved that they had nothing of any real value to say.”
    >
    > Racefail
    > Fishboob
    > Mammoth book of mindblowing SF
    > Moongate
    > SFWA Bulletin
    >
    > Same thing, just different actors…

    TW,

    I certainly remember ‘Racefail’ – and I think it permanently changed SF, in the sense that it helped educate many modern writers on the dangers of cultural appropriation, and the repercussions of being lazy when writing about race. Everyone views that thorny debate a little differently, of course, but it was a necessary and genre-changing discussion.

    SFWA Bulletin – ditto. That kerfuffle helped shake up at SFWA and resulted (in my opinion) in many positive changes in the way the Bulletin is run.

    I’m much less familiar with the other dust-ups you mention (erm… what the hell is ‘Fishboob’?), but if your point is that the Sad Puppy debate is roughly equivalent, I don’t agree.

    Unlike Racefail or the SFWA Bulletin shake-up, I don’t think the Puppies made anything like an effective point, and I saw precious little evidence that they convinced anyone outside their own membership that they ever had one.

    I know some Puppies have argued that that wasn’t really the intention. That the Puppies weren’t necessarily about evangelizing or promoting anything, and their intentions were really just to shake things up.

    But there’s no arguing that, for a brief moment, they had the attention of all of fandom. And when fandom took the time to read the work that the Puppies put forth, they found the Puppies really had nothing much to say.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 1:44 pm

  13. > Sad and Rabid Puppies, and really, a lot of people involved in this, need to stop playing victim. Write good stuff, promote
    > it well, be happy with your own work, like what you want.

    ilgial,

    Well said (and thanks for the Kindergarten Cop clip… it made my morning!)

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 1:49 pm

  14. > If they want to take credit for their coalition with the Rabids having a major effect on the Hugos (for good or for ill),
    > then they need to admit that this Puppy government has a Rabid prime minister and cabinet.

    Eugene,

    Splendidly well said, and I agree completely.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 1:52 pm

  15. > It looks to me like a vote against Vox Day. How many new writers and established writers need to get tossed under the bus
    > does it take for people to vote their conscious and not vote against Vox Day?

    Ape,

    See my above comments. Yes, you’re quite correct… most of my harshest rhetoric has been directly squarely at Vox Day and his followers, and I’m sorry that some of the splatter has fallen on the Sad Puppies, who have generally been much more reasonable.

    However, as Eugene (and many others) have noted, it’s Vox Day and his followers who are driving the Puppy bus. If you voluntarily climb on board his bus, you shouldn’t complain to us about where it takes you.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 1:56 pm

  16. > Riding the Red Horse is the first great mil-sf anthology since Jerry Pournelle tapered off back in the 90′s.

    Bruce,

    I’m glad to hear that. I haven’t read Vox Day’s anthology RIDING THE RED HORSE (which was on the Puppy ballot four times), but I’m a fan of military SF (and a lot of Pournelle’s work, while we’re on the topic, although he and I are about as polar opposite as it’s possible to get, politically).

    Vox (and others) have claimed there was zero chance of RIDING THE RED HORSE getting nominated for a Hugo without gaming the system to do it, and perhaps they’re right. But now we’ll never know.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 2:02 pm

  17. “And when fandom took the time to read the work that the Puppies put forth, they found the Puppies really had nothing much to say.”

    In the Puppies’ defense, the list of works they put forward were gutted by the withdrawal of several authors, at least one of whom did so largely because of the torrent of abuse she received from a sub-set of anti-Pups. The weakness in the Puppy-nominated works is that they’re dominated by John C. Wright. I personally think Wright is a master, but if his particular style isn’t to your taste. . .well, that’s a huge chunk of the Puppy works you won’t enjoy.

    And of course the core of Worldcon voters aren’t impressed by the Puppy nominees. That’s the point being argued–that the Hugos have, in the past, been awarded based on the atypical tastes of a relative handful of voters, and don’t reflect or represent what most genre fans actually enjoy. You’ll have to hunt far and wide to find a more beloved author than Jim Butcher, or a more popular series than the Dresden Files, but it seems obvious that none of his work would ever have made the Hugo ballot without the Puppy campaign. The novel to receive the most nominating ballots was actually Correia’s own MONSTER HUNTER NEMESIS, so it’s disingenuous to say that “fandom” isn’t impressed by the works the Puupies put forward–unless you consider “fandom” to necessarily exclude Correia’s fans. This seems like exactly the point Correia is making with “wrongfans having wrongfun”.

    That, and I saw very few people bother to listen to anything the Puppies had to say. It’s hard to string sentences together in the face of accusations and rotten vegetables.

    With all that said, I’m just a spectator–I didn’t care about the Hugos enough one way or another to put down $40. And I can appreciate a principled stand whether I agree with it or not. You and Correia have in common that you refused a Hugo nomination this year, and while you had different reasons for doing it, I respect both of you for putting principle above accolades.

    Comment by Sean Stiennon - July 31, 2015 2:05 pm

  18. ” I don’t think the Puppies made anything like an effective point, and I saw precious little evidence that they convinced anyone outside their own membership that they ever had one.”

    Same could be said of Racefail, the SFWA bulletin, or any number of the other nearly monthly outbursts.

    Did Racefail, or the SFWA bulletin, truly change anything outside a small self-selective clique of perpetually outraged?

    Racefail convinced a small group of bullies that they had the moral high ground, which they have used to abuse, harass, and demean, other fans for years. The SFWA Bulletin thing, and the myriad of arguments surrounding it (such as when Mary Robinette told Mike Williamson and Will Shetterly that they should not be in the SFWA since they disagreed with her on politics) drove home the point that the SFWA had become a meaningless social club. Little more than a check mark that those who wanted to be accepted by the elitist bourgeoisie of the SF&F intelligentsia needed to have in order to be accepted.

    IF anything Sad Puppies has had a larger, and more lasting (hopefully?) effect on the community than any of the other screamfests that have come to represent the SF&F intelligentsia. Especially if those “outsiders” that engaged this year continue to be engaged in years to come…though if the repercussion of sad puppies ends up driving even more folks from the isolated insular world of worldcon intelligentsia that could also have a larger effectin the long run.

    Plus one of Correia’s original points (that the Sf&F intelligentsia would have a cow if “right wingers” got nominations) has been made pretty convincingly. Not just this year, but last year as well.

    “And when fandom took the time to read the work that the Puppies put forth, they found the Puppies really had nothing much to say.”

    First fandom is bigger than you think. It is bigger than worldcon thinks. Fandom is huge. Fandom doesnt just buy John Scalzi, it also buys John Ringo, or John Norman. Fandom includes people that read Jemisin, or Correia, or Wright. Swirsky or Day. Fandom contains the same people that Gallo called racists and neo-nazis.

    The elitism of the intelligentsia when it comes to defining “fandom” is a big part of the problem. The thing they fear the most, the thing the scream loudest about, is when the proles decide to engage with their self isolated world.

    Second, you truly dont think Toni Weisskopf produces “hugo worthy” work?

    “(erm… what the hell is ‘Fishboob’?)”

    Err, back around the time of racefail, some magazine who had an editor guilty of badthink (I guess…cant remember who it was) put out an issue with a mermaid on the cover, and the perpetually outraged had a cow about it…Sorta like what they did with Elizabeth Moon, or the Mammath book of mind blowing SF author list…

    BTW, John what will you do if sad puppies 4, or rabid puppies 2, (assuming they will exist) puts up Black Gate, and gets you enough noms for the ballot?

    Comment by TW - July 31, 2015 2:51 pm

  19. > That, and I saw very few people bother to listen to anything the Puppies had to say. It’s hard to string sentences
    > together in the face of accusations and rotten vegetables.

    Sean,

    Yeah, I think that’s a fair assessment. After the Puppies made the first round of statements when the final ballot was announced, I think a lot of people overreacted. Pretty soon the mudslinging started, and while I think there were some well-reasoned arguments put forward by the Puppies after that, I doubt very many people read them.

    This is part of what I mean when I say that the Puppies had the floor for a brief time, and they blew it. Instead of keeping their cool and presenting their case, they spent most of their energy on counterattacks, which escalated the rhetoric.

    Sure, the accusations hurled against them by many were entirely unjust, and the response was arguably proportionate. But my point is that at that golden moment when most readers turned to the Puppies to read what they had to say, mostly what they saw was angry bomb-throwing.

    If the elite secret cabal of evil liberals controlling fandom really did want the Puppies to self-destruct, then they planned it 100% perfectly, and the Puppies went along dutifully and self-destructed exactly as requested.

    > I can appreciate a principled stand whether I agree with it or not. You and Correia have in common that you refused a Hugo
    > nomination this year, and while you had different reasons for doing it, I respect both of you for putting principle above accolades.

    Thank you. I appreciate that. Correia and I do see things differently, but I think he’s a fine writer, and he’s done a great deal in the last few years to promote the SF & fantasy he loves. Speaking as someone with the same convictions, I think there’s no higher calling.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 3:42 pm

  20. Googling “fishboob” produces lots of opportunities to buy skateboard wheels with a design that features fish with boobs for heads. If fishboob was a controversy on the scale of racefail, I hope someone will provide links to some site where a discussion of it happened while it was going on. For the moment, anyway, it looks to me like this was not really a thing.

    Comment by Sarah Avery - July 31, 2015 3:52 pm

  21. > Plus one of Correia’s original points (that the Sf&F intelligentsia would have a cow if “right wingers” got nominations) has been made pretty convincingly.

    I don’t know. What most people reacted to was HOW the “right wingers” got on the ballot, not the fact that they were “right wingers.”

    Really, I have no idea of the political leanings of most of the Puppy ballot… and, as I said above, the reports I’ve heard are actually that it’s surprisingly diverse. The political leanings of these works is of no concern to me. What I care about is the fact that they were forced onto the ballot in a manner I consider illegitimate.

    Now, if “right wingers” had gotten nominated to the ballot in a regular year (meaning, without illegitimate bloc voting), and readers had reacted the same way, then I think Correia would have absolutely proven his point. I can’t predict how many of those folks fighting the Puppies today would react, but I can tell you that, if that were the case, then you and I would be on the same side, and I would be using the Black Gate soapbox to loudly denounce those attacking the Hugo nominees purely on political grounds.

    But that’s not what happened. Instead, it’s Correia and the Puppies who stepped over the line, and when the accusations come, they chose to interpret them as attacks against conservative ideology, instead of a critique against their methods.

    This is the very definition of a persecution complex.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 3:58 pm

  22. > BTW, John what will you do if sad puppies 4, or rabid puppies 2, (assuming they will exist) puts up Black Gate, and gets you enough noms for the ballot?

    TW,

    Sorry, forgot this question.

    You know, I just don’t think that’s likely, given that I’ve been a vocal critic of the entire movement. I can’t imagine the Puppies giving Black Gate another nod, when we’ve been so ungracious as to turn down the last one.

    But if it does happen, my guess is that we would turn it down again.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 4:04 pm

  23. Sigh…

    John we have had this conversation before (see link https://www.blackgate.com/2015/04/19/black-gate-withdraws-from-hugo-consideration/ )

    So…

    Last year.

    2014

    (I say that in that manner, because the last time I brought this up, you referenced this year…and wouldnt comment on what I was actually saying)

    What is what so egregiousness about what Correia did in 2014? How is what he did substantially different than what Scalzi, or Martin, or what dozens of others did?

    Dont forget there was a hoopla LAST YEAR (2014) about Correia…(granted it pales in comparison to THIS YEAR – 2015 ). But there were people screaming because “right wingers” were nominated.

    BTW- Sarah here is a link to fishboob- http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Fishboob_Fail_09

    Comment by TW - July 31, 2015 4:24 pm

  24. I never “voluntarily” hopped on Vox Day’s bus. NEVER. EVER. I never supported Vox Day and it is not at all right to accuse me and then abuse me for my bus being hijacked. The Rabid Puppies got results. Sad Puppies only had a few nominations. None the less many arrived not knowing the difference between the two camps. So educating in this medium and then trying to defend your list while being smeared and boxed by the things Vox Day would say was an impossible task. John you seem to think that there wasn’t any fog of battle in those four months and that we all wasted our time in the spot light. Well, silly me, I was actually reading lists of nominations like a chump doing my level best to give all the writers their due. In the end I read a bit of this and that and cast my vote. I took the time to do it right as was my duty to fandom. I’m such a chump.

    Thanks Sean for standing by me and the Puppies. I appreciate your bravery by stepping into the fire.

    bruce999—yeah, it was genius work and those versed in warfare would see it. It never would have a chance with the CHORFs.

    TW–I loved the Omelas comment. It probably did an orbital over most of their heads though. I too have faith in the free market.

    John—well, at least you got Orphan Black and Edge of Tomorrow right. Thanks for at least saying that the Sad Puppies were mistreated. Do I feel hurt? Yeah–a lot. Betrayed? Yeah, a little,but nothing that can’t be mended or forgotten. I know that a man has to stand by his principles or he isn’t much of a man. Something of this magnitude and all of its tangents will take a lot more than four months to sort out. I think you had unrealistic expectations and were expecting something bigger. I think when things cool off we can turn conversations about the works of 2015.

    Comment by Wild Ape - July 31, 2015 4:44 pm

  25. > What is what so egregiousness about what Correia did in 2014? How is what he did substantially different than what Scalzi, or Martin, or what dozens of others did?

    I believe it absolutely is. I believe that the bloc voting strategy promoted by Correia (and then used to much greater effect by Vox Day) to overwhelm the Hugo voting system with a programmed slate of 70+ nominees is very, very different from how Martin, Scalzi and many, many others operated to promote a handful of their own works, and the works of others.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 5:18 pm

  26. > Well, silly me, I was actually reading lists of nominations like a chump doing my level best to give
    > all the writers their due. In the end I read a bit of this and that and cast my vote.

    Ape,

    Good for you. Do you mind sharing how you voted? I’d love to hear what you thought was the best of the ballot after all that reading, and I’d invite you to share it here.

    Comment by John ONeill - July 31, 2015 5:20 pm

  27. Wow…Once again you dont seem to understanding what I am saying…

    What is bad about this “slate” of recommendations?:

    Best Novel

    Warbound, the Grimnoir Chronicles – Larry Correia – Baen
    A Few Good Men – Sarah Hoyt – Baen

    Novella

    The Butcher of Khardov – Dan Wells – Skull Island Expeditions
    The Chaplain’s Legacy – Brad Torgersen – Analog

    Novellete

    The Exchange Officers – Brad Torgersen – Analog
    Opera Vita Aeterna – Vox Day – The Last Witchking

    Best Fanzine

    Elitist Book Reviews – Steve Diamond

    Graphic Story

    Schlock Mercenary – Howard Tayler

    Best Editor Long Form

    Toni Weisskopf

    Best Editor Short Form

    Bryan Thomas Schmidt

    Campbell Award

    Marko Kloos
    Frank Chadwick

    That is what Correia did in 2014.

    Doesnt seem to be trying to “overwhelm the voting system” certainly isnt 70+ nominees…

    Yet last year there were still folks on your side that went nuts over it.

    Comment by TW - July 31, 2015 5:35 pm

  28. Wild Ape,

    I did not miss TW’s “Omelas” remark, and it does provide a very striking image for the “Wiscon” faction that he wishes to criticize as enjoying the poison fruit of Omelas. But, the analogy breaks down on the other side, as the protestors are “The Ones Who Walk Away”. Not “The Ones Who Retook” or “The Ones Who Firebombed”.

    Ms. Le Guin’s theme is a Buddhist form of protest, non-violent and twisting away from the blow instead of offering a counter-stroke. The entirety of the Puppy movement (Sad and Rabid) seems to be much more “in your face” than Ms. Le Guin’s voluntary exiles would be.

    Comment by Eugene R. - July 31, 2015 5:44 pm

  29. John,

    I missed the “Puppies” thing, and first learned about it on this board – working on my own projects – of course given my love of “Pulp” and being rabidly Anti-Political Correctness I do more or less side with them.

    There were earlier discussions on “Awards” and I almost typed and posted. The biggest problem is that:
    1. There’s too much stuff out there for one person to read and judge – even “New” stuff.
    2. One person’s likes and opinions greatly shape what they’ll like.
    3. Professional editors get jaded, as do writers – and can often miss stuff a lot of people would like.
    4. There’s a “Niche” for just ’bout everything. Prof Norman got his Gor back by the “Bucketload” once he could skip the publisher/distributor rackets that blacklisted him for not turning P.C. decades back.

    And the Puppies got a lot to bark about. I know all too well what it’s like to get your stuff ignored ‘coz the gatekeeper just prefers to push out other genres, hmmm?

    Also it’s not just “Non-PC” stuff or “Niche” things these gatekeepers, these elites ignore – for instance what about the Sandman winning the 1991 World Fantasy Award for “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” – having his characters interact with the Bard on a lazy summer eve for a special performance of said play? Incredible art by Charles Vess, brilliant on every level. I’m sure 99% of people here loved it. (and 99% of those 1% who haven’t heard of it buy it off kindle NOW… you’ll love it) It was fairly voted without Neil organizing an “Uppity Corgi” bloc or anything. AND the elite gatekeepers quickly changed the “Rules” so that going forward NO comic book could ever get one again… Ever…

    Essentially a lot of work needs to be done. People are entitled to their own opinions, but when things get big enough there is some need for democratic principles or at least some “Republican” level rules for representation here and there. What I fear happen will just be some circling of wagons to try to create a black hole where only “Good” fans can enter to read “Good” scifi of the PC, pandering sludge variety that gains few if any new readers (no matter what “-ority” trying to expand to reach) and possibly sucks another gaping hole in the market as the PC shift did in the late 70s, early 80s…

    Comment by GreenGestalt - July 31, 2015 5:46 pm

  30. Right there with you, John. My votes are very similar to yours and for mostly the same reasons. Somewhat ironic since I did nominate some of the works on the SP list. But I did so based on my own reading and not on any slate put forth by any group. I hope next year that if the SP group decides to again participate in the Hugo process, they do a true list of recommended stories, 15 or 20 or whatever and let the reader decide. Locus does this every year and I am fine with it. By only recommending 5 nominees they are saying, at least implicitly, that these are the only stories to be considered especially when you add in the SJW rhetoric / conspiracy theories they threw around.
    I am glad you withdrew your nomination as I was feeling very conflicted about voting / not voting for Black Gate. I will continue to nominate you in the future. (Hey I think I nominated and voted for Stanley Schmidt for at least 20 years and he finally won so persistence can pay off !
    One good point about this whole mess is that it introduced me to Marko Kloos whose 3 books I have now read and enjoyed very much.

    Comment by Chuck Timpko - July 31, 2015 6:17 pm

  31. Novel—Skin Game by Jim Butcher—honestly I was torn between all but Ancillary Sword. I don’t dislike Leckie as a writer, she is good but this one missed the mark. I still awarded her. I think it was the translation that killed Three Body Problem and the other two were great reads. I recommend them.

    Novella—One Bright Star to Guide Them—John Wright.

    A Single Samurai—Steven Diamond—This was my favorite pick of all. That anthology that it came out of had so many good writers and stories. Howard Andrew Jones, Larry Correia, and others. This was one of the ones that I championed and argued for. I hope it wins.

    Best Related Work—The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF Ken Burnside—I know what a lot of people are thinking now. Hey I thought you were a Sad Puppy not a Rabid Dog there Ape. Well, I gave Vox Day his due too just like I did all the others and switched my picks. If y’all hadn’t have stirred such a fuss I might have gone with my original plan to just skip this portion and never have known about it.

    Best Graphic Story—Rat Queens. Hands down it was a well done story. I loved the humor and yeah, sure it was a little touch of the feminist but it was good. Ms Marvel? Really?

    Best Dramatic Presentation Long Form—Edge of Tomorrow edged out barely ahead of the competition. I picked Guardians and Groot, then Captain America (despite my loathing of Brubaker)

    Best Dramatic Short Form—Orphan Black. Honestly, Tatiana Maslany is the next Merril Streep. You could turn off the screen and know which character it was. Beyond a great performance there is a wealth of talent and writing that went along with it. I liked Game of Thrones too. GRRM may have been angry with me for being a Sad Puppy but I think he spoke louder for all of fandom and for the health of the Hugos. I think he might be surprised at how many Sad Puppies respect him.

    Best Editor Long Form—Toni Weisskoff—tough to pick from them but it was long over due.

    Best Editor Short Form—Vox Day—Yeah, it came as a surprise to me too. But then, it wasn’t so bad after being called a racist neo-Nazi.

    Best Professional Artist—No vote
    Best Fanzine—No vote
    Best Fancast—No vote
    Best Fan Writer—No vote
    Best Semiprozine—Lightspeed—feel good about that one too. Next year is going to be Grimdark all the way! I’ll probably change my handle so the rage fest Nazi dubbing elitists don’t know it is me.

    John W Campbell Award—Jason Cordova. I feel very good about this one too. Sorry to give you the kiss of death Jason. I loved the Kaiju stories though and the word is out that the Sad Puppies like you.

    For the writers that I voted for. Get a name change and try not to get SWATTed by the radicals. Wear an armor vest for a few months and you should be safe after that. Vary your travel path. Had I known that my selection in books would ruin your careers or cause radicals to call in death threats or editors to send you to reeducation camps I would have nominated Tor editors. Who knew?

    @Eugene–lol. Okay Eugene. I’m sure it would not have flown past you. That was meant for iguanamoto. I doubt it flew past his mini kaiju mind either. It was just fun to zing him back for a previous insult/joke he sent to me on Youtube.

    @Sarah—–You didn’t google fishboobs did you? I should have warned you. Seriously, it was perhaps the funniest thing to come along in a while. It is yet another reason why I can’t stand Harlan Ellison.

    Comment by Wild Ape - July 31, 2015 8:18 pm

  32. @TW—are you kidding? They are probably fanning themselves to keep from fainting. The Butcher of Kardov? They are probably squealing and twitching right now thinking about how Lola is ruining all of femindom. Schlock Mercenary? Really, do you have to be told about their alergic reaction to the second amendment? They are probably in anaphylactic shock. A Few Good Men? Any one of those titles could be a hate crime for god’s sake. Have some decency! lol

    Comment by Wild Ape - July 31, 2015 8:32 pm

  33. Wild Ape,

    Thank you for sharing your voting and your reasoning.

    And a big AGREE on Orphan Black for Ms. Maslany’s performance. I have recommended the show on that basis alone. What kills me is, not just telling the clones apart, but being able to figure out which clone is *impersonating* another clone (“Oh, it’s Sarah pretending to be Rachel, while Alison is being Sarah”), based on speech patterns/body language and the like. Wowza.

    Comment by Eugene R. - July 31, 2015 8:57 pm

  34. John, thank you for sharing your vote. Had I been voting I would have done pretty much the same thing, except my vote would have been for Black Gate, because excellence trumps politics. It takes me a few days to read a book, however well written, but I read Black Gate 365 days a year. THAT’S Hugo worthy.

    Comment by R.K. Robinson - July 31, 2015 9:20 pm

  35. I just want to say YAY! GOBLIN EMPEROR!!! That’s who I voted for too :)

    Comment by DJ_MyLifeMyBooksMyEscape - July 31, 2015 9:40 pm

  36. Sarah Hoyt and Sad Puppies have actually turned me on to sci fi and fantasy books again. Walking through just about any book store is terrible these days, the books are all the same story just with a different mash of keys for character names. The normal “Best of” lists are generally the same mishmash of boring stories or stories told from the correct viewpoint. Seeing these new stories opened me back up to sci fi and fantasy books, and probably more importantly to the authors, opened my wallet up too. Fine, you don’t like either of the Puppies for slate voting, but were you complaining with the prior decades slates dedicated to viewpoints or authors genders? Nebula awards are practically a ladies only award now for this. I want to read the best stories I can, but sadly it seems I can only find old Heinlein or Asimov to build new worlds because everyone on the “best of” lists today is retreading the same story of overcoming the demons identified in XXXXX Studies classes.

    Comment by allen - July 31, 2015 11:14 pm

  37. @John O’Neill- ‘I’m a fan of Pournelle’s work (although he and I are as far apart on the political spectrum as it’s possible to get).

    Glad to hear it. I strongly recommend you make some calls and put together a response to Riding the Red Horse from your end of politics. Find a smart left-libertarian computer whiz like Eric Raymond and get him to write some SF as good as Eric’s clever vignette- get him to speculate about politics and war as cleverly as Eric did. Good luck! Then get left mundanes equal to Martin van Crevald and William S Lind- David North, Paul Krugman, Fidel Castro all have a bunch of columns out you could cherry-pick from, and might write something new for you. Get Ursula Le Guin to do a short story equal to the Pournelle short story reprinted in Riding the Red Horse. Find a lefty who can write something equal to The Hot Equations. Follow your weird. Fifty phone calls, a hundred emails- you can beat VD! An anthology is worth ten thousand internet posts.

    Comment by bruce99999999 - August 1, 2015 1:40 am

  38. TW, thanks for the link. I stand corrected. Fishboob was indeed a thing. I’m glad to know about it now, but I can’t say I’m sorry to have missed it while it was going on.

    Comment by Sarah Avery - August 1, 2015 2:06 am

  39. Allen, I was curious about your assertion that the “Nebula awards are practically a ladies only award now.” The folks at Broad Universe try to find out empirically what the numerical breakdown is for awards, award ballots, best-of anthologies, and the magazines with the biggest circulations. It’s a volunteer effort, so some years have more complete counts than others. That said, the results are pretty interesting.

    Here you can see the counts for all the Nebulas from 1965 to 2009. You can find a broader, but older, survey of the sf/f field here. For more recent years, rather than duplicate work others were doing, Broad Universe has been reposting with permission the annual SF Counts by Niall Harrison at Strange Horizons. I was able to find (but didn’t have time to read tonight) his counts for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. I don’t know if anybody has done such a count for 2010. It seems that Niall Harrison hadn’t started doing them, but Broad Universe had stopped.

    Looking at just the Nebula winners, I can see how the last two years might look surprisingly woman-heavy, especially in the context of the longer history of the award. I wonder, though, where you would see the tipping point at which an award becomes “practically ladies only.”

    The relatively new Andre Norton Award for YA certainly tends to have far more female nominees than male ones, though several possible explanations occur to me that might account for that phenomenon. Are there more women writing YA than men? Are there more women publishing YA than men? I’ve heard both male and female writers tell tales of writing books for adult readers, and then seeing their publishers decide to publish them as YA — does that happen more often to women than to men? I would like to know the answers to these questions, but I don’t, and now’s not a time when I can do the research to find out. If you know of any sources that might help us get closer to understanding this part of the picture, I’d welcome links.

    Comment by Sarah Avery - August 1, 2015 2:41 am

  40. @Sarah, yeah fishboob was silly…but so are most of the regular outrages. And like most of them it had more than its share of hypocrisy and childish temper tantrums and screams of victimhood (to use some phrases that seems to be floating around lately).

    As for the nebulas…I dont see them as being “ladies only” (contrary to the celebrations last year), or even all “lefty”. I do think they are leaning leftward a bit, but not not as much as the previous few years of Hugos.

    But I will say that I think the Nebulas will track much harder to the “left” in the next few years. Simply because of who the voters are, and how that demographic seems to be shifting.

    Comment by TW - August 1, 2015 9:58 am

  41. @Wild Ape

    Butcher of Khardov…yeah, that threw some peeps for a loop last year. I had a twitter conversation (ie a few messages back and forth) with a tie-in writer last year who was anti-puppy and also complaining about the hugos never recognizing tie-in ficition. I swear you could hear a resigned sigh in his next couple of tweets, when I brought up Butcher with him.

    Comment by TW - August 1, 2015 10:32 am

  42. @Sarah and TW—If you look at YA fiction there are a lot more women writers. If you look at where seeds are being planted for the future it is probably there. I see many adults reading YA. I think there is a lot more focus on that section than in the adult sections. Girls read more can be argued but I think there are fewer stories that boys like to read. When I was a chimp I wanted to read Conan, not Twilight. I’m not saying that Twilight and girls are bad, I’m saying that perhaps the publishers should look at new marketing that would appeal to a different group outside their echo chamber. That is what Sad Puppies have been complaining about for years. Togerson got nothing but mockery and scorn because he talked about book covers showing a space ship battle and not delivering. The mockery always focused on Torgerson being a dweeb about his fiction and how dumb he was for judging covers and not the argument he presented. Book covers with Conan the Barbarian and Rocket ships are exciting and catchy. It creates a bait and switch.

    Then you have “If You Were a Dinosaur My Love” or “Single Sci-Fi Trope of Rain Falling From No Where”and there are people actually shocked that the gun toting Larry Correia fans are fired up about the Hugos.

    @bruce—Are you kidding? The left is chocked full of military experts! Barrack Obama single handedly shot Osama Bin Ladin and defeated the Somalia pirates (with a few SEALs). He won a Nobel Peace Prize BEFORE he got Iran to PINKY SWEAR that they won’t use the $100 billion to arm terrorists or build a nuke. Come on man! Sure Obama gets flack about the hostages in Iran but they were going to vote Republican anyway. These guys have it all—mime to mime warfare, Jon Stewart, Nanci Pelosi, not to mention “The Toxic Waste Dump War” with all the fairy battles. You talk Sun Tzu and they talk KC and the Sunshine Band. You talk Charles Lind and they are talking General Peterson’s Boznia bombing campaign from 25,000 ft which the NYT heralds as a brilliant success. Do I need to mention Hillary Clinton and Benghazi or have you forgotten how every newspaper and Congress raved about her success there? Shake yourself man!

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 1, 2015 11:43 am

  43. John, a title suggestion to counter “Riding the Red Horse”—-how about “Whipping the Rainbow Unicorn”? That would get Vox Day’s goat.

    @TW—I play Warmachine and Butcher has taken my Cygnar lunch money many times. That was a fantastic book.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 1, 2015 11:48 am

  44. > What is bad about this “slate” of recommendations?…
    > That is what Correia did in 2014.
    > Doesnt seem to be trying to “overwhelm the voting system” certainly isnt 70+ nominees…

    TW,

    I understand that there are plenty of folks who think there’s nothing wrong with slate voting. I’m not one of them. The Hugo Awards are one of the most prestigious awards in the SF canon, and I firmly believe that if those awards start being handed out in mass numbers because Larry Correia, Vox Day, or anyone else has successfully organized blocs of fans in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the system, it will permanently tarnish the award. People will come to think of the Hugo as the award that goes to whoever Larry Correia or Vox Day want it to go to.

    A great many folks already believe the awards have already been permanently tarnished by this behavior. I don’t believe that’s true. But if it is, I do think Larry and Vox will be the ones to blame for it.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 1:43 pm

  45. > Ms. Le Guin’s theme is a Buddhist form of protest, non-violent and twisting away from the blow instead of offering a counter-stroke.
    > The entirety of the Puppy movement (Sad and Rabid) seems to be much more “in your face” than Ms. Le Guin’s voluntary exiles would be.

    Eugene,

    Brilliantly said.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 1:44 pm

  46. > By only recommending 5 nominees they are saying, at least implicitly, that these are the only stories to be considered

    Chuck,

    Thanks for the comment. Actually, if you look at the Rabid Puppy ballot, there’s nothing “implicit” about it…. Vox Day instructs his followers to “to nominate them precisely as they are”:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/rabid-puppies-2015.html

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 1:48 pm

  47. > A Single Samurai—Steven Diamond—This was my favorite pick of all. That anthology that it came out of had so many good writers
    > and stories. Howard Andrew Jones, Larry Correia, and others. This was one of the ones that I championed and argued for. I hope it wins.

    Ape,

    Yeah, THE BAEN BIG BOOK OF MONSTERS was an awesome anthology, and was one of my favorites of the year too (although it didn’t have a Howard Andrew Jones story, alas… though it did have a Robert E. Howard story). I did a quick write-up on it when it came out that I’m sure you’ve seen already:

    https://www.blackgate.com/2014/09/06/future-treasures-the-baen-big-book-of-monsters-edited-by-hank-davis/

    > Best Graphic Story—Rat Queens. Hands down it was a well done story. I loved the humor and yeah, sure it was a little
    > touch of the feminist but it was good. Ms Marvel? Really?

    You know, I like Rat Queens, I do, but oh my God is it adult. I share my comics with my kids, and I had to hide that one from my youngest. On the flip side, she totally LOVES Ms. Marvel, and I love being able to turn her on to Marvel comics, so that helped it win my vote.

    > Best Dramatic Short Form—Orphan Black. Honestly, Tatiana Maslany is the next Merril Streep. You could turn off the
    > screen and know which character it was.

    Is she AMAZING or what? She should get a Hugo, just because.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 2:01 pm

  48. > What kills me is, not just telling the clones apart, but being able to figure out which clone is *impersonating* another clone
    > (“Oh, it’s Sarah pretending to be Rachel, while Alison is being Sarah”), based on speech patterns/body language and the like. Wowza.

    I know! She kills me.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 2:03 pm

  49. > It takes me a few days to read a book, however well written, but I read Black Gate 365 days a year. THAT’S Hugo worthy.

    Thank you, R.K! I shared the above sentence with my wife, who to this day has a hard time believing there’s really anybody out here who has the same annoying hobbies I do.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 2:05 pm

  50. > Sarah Hoyt and Sad Puppies have actually turned me on to sci fi and fantasy books again.

    Allen,

    I’m very glad to hear that. I may have philosophical differences with the Puppies, but I recognize that at heart they are trying to promote work they love (setting aside Vox Day, who is clearly trying to promote his own work, and work he’s trying to sell).

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 2:09 pm

  51. > Follow your weird. Fifty phone calls, a hundred emails- you can beat VD! An anthology is worth ten thousand internet posts.

    Bruce,

    Thanks, but I spent ten years publishing 3,600 pages of short fiction in my own magazine. Nowadays I’m working my way towards 10,000 blog posts, and I have more than 100 times as many readers, and I’m not losing nearly as much money.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 2:15 pm

  52. I’d just like to chime in long enough to say that anytime a serious discussion can unfold in which breasts on fish are, for any reason, invoked, the day is perhaps a little brighter.

    Goofy always wins points in my book.

    This was and is my first and final post on the subject of this year’s Hugos.

    Comment by markrigney - August 1, 2015 9:12 pm

  53. Voting “No Award” over Jennifer Brozek is amazingly short sighted. I’m very disappointed. I cannot say how disappointed I am. She is a wonderful person and has been a guest on my podcast several times.

    Comment by ChristianLindke - August 1, 2015 9:31 pm

  54. Christian,

    I completely understand your pain. Jennifer Brozek is a terrific editor. I helped her get started by publishing her reviews in Black Gate for many years.

    I took a principled stand, and I expect to get criticized for it. Fire away.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 1, 2015 11:24 pm

  55. It’s not principled to deny her the honor she is due. It in no way affects the person you are really upset with. You would be much better served ignoring Vox Day. All that has happened is that he has caused you to remove yourself from an award’s consideration and selected “no award” for a person who is deserving.

    You removed Vox as a poster on this site and now he’s getting you to dance on strings. You are being played for a fool.

    That’s not principle. That’s being overly emotional.

    I’m glad you stated that you still believe she is a terrific editor, but actions speak louder than comments on posts. You like her less than you despise Vox Day and that is short sighted.

    Comment by ChristianLindke - August 2, 2015 1:42 am

  56. John,

    I make these statements because I am a HUGE fan of the work you’ve done for the SFF community and I imagine if we lived in close proximity we’d be friends. I’d certainly invite you to join my gaming group.

    But you are being played.

    Comment by ChristianLindke - August 2, 2015 1:43 am

  57. John,

    I make these statements because I am a HUGE fan of the work you’ve done for the SFF community and I imagine if we lived in close proximity we’d be friends. I’d certainly invite you to join my gaming group.

    You are being taken advantage of.

    Comment by ChristianLindke - August 2, 2015 1:44 am

  58. Christian,

    Looks like we’re just going to have to disagree on this one.

    Plenty of folks have slammed me for taking it easy on Vox, because he used to be a blogger here. And many others have accused me of being overly critical to him — saying I wouldn’t do this if it were Scalzi, or Tor behind the scenes.

    Both camps are incorrect. I am opposed to bloc voting, period, and I take a principled stand against it.

    If I decided not to take a principled stand just because it also hurt my friends, it wouldn’t be much of a principled stand, would it?

    Comment by John ONeill - August 2, 2015 1:58 am

  59. We definitely will have to agree to disagree. If this conversation went much further, I’d be assigning reading lists of Andre Blais, Pippa Norris, Matthew Shughart and other election scholars.

    Down that path lies madness…and my Ph.D. studies.

    Comment by ChristianLindke - August 2, 2015 2:02 am

  60. John, I have written this and rewritten this a couple of times but it keeps coming off as meaner than I it to be, so here goes…

    “I am opposed to bloc voting, period, and I take a principled stand against it.”

    You keep saying that, and I have no doubt that is what you sincerely think, but it really seems you are only against bloc voting, or slates, or whatever descriptor you want to use, when you disagree with the people doing it.

    I get you think Vox is out to damage the Hugos. I dont disagree with you. Heck Vox doesnt even disagree with you.

    But what Correia did in 2014 was not substantially different than what had been going on for ages. Sure he may have been more over the top and demagoguery in his language but at a substantive level it was no different than any of dozens of other posts about the 2014 Hugos. And yet you keep attacking and excoriating him for it. (and Torgerson in 2015 was a response to the vitriol and harassment from “worldcon fandom” and media that occurred in 2014)

    Where is your disdain to those that promoted, that rallied fanbases,and pointed to recommendation lists in years past? I see nothing but silence, or dismissals and it seems a bit hypocritical to attack Correia over Sad Puppies, yet be silent on all the rest.

    “A great many folks already believe the awards have already been permanently tarnished by this behavior. I don’t believe that’s true. But if it is, I do think Larry and Vox will be the ones to blame for it..”

    You see I dont think you can place the blame on people doing what has been the status quo, just because they do it better or more aggressively. You have to go back futher than Vox or Correia, you might want to go back to Scalzi promoting on Whatever, or Martin promoting on NotABlog, or even further. Once the genie of promotion, of authors asking their fans to vote and then giving recommendation lists, was let out of the bag ages ago the only conclusion possible was escalation.

    It is like blaming the US for D-Day.

    You know something I think has a much larger chance of tainting the Hugos for ever and ever.

    Mass buying of memberships.

    And who let that genie out?

    Can anyone that supports such an action this year really complain if next year Vox, or others, buy 500 memberships? 1000 memberships? (I have been around long enough, so I will answer that…Of course they will, heck they will probably even blame Vox for starting it.)

    Comment by TW - August 2, 2015 8:50 am

  61. > You keep saying that, and I have no doubt that is what you sincerely think, but it really seems you are only against bloc
    > voting, or slates, or whatever descriptor you want to use, when you disagree with the people doing it.

    TW,

    Naah. Give me a concrete example of Scalzi, or George R.R. Martin, or anyone else, doing something even remotely on the same scale as Sad Puppies 3, and I’ll be perfectly happy to condemn them as well.

    Even if you can come up with an example (which I doubt), it doesn’t mean I won’t condemn Correia, Torgerson, or Vox. I fail to see how this argument helps your case.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 2, 2015 11:27 am

  62. Ok I got it.

    You have some sort of mental block…if you see “Correia” your mind seems to shut down and instantly goes into “Sad Puppies 3 is evil” mode…

    Can you answer a simple question:

    Yes or No, is what Correia did in 2014, aka Sad Puppies 2, aka last year, wrong?

    I think if you answer that question, simply and honestly, we might be able to move forward.

    (Please: Dont bring up Vox. Dont bring up Sad Puppies 3, Dont bring up Rabid Puppies. Dont bring up anything that happened in 2015.)

    Comment by TW - August 2, 2015 12:07 pm

  63. TW,

    Here’s exactly what I said last year, on the subject of Larry Correia and Sad Puppies 2:

    > There are additional surprises. Analog magazine, effectively shut out of Hugo nominations for many years, has surged
    > back into the limelight with two nominations (both for Brad Torgersen), and the traditionally strong Asimov’s SF
    > and F&SF both come away empty-handed. Some folks are laying the credit (or blame) for that on an organized campaign
    > of bloc voting by nominee Larry Correia, which successfully placed as many as seven nominees on the ballot… but
    > really, every year someone gets accused of bloc voting and it’s tough to blame someone for having enthusiastic fans.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.blackgate.com/2014/04/21/2014-hugo-award-nominees-announced/

    I realize this has a very small chance of convincing you. You’re clearly in the grip of a persecution complex, and virtually nothing I say will dissuade you from believing that this isn’t a principled stand, but instead is simply mindless hatred directed towards you, Larry, Bred, et al.

    Frankly, I think we’re both wasting our time at this point, and we should probably move on to something more productive.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 2, 2015 12:45 pm

  64. @Allen,
    I’ve been arguing this for years.

    I have trouble getting into “New” fantasy/Scifi because they crank out huge phone book thick “Trilogies” – well a penny a word ain’t what it used to be… (1) And it’s like I can instantly go “I see they used the online RPG fantasy world generators along with X number of formulas. And for all that type type type of pages after pages of exhaustive descriptions the plot and story is thinner than the cover.

    Publishing’s been a shrinking pool that quite frankly is hostile to any scifi and fantasy – the late 70s/early 80s was proof. It was more popular than ever but they shrank the market, and forced in the “Feminist” and “Other Culture” stuff jabbing the primary consumer – the “White Male” in the eyes. Now while older pulps dripped in stereotypes unacceptable by today’s forced PC smile at gunpoint standards, most writers and their characters were quite forward thinking for the time.

    We need more pulp, more adventure, less Political Correctness. And about the only way to do it is to support an “Open” market and pay less attention to these publishing houses with their bias against white men, against good innovative stories and talented writers and quest to make the most generic mass appealing anti-western culture…’product’ possible.

    If a guy makes a music album in his garage/computer and you buy the download mp3/wav for $5 you pay him 20x at least what the Music Industry pays him for the $16.99 CD that they promise they’ll jail you if you rip sound off of. Likewise, if you buy a book from an online store, a .pdf for your tablet/computer/phone you pay the author much more than the publisher ever would. (assuming a neutral market not a ‘publisher’s’ online shop)

    And the ‘standard’ I argue to strive for is not “Political Correctness” or anti Political Correctness…. It’s “The Story” – do they make a GOOD story? And yes they should have any subject matter, from people who do want to write ‘progressive’ stuff – to old school non-pc pulps – to John Norman’s “Bucket”. Hey, even that “Online RPG Generator” fantasy world might be a good experiment, if the story told using that surface as an artist uses paints is good.

    1 – It’s a joke, I know they are paid more but in comparison far less than old days. Still there’s the occasional super rich writer – Rowling/Stephen King so the field is flooded with people trying to get rich from their writings, not there because more or less they have to tell the stories, so the pay is low esp from ‘big publishers’ who have their ‘record industry’

    Comment by GreenGestalt - August 2, 2015 1:33 pm

  65. Persecution complex? naah….It might by more of a inquisition complex.

    Call it a mental tic of mine…I like to know where people stand on things. Clearly. With as little relativism as possible. I dislike wishy washy stuff. I really dislike people that have different rules depending on the situation, or the person.

    I know it makes me extremely hard to live with.

    So, since I like Black Gate, and have been visiting here for years, and it seems to me that you have varying and contradictory opinions on this, I am just trying to learn where you are coming from.

    Ok your answer is better than the knee jerk return to SP3 or Vox…

    Though I notice, you didnt quite answer my question…

    Are you one of the “some folks” that credit a bloc voting campaign? Or were you saying it wasnt when you said there were accusations every year and it was hard to blame somebody for enthusiastic fans…

    I swear getting a straight answer is like pulling teeth.

    Ok, I am going to make an assumption…

    That you think that Corriea was in the wrong last year (whether you thought that last year, or that you just think it now, it doesnt really matter)…

    And that what his hugo recommendation list (which I posted earlier in this thread) is a bad thing. (here is a link to the actual page: http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/03/25/my-hugo-slate/ )

    And that you consider it substantially different than something like this:

    GRRM from a few years ago:

    So who should be nominated for the Big One this year? Well, once again, I do have a horse in this race. A DANCE WITH DRAGONS was published in July, and is among the eligibles. I should probably leave it at that. My best chance of making the ballot would be for all those fans of mine who liked DANCE to nominate it, and nothing else.

    I can’t do that, however. There are five lines on the nomination form, after all, and it wouldn’t feel right to leave four of them blank when there were so very many good books published in 2011. I am sure many of you have your own favorites. I won’t pretend to have read all the books published last year, or even just the good ones. There’s just too much. But I have read some terrific ones, so let me recommend them to your attention.

    For science fiction, my favorite novel of the year was a classic old-fashioned space opera titled LEVIATHAN WAKES, by James S.A Corey.

    but none of them were the best epic fantasy I read last year. For my money, that has to be THE WISE MAN’S FEAR, by Patrick Rothfuss.

    Last, but far from least, is yet another huge tome of a book that kept me up reading all night, a science fiction novel by a writer best known for horror — and that’s 11/22/63, by Stephen King.

    Anyway, those are my recommendations. I hope some of them make the final ballot. And I hope A DANCE WITH DRAGONS makes the ballot too, so I can kick their butts… winning (and losing, for that matter) is much more meaningful when you are going up against the best.

    http://grrm.livejournal.com/262170.html

    Correct? You consider what Correia did substantially different than what GRRM did?

    Personally I dont.

    Now are they the exact same thing? Of course not. What GRRM did with a wink and a nod, Correia did with a bombast and a manatee. But they certainly are close enough for government work. They are both encouraging blocs of fans to become engaged and providing a sample as a guide. Neither held a gun to anybody’s head, neither offered compensation for voting along party lines.

    Now if you think they are different enough, cool, maybe you could explain why.

    Comment by TW - August 2, 2015 2:53 pm

  66. That’s quite the ellipses, T.W. Because, of course, *your* very selective quoting of George R. R. Martin’s blog post implies that he was only mentioning 3 other novels. I’m sure it was an innocent coincidence that you left out this paragraph from GRRM:

    “Also worthy of a good look when filling out your ballot is HEAVEN’S SHADOW, another solid and engrossing hard SF novel from David S. Goyer and Michael Cassutt.
    In fantasy… well, damn, it was a great year for fantasy. I read at least half a dozen books so good that they made me say, “I wish I’d written that.” THE HEROES by Joe Abercrombie was an action tour de force, an entire novel built around a single battle. Lev Grossman’s THE MAGICIAN KING was a worthy successor to THE MAGICIANS, and proof that last year’s Hugo voters knew what they were about when they voted Grossman the Campbell Award as the best new writer in the field. And Daniel Abraham… yes, him again, damn him… did something I would not have thought possible. He published a novel called THE DRAGON’S PATH, the first volume in the new epic fantasy series called THE DAGGER AND THE COIN, and it was just as bloody good as his Long Price Quartet.”

    So, for those keeping track at home, Martin actually listed off 7 other novels in addition to Dance with Dragons; T.W.’s deceptive editing implied that GRRM only mentioned 3 other novels. The difference is hugely important: someone could vote for 5 of GRRM’s 7 recs and not vote for his own novel at all.

    It’s kind of interesting that you’re trying to compare this to Sad Puppies 2, since of course it’s Rabid Puppies/Sad Puppies 3 that’s happening this year, and that is the most egregious example of slate-voting, bad-faith argument, and genuine dishonesty, but I’ll give it a shot–this applies to SP2 or SP3, take your pick:

    1) George R. R. Martin did only one blog post.
    2) He listed off more titles than could fit on a ballot.
    3) He only listed off one category, not a full ballot with every slot filled.
    4) He at no point said “Vote exactly for this, and nothing else” (as Vox did.)
    5) He did not appeal to an imagined sense of political grievance.
    6) He did not encourage people to vote for Stephen King, or Patrick Rothfuss, or anyone, “out of spite” (as Correia did with Vox Day in Sad Puppies 2), or because people who disagreed with him politically would get angry (ditto).

    God. You just can’t help yourself. Did you really think nobody would read GRRM’s blog entry and find out that, in fact, he’d listed off 7 awesome novels, not three?

    Comment by gregm52246 - August 3, 2015 3:33 am

  67. John, I applaud and endorse your principled stand.

    The argument for me was: do I endorse slate voting or do I reject slate voting?

    I totally reject it as this is NOT the way fandom does things. We discuss, argue, feud and reach consensus over time.

    Voting NO AWARD in categories that are dominated by nominees from slates is the exact, perfect way to register rejection of slates. In effect it says “these nominees are illegitimate entries and I will not endorse their inclusion by including them in the final vote.

    Further, I believed that the best way to register displeasure with a No Award vote was by applying it across the board and with no exceptions because of whatever. Doing so strengthens that vote, keeps it non-hypocritical and removes it from discussions of quality and politics.
    There were three options for nominees nominated through slates: endorse the slates by remaining on the ballot, disavow the slates publicly (which of course you did for Blackgate – applause) or remain silent and by silence endorse the slates.
    The only quibble I have with your final vote is the inclusion of Tangent. I left Tangent off for the above stated reasons. I’d seriously consider voting for Tangent in future if it made it onto the ballot legitmately; Dave’s politics are not mine (like you we’ve had numerous discussions) but, except for editorializing (which is where such things belong) that doesn’t really affect the content of the site and, as you noted, it does a great job of promoting short fiction.
    But now its all over except for the shouting. Something tells me that the Ustream of the awards this year is going to have to lay on extra bandwidth.

    Comment by crotchetyoldfan - August 3, 2015 8:04 am

  68. Saying that someone has a persecution complex is saying that they are crazy. It allows you to dismiss every argument they make because they are only “having a fit of insanity”. You can’t fight that. It is a low blow and a lie. It is too easy to marginalize everything that is said and skip over the argument. There is no end to marginalization and demeaning terms when you can dismiss everything said because of Vox Day. Even though I have never supported Vox Day it doesn’t seem to register. I deserve all the name calling because I am associated with Vox Day? You can’t fight that either. In fact I spent a good deal of time fighting that the labels were false and should never have been allowed to stand. They should have been damned for the lies that they are.

    You have made so many contradictions John. On the one hand you blame Vox Day, Correia and Torgersen for fixing the Hugo nominations and then punish blameless people. It isn’t a writer’s fault that they were picked as a nomination. There is no way to verify who voted for them and to dismiss their hard work and you admitted that they did good work is wrong. When you dismiss the confessions of several people that campaigning and block voting have been going on a smaller scale I heard not one peep from you.

    You demand in the fog of war to have perfect clarity when you demand it of Sad Puppies and yet you do not demand professional integrity from the media and publishing houses where there is clarity and no ambiguity.

    I was a fool to be open minded. I was a chump to read all the selections. I projected that my good intentions were intentions that everyone would have, after all we are all fans right?. I bought into the myth that everyone would be playing fair when I should have looked at the evidence that your side has been playing dirty for a long long time. Instead I dismissed that and believed that I would be treated as an equal. What a dope. And now I’M THE ONE WITH A PERSECUTION COMPLEX.

    Well, sometimes you have to just accept defeat and eat a little humble pie. Vox Day calls my kind, my moderation, and my reasoning with the unreasonable—cuckservative. That really pissed me off. But, a man who tosses his principles aside in order to cajole others who think he has a persecution complex is exactly that. What pisses me off is that it is pretty close to being true.

    I think you are going to miss the moderate Sad Puppies next year John. You will wish that they still had relevance. The establishment has the same dumbthink that I had, that everyone thinks like they do and has the same goals. My goal was to get more stories into the Hugo process. I hoped to get more people involved as that would be good for everyone. I was on GRRMs side–yeah, I know, laugh it up. I was on Correia’s side and that is not a contradiction. Both men wanted to achieve the same thing. But then I came down with a fatal dose of” persecution complex” so it makes no difference what I think because I’m bat shit crazy with a persecution complex. I need permission to think independently and with approval from the intellectual elite on your side John. I suppose if I swallow every bit of the narrative bile they spew I will be cured of my persecution complex so there is hope! But then there is the neo-Nazi and white supremacist thing and the racism and sexism things. Oh yeah, and the homophobia, lets not forget that. Funny thing is none of my friends notice that I had a persecution crazy.

    Is there a place besides Tor publishing where I can find narrative approved literature and good stories? I realize that Conan is a sin now. I mean I want to be completely cured of this persecution complex thing. Who besides the obvious, Vox Day, Wright, Torgersen, Correia, and all should I hate? Should I change my friends even the liberal ones? I mean, the liberal ones might be enablers to my persecution complex. Would kicking over my fathers gravestone help? How does one get rid of a persecution complex? I don’t think it is possible. Once a person is crazy well, they don’t get cured fully do they? When you diagnosed me as having a persecution complex I should never doubt you because your side is so perfect and mine is so evil. But then, who needs proof from? I’ll just have to accept that I’m crazy and that everything I ever did in my life was wrongthink and evil. I probably went wrong when I first had my own independent thought! Now if I can just follow the narrative without thinking I’ll be fine. No sweat. I’ll just stop thinking and I’ll cure this persecution complex thing. I’ll just stand by with my Twitter and wait for the Sandifer, Moen, and Scalzi to point and screech directions on who to Twitter mob. I see just how screwed up I made the planet now. I’ll take one last white man sized helping of jello pudding for the last time and then check my privelege before I take the plunge. When can I make my first hissy fit? Thanks John I’m cured.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 3, 2015 6:34 pm

  69. @greg52246

    I assumed that by including the phrase “none of them were the best epic fantasy” that people could infer that other things were mentioned…Sorry.

    As for leaving things out. I didnt want to drop an even larger wall of text here at Black Gate, when I could easily provide a link. Sure after bringing up and dismissing several others, GRRM listed the books he thought were “best”, His (obviously), plus SA Corey, Patrick Rothfuss, and Stephen King. Two more than Correia. Much closer to “overwhelming the system” that some people complained about…

    I never said that GRRM and Correia did the same thing. As a matter of fact I have said repeatedly they didnt do the exact same thing. That they have different styles. I said what they did was substantially similar.

    I keep bringing this back to SP2 because that is where the SF&F intelligentsia began to flip their wigs. Over nothing that hadnt been done a thousand times before. No, They flipped their wigs because of two things that scared the worldcon crowd:

    Correia was successful at getting folks on the ballot. Folks that “shouldnt be on the ballot” (like Toni Weisskopf?)

    And he got the big baddie, the most evil of the evil, the supreme persona non grata, Vox Day on the ballot.

    Those two things seem to be unforgivable sins.

    Your bullet points-

    1- Are you sure? I will admit I didnt bother to mine notablog for more hugo posts…
    2- Yes, but it quite clear what his final choices were, and unless you are mentally challenged you can easily figure them out. (hint they are the ones with freaking cover pics)
    3- True, but it is an excellent example of what was fairly normal behavior at the time. Something nearly every author, or blogger, involved with the worldcon crowd would put out. Plus I dont know, he may have covered short fiction, editors, or dramatic presentations in other posts.
    4- Back to Vox…
    5- Politics is banned from discussions of SF&F? Hell Worldcon began with a political fight. Political disagreements, and using politics in arguments, is so integral to the genre, the genre would be meaningless with them.
    6- So what? Correia was trying to engage folks that were not enaged in worldcom. People that had given up on the stuffy elitism of the politically correct. BTW Vox again…Damn he got ya’ll on a string. He says “boo” and ya’ll jump and panic. I bet it grates that Vox can put “Hugo nominated Author, Editor, Publisher” on a business card….

    As to people reading GRRM’s blog…I provided a link. I expected people to go there and read it. I would have been disappointed if they hadnt.

    PS- I like ellipses…They are fun…

    PPS- A quick aside about “rabid puppies”…I say 99.9% of the folks whining about Vox would be cheering if 30 years ago Joanna Russ had organized a “bloc vote” to get more women on the ballot and was as successful…including Mr Oneil.

    PPPS- one more … (see FUN!!!!)

    Comment by TW - August 3, 2015 10:12 pm

  70. […] https://www.blackgate.com/2015/07/31/i-voted-for-the-hugos/ […]

    Pingback by What PR Blitz Did The Puppies Do That Failed So Miserably? | The Arts Mechanical - August 4, 2015 1:28 pm

  71. “Riding the Red Horse is the first great mil-sf anthology since Jerry Pournelle tapered off back in the 90′s. There are honest ideological reasons to hate mil-sf. There’s no honest way to claim Hugo Gernsback or John Campbell shared your ideology.”

    All this positive talk convinced me to order it. I am a fan of mil-sf and mil-history so I will give it a kick

    Comment by JLB - August 4, 2015 5:58 pm

  72. @TW—greg gave excellent snarkfail. He tried to make heavy weight out of a small and insignificant point too and this is typical of what I’ve come to expect of Correia haters and puppy kickers. They don’t like what Correia thinks and have nothing to say about his list. The only criticism that would be appropriate would be what did or did not appeal to their tastes in fiction.

    @JLB—you won’t be disappointed.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 5, 2015 11:56 pm

  73. Some of the pieces are good, some are not. Some write like propaganda pieces, others are straight forward SF.

    All mentions of Vox Day (introductions etc) all point out he is a “3 time Hugo nominee”, yet this is what he says on his web page:

    “I am not one of you. I do not want to be one of you. I don’t want your attention, I don’t want your awards,”

    It seems hypocritical, does it not?

    Comment by JLB - August 6, 2015 5:24 pm

  74. […] The Puppies have stayed in their echo chamber for long months, and to be honest, I don’t expect even this stinging repudiation of their selections to penetrate it. My guess is that they will lay this burden at the feet of another liberal conspiracy, or simply claim that the vast majority of the Hugo electorate voted against their slate without bothering to read it (just as I did). […]

    Pingback by Talkin’ About The Puppies | File 770 - August 25, 2015 3:10 am

  75. […] losing out to No Award in a painful rout across virtually every category. (Incidentally, I also voted No Award for most of the […]

    Pingback by David Gerrold’s Unrepentant ASStericks | The Arts Mechanical - May 10, 2016 11:51 am


Comments RSS  |  TrackBack URI

 

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Black Gate Home
This site © 2018 by New Epoch Press. All rights reserved.