Return Home

Dear Puppy Nominees: Grow Up

Monday, August 24th, 2015 | Posted by John ONeill

Starship Sofa Hugo-smallAs I predicted in my last post, there’s been no shortage of discussion regarding the Hugo Award ceremony Saturday night. From the non-Puppy contingent there’s been plenty of smug satisfaction and schadenfreude, and from from the Puppies there’s been the expected complaining about intolerance from the evil left, and dark threats about next year.

Sadly, I haven’t seen a lot of calls to come together now that the fireworks are (largely) over. Perhaps the most insightful comment I read (and I read a lot) came from author James Enge, who wrote:

Let me say this about the puppies — rabid, sad, or otherwise: they were right to act, to participate in something that mattered to them. Fandom was caught napping on the nominations, but not on the final voting. We should rise to the puppies’ challenge (and example) and participate in the nominations for next year’s ‪Hugos‬.

If you take the time to read though the various posts and comments from both sides (and I admit I stayed up very late Saturday night and Sunday morning, doing exactly that), you’ll find pretty much what you expect. Both sides talking past each other. A lot of hurt feelings, and a sense (probably accurate) that the other side isn’t listening. No wonder both sides are talking exclusively to their own small audience — they’re the only ones listening.

Only the most hardened Puppy kickers refuse to acknowledge that the Puppies have a point about the fiction they love being shoved aside for major awards. And for the most part, the puppies have (grudgingly) admitted that they could have fielded a better slate. I suppose that’s understanding, of a sort. So there’s that. Most of the grumpy talk in the past 48 hours hasn’t really bothered me.

With one exception. There’s one class of complaints that drives me absolutely batty, because it seems to me to arise from willful ignorance, an overabundance of pride, or raw, simple stupidity. And that’s the anguished cry from some Puppy nominees who didn’t win, and who put the blame squarely on the entire industry.

When I learned that Black Gate was nominated for our very first Hugo Award on April 5, I was beyond thrilled. It was the highest honor our little band of volunteers had ever received. And twenty minutes later, when we realized that our nomination had come at the whim of Vox Day as a result of being included in his Rabid Puppies slate, it immediately sapped the joy out of it.

At that point, we had a decision to make. We could either accept the nomination, celebrate it, and gladly throw our lot in with Rabid Puppies. Our we could make the very hard choice to decline, forgo the considerable glory that comes with a Hugo nomination, and sit this one out.

Unfortunately, the outcome of all this was painfully obvious, even back in April. Here’s what I said on April 7th, two days after our nomination was announced:

I think it’s been clear to most of us watching the proceedings that Hugo voters will react to the SP/RP slate as an unprecedented, large scale threat to the integrity of the awards, and react decisively to squash it. I see an electorate of principled voters who are poorly educated on what the Puppies are trying to accomplish, who see only a small group of individuals trying to tamper with the awards, and who will react in a perfectly understandable way to negate the outcome of that tampering. They may be vaguely aware that there is a semi-political agenda behind the effort, but they’re not really interested in the motives. They see the Hugos under attack, and react accordingly.

How will they react? The strategy has already become pretty clear in the past few days: with a large-scale campaign to vote “No Award” for every category where the Puppies have locked out other nominees. (A “No Award” vote is just what it sounds like, a vote to give no Hugo in a particular category.)

I see a lot of skepticism about this approach from the Puppies. To their credit, they see merit in the short fiction slate they’ve put forward, and in the long run, they expect merit to win out.

That’s not going to happen.

So in the end, it wasn’t really that tough a call. Yes, it was hard to walk away from the glory of a Hugo nomination, but the consequences at the end just weren’t worth it.

I waited until I could hear from every member of the staff who wanted to give input, and on April 19th, we formally withdrew from Hugo consideration (too late to get removed from the final ballot, as it turned out, but the committee was gracious enough to include a note on the ballot explaining that we had withdrawn.)

We weren’t the only ones in this boat. Every nominee on the Puppy ballots faced the same choice. Black Gate blogger Matthew David Surridge was also nominated for a Hugo Award, as a direct result of being included in the Rabid Puppy ballot. He declined immediately (and his thoughts on the subject, published in “A Detailed Explanation,” became the most-read article in our history). Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet both withdrew from the ballot.

As I said, it wasn’t an easy decision. It would have been wonderful to bask in the glory of a Hugo nomination for the past four months, even knowing how it was almost certain to turn out. The vast majority of Puppy nominees chose not to turn down their nominations, and I certainly don’t blame them. A Hugo nod is not an easy thing to walk away from — I know.

The intervening four months were a roller coaster for SF fans. I expected the “No Award” strategy to actively coalesce, perhaps even become organized. Didn’t happen. Instead many voices — including Rich Horton, George R.R. Martin, and countless others — argued for considering the ballot on its merits. By July the Hugos seemed a little less predictable, and it seemed possible a few might manage an upset and take home an award. (So much so that when the results were announced on Saturday it seemed possible that the bulk of the electorate had given the puppies a fair shake, as I wrote early Sunday morning.)

Nope. As it turns out, the results were dead easy to predict after all. Events unfolded exactly as I predicted on April 7th, with a near-complete repudiation of the Puppy ballot, and a record number of “No Award” winners (five).

So no real surprises, then. Until I heard reports of Puppy nominees walking out of the Hugo ceremony, and posting on Facebook about how disgusted they were with the entire industry, after being passed over for “No Award.”

I don’t mean to be unkind but, come on. This is idiotic. Every nominee made their choice back in April — to accept the glory of a Hugo nomination, walk arm-in-arm with the Puppies, and risk the wrath of the Hugo electorate coming down squarely on their shoulders, or to forgo the glory of a Hugo nomination because the price was too high.

Black Gate made its choice, and we paid a price for it. So did every other nominee. Anyone who pretends they couldn’t see that cost — to their career and to their reputation — is either a liar, an idiot, or so blinded by pride that they willfully ignored what was obvious to everyone else.

150 Comments »

  1. If I was a Hugo nominee who’d been passed over for NO AWARD, to the accompaniment of raucous cheering, I’d have walked out too.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 6:32 pm

  2. The cheering that accompanied NO AWARD was from those Hugo voters who banded together to to protect the award. Their intentions were entirely honorable, and I salute the success of their endeavor. With applause.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 6:35 pm

  3. As I posted in a comment to my own posting earlier, that came across to me, at least, like the Palestinians dancing in the street on 9/11. No, the Hugos are not anything approaching that level of tragedy, but the same sense of joy in another’s destruction is evident.

    GRRM said that applauding NO AWARD would be classless. I agree. I wish he still did.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 6:41 pm

  4. I cannot tell you how much I look forward to forgetting this bloodbath and getting back to talking about great SF and fantasy.

    Comment by Thomas Parker - August 24, 2015 6:42 pm

  5. Let me offer another observation: For those who say they want to heal the breach: your job got one hell of a lot harder after that raucous cheering.

    “Wherever possible, leave room for your enemy to become your friend.” There’s very little room left short of outright capitulation.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 6:42 pm

  6. “Dear Puppy Nominees: Grow Up”

    OK John, now you are just being insulting to be insulting.

    Why not say to those that cheered and jeered,
    Those that metaphorically spit in faces to, those nominated grow up?

    The ones who went directly on twitter to gloat, to keep tabs on “fans vs puppies” or “we defeated those fascists”

    Why dont you call out THOSE folks?

    Comment by TW - August 24, 2015 7:01 pm

  7. ” Their intentions were entirely honorable, and I salute the success of their endeavor. ”

    BS

    Their intention was entirely childish.

    Their intention was to be a bully.

    Support for that behavior mean that you are joining their ranks, that you are being childish and a bully.

    Dont be childish, dont be a bully. Be an adult. Be dignified.

    Dont make jokes about asterisks.

    Dont be a Patrick Neilsen Hayden and swear in the face of someone that approaches you in a civil manner.

    Dont be Charlie Stross and his gloating score keeping.

    Dont be Paul Cornell and his childish tweeting about defeating fascism.

    Be a Pat Rothfuss and say that people on both sides should be more civil.

    Comment by TW - August 24, 2015 7:29 pm

  8. John, I still disagree about the applause. It was a provocation. It was gloating. It was responding to bad actions with less bad but still bad action.

    I think No Award was the appropriate result in most of the categories (I’d except Editor Long Form and probably Editor Short Form) … but the No Award result should have been received with a sigh of relief at most … as I’ve said, I don’t understand celebration at the fact that we got to the point of not giving awards in some categories. It was perhaps necessary — probably necessary — but it was not a happy moment.

    Comment by Rich Horton - August 24, 2015 7:50 pm

  9. > For those who say they want to heal the breach: your job got one hell of a lot harder after that raucous cheering.

    Jay,

    I know you’re not going to understand this, but all I can do is tell you the truth. For those of us who didn’t care a whit about the politics, and who only cared about protecting the integrity of the Hugos from an obvious slate, the cheering was a collective sigh of relief, and a celebration of our success.

    You see only hatred. I’m sorry to tell you that you’re seeing hatred, it comes from within yourself, not from us. I’m certain you’re right that the hatred will fester, and drive us further apart, and that saddens me. But I assure you, it doesn’t come from me.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 7:59 pm

  10. John, I believe you when you say that your cheering does not come from hatred.

    But can you say that’s true for anyone else? Everyone else? A majority? A loud minority?

    More importantly, how are we to tell the difference?

    I’m trying to think of a way out. No, not of the Rabids’ end; the only way to get there, probably, is to take Vox Day out back and shoot him. (Which I am not advocating, to be perfectly clear.) But there has to be a way for the two sides to come together.

    GRRM tried, and I think he made headway…but even he is now defending the cheering, if tepidly.

    Mark my words: that did more to alienate conservatives not he fence than anything else could have. It will take drastic measures to overcome it, if it can be overcome at all.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 8:05 pm

  11. > Why not say to those that cheered and jeered,
    > Those that metaphorically spit in faces to, those nominated grow up?
    > The ones who went directly on twitter to gloat, to keep tabs on “fans vs puppies” or “we defeated those fascists”
    > Why dont you call out THOSE folks?

    Because I have no choice but to call ’em as I see ’em, TW.

    And speaking as one of those who (emotionally, if not out loud) cheered when NO AWARD was announced, I’m not feeling any hatred. A lot of the Puppy nominees are my friends.

    I’ve explained exactly why I voted NO AWARD, many, many times. It was to protect the integrity of the Hugos.

    Several people have pounced, here and elsewhere, to explain to me how much I must hate the Puppies.

    They’re wrong.

    So when I hear the Puppies telling me about how much hatred is coming their way, I just shake my head.

    But, please. Once again, I invite you to tell me how wrong I am, and how much I must hate the Puppies. I await enlightenment with anticipation.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 8:06 pm

  12. > ”Their intentions were entirely honorable, and I salute the success of their endeavor. ”
    > BS
    > Their intention was entirely childish.
    > Their intention was to be a bully.

    TW,

    Since I was one of those who voted NO AWARD, I assume of course that you mean my intentions were to be childish and a bully.

    Thank you for the enlightenment. As usual, I accept your condemnation. It was foolish of me to assume I somehow knew my own motives more than you.

    If you could further enlighten me as to how my actions will lead to the inevitable downfall of SF and the eventual corruption of literature, I would be most grateful.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 8:11 pm

  13. > John, I still disagree about the applause… the No Award result should have been received with a sigh of relief at most

    Rich,

    Seeing as you were there and I wasn’t, I’ll have to defer to your take on the matter.

    All I can tell you is that the Sad Puppy/Rabid Puppy affair was entirely emotional, and I completely understood the loud applause that accompanied “No Award.” I doubt I would have applauded myself, but I completely get the relief that comes with it.

    I’m enjoying all those that are explaining to me how my feelings are actually hatred and bulling, though. Once again, the Puppies know more than the rest of us, including about our own motives.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 8:17 pm

  14. > John, I believe you when you say that your cheering does not come from hatred.
    > But can you say that’s true for anyone else? Everyone else? A majority? A loud minority?

    Jay,

    I’m speaking only for myself.

    And of course, I’ve giving others the benefit of the doubt, and (naturally, I think) assuming their motives are similar to my own.

    Almost universally, the Puppies see the same results but attribute them to pure hatred (including, I note, multiple attempts to point out that I am mistaken about my own motives, and am in fact a hater.)

    It seems pretty conclusive to me that there’s no point even attempting to talk to another side, when they insist they’re right about how I’m actually feeling, and see hatred everywhere they look.

    So, in fact, I’m coming around to your point of view. This breach cannot be healed.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 8:22 pm

  15. John…

    sigh.

    You dont see the hatred…

    You call it like you see it…

    Are you blind? If some puppies are/were your friends, and these last couple of posts is how you treat them, I would hate to see how you treat people you really dislike.

    Strike that…

    With your snark. Your petty insults. Your gloating. Your dismissal of any argument with which you disagree, your taking things out of context in order to find the most value to attack others.

    You are making it increasingly difficult to maintain a civil tone.

    I thought it was fairly clear that I was referring the the cheering as being childish as being bullying.

    Which I think you knew, yet you decided to take it in a different direction in order to be snarky and attack. Much like you did repeatedly in previous posts when we were discussing the history of slates.

    I have almost come to the conclusion that you are either not as smart as I have given you credit for over the years, or that you are being intentionally infuriating in order to amuse yourself.

    Either way, I am disappointed in the tone you have decided to pursue lately.

    Maybe you are the one that should reflect on what has been going on lately. Maybe you should look beyond your blinders to see what others see…

    Maybe you should open your eyes.

    Comment by TW - August 24, 2015 8:28 pm

  16. > Either way, I am disappointed in the tone you have decided to pursue lately.

    TW,

    I think what you’re disappointed in is the fact that I continue to express my own motives clearly, rather than letting you explain to me what they are, and why I’m a bully.

    You’re absolutely right that some of the Puppies are my friends, and I’ve been rough on them in these posts. Because, as I said, I call ’em as I see ’em. I know you’ve had a great deal of trouble with the concept over the years.

    As I’ve said before TW, you and I are pretty far apart, and it may be that we will never effectively communicate. But I appreciate the fact that you try.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 8:56 pm

  17. Believe me, TW, John’s rhetoric pales beside that which you’ll find on Scalzi’s blog, or Davod Gerrold’s Facebook, to cite just two examples. Never mind the io9 liveblog page.

    John interpreted your comments as applying to him because he said he shared in the sentiment, if not the actions, of those who did cheer. That’s a reasonable thing to conclude.

    I’m not going to presume to tell John what he’s feeling, but by the same token, I’m going to insist that nobody tell me how I perceive the cheering – like the folks over on Gerrold’s page have.

    I haven’t given up hope, but I have a lot less of it than I did before I read the io9 coverage. There has to be some common ground on which we can agree. I’m not sure where that is, and I’m despairing more and more that there is any will to find it on either side.

    If all hope is lost, though, that cheering will be marked as the final blow that killed it.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 8:59 pm

  18. A little background first: I am a longtime reader and fan of science fiction and, to a somewhat lesser degree, fantasy. I collect SF first editions, and I am a book dealer at local conventions. I think I have a very good grasp of the history of the genre, but recognize that as the field expands it becomes increasingly more difficult to stay current with new authors and works, as well as the many new media outlets. For example, I wasn’t aware of Black Gate prior to getting involved in this year’s Hugo voting, and this is my first post here.

    I’ll also say that prior to this year, I never participated in the Hugo Award voting process.

    Like many other fans this year, the actions of the Sad and Rabid Puppies motivated me to pay the Worldcon supporting member fee so that I could add my voice to the awards. The initial motivation was purely in reaction to what I saw as a cynical, selfish gaming of the system. As one commenter elsewhere said (I wish I could remember where and give proper credit), the Hugo nomination process was always flawed, but no one up until now was narcissistic enough to take advantage of it.

    BUT, having duly registered and received my voter packet, I then proceeded to read/view all of the submitted works.

    Leave ALL of the kerfluffle aside – who did what, what was/wasn’t allowed under the bylaws, who’s oppressing whom – it doesn’t matter. All you have to do is look at the nominations. More specifically, look at the short story nominations. From a genre history perspective, short stories are what Speculative fiction is all about – so if you’re going to get anything right, it should be the short story nominations. So again, simply accept these short stories on their own terms, and that they represent the best of what the Puppies think of as Speculative Fiction:

    “On A Spiritual Plain”, Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, 11-2014)

    “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)

    “A Single Samurai”, Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)

    “Totaled”, Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, 07-2014)

    “Turncoat”, Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)

    Pretty sad, in my opinion.

    The two best of them I would call solid, average work. But don’t think about them too hard, or they begin to unravel. And that’s the problem – a Hugo-caliber short story should force you to think more about it. The story should get under your skin and make you itch, and the only way to scratch it is to think it through. Harlan Ellison and “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream”. Octavia Butler and “Speech Sounds”. Ursula K. Le Guin and “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”.

    As to the others nominations for the 2015 Hugo for Short Story – the only word I can come up with is “Embarrassing”. Take John C Wright’s “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”. He attempts a lyrical, mythic poetic tone that maybe works for some, and maybe sounds like nails on the chalkboard to others. But to me the entire effect is ruined by a huge clunker of a line that comes when the Cat is describing her journey into the city of Man. She comes upon a walled garden where “…I was forced to wet myself — a humiliation my kind never loves — to cross the running stream which ran in an endless circle about the round pagoda, and by this I achieved the island.”

    “I was forced to wet myself….” Really? I nearly wet myself when I read this.

    This is what the Puppies thinks represents Hugo-quality short story writing?

    No Award was the clear winner here.

    But at the same time I think we must recognize that the Sad Puppies (leave the Rabids out here) have some legitimate points. And we should appreciate that one consequence – unintended or not – of their actions is this year’s record number of registered voters for the Hugos. Many of them first time voters, like me.

    Comment by Kesrith - August 24, 2015 9:53 pm

  19. Thanks for the input, Kesrith. Always glad to see an opinion from outside the usual circles.

    And welcome to Black Gate! How did you discover the site?

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 10:00 pm

  20. From the coverage of this year’s Hugo nominations, and reading about you declining the nomination. Well done, by the way.

    Comment by Kesrith - August 24, 2015 10:07 pm

  21. @TW—brother, why do you persist to try and reason with civility those who are uncivil? It is pretty clear that John is not debating. He is telling you how his clique operates. It is very simple. Let me speak with the Truefans words:

    1. Our taste in fictions sucks. He says: We are:
    “INCAPABLE of recommending fiction of any kind of quality, and certainly quality that rises to the level of Hugo worthiness.”

    It would be best for the Truefans of Fandom that when you feel inclined to submit a work for nomination to simply put a shot gun into your mouth and blow your brains out (provided we have any brains to begin with) and put yourself and fandom out of their misery when you pull the trigger. You (me) (all of the Puppies) suck. I’d say that is pretty clearly stated with finality.

    2. You are immoral and stupid:
    “But when your only defense is to convince yourself that the electorate spurned you because they found what you did to be against the very spirit of the Hugos and your ballot to be wholly illegitimate, then you’re hiding sub-standard taste behind moral bankruptcy”

    Again, this is not a debating point, this is a conclusion and statement.

    “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.”

    You (and I and the rest of the Puppies) are just to stupid to even grasp that we are stupid. Sadly, you can’t fix stupid. Stupid is, well, a fixed status. They are much more brighter and knowledgeable and they were just being nice and kind by at least giving the choices you made a No Award so that at least we could all see our nominations in the lime light for a while.

    3. The Asterisk was an act of kindness. Yeah, I know it looked like the south end of a north bound dog but….you do see the humor in that don’t you? It was a noble and genteel act to make the pain of losing not be…..humiliating. The nominees were after all, illegitimate.

    4. The good authors, even though, they weren’t really any good of any sort of quality worthy of a Hugo, opted to decline the nomination. That was roundly applauded. You see TW, there are rules that must be adhered to. You would not understand them of course because you are…..stupid (I, of course am too stupid too, my enlightenment of how stupid I am stems from my persecution complex with flickering moments of sanity. I’m just like you…..stupid.)

    5. Leave the whole Hugo thing to those who know better. Need I explain that to you? Do you realize what your meddling has cost REAL people with real talent? John Scalzi was not nominated again. It was his turn to win and you ruined that TW. Anita Sarkasian did not get her due either thanks to you and your stupid friends and their Gamersgate cohorts. Patrick Nielsen-Hayden did not get his rightful award again either. This simply must stop. How will Philip Sandifer get twice as many awards for Dr. Who as Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Star Trek, and all COMBINED? How will Glyer get his 46th? Now all these kind people who have finally cleared the way for real SF/F have to deal with your inferiority. Please!

    6. We appreciate your contributions TW (and me). Now, we don’t want you to give up hope that even a half brained idiot like you can’t help SERVE Truefans of Fandom. Please continue to vote for the Hugo. We made record sales this year and we even allowed a greater price increase so that you can at least contribute more to real fiction and vote on legitimate choices. Better yet, just contribute and let us do the thinking. And we did enjoy the record setting loot that we got from all of you. It was delightfully fun to

    7. The Puppy nominees deserve every bit of scorn and derision. Hey, we were being nice. They even had a chance to back down like good people to save themselves embarassment. They should be shamed publically for their mutiny. Especially those that walked out! Toni Weisskopf should have stood there while “the wrath of Hugo electorate” beat her into submission. She had it coming.

    8. Next year we won’t be so nice. Let the Asterisk, the shaming, the No Award, and the ruined careers of those who chose to burn with you as you led this mutiny serve as a kind message. We won’t be so nice next time.

    TW, my brother. Don’t waste your time. The Lords of Truefans have spoken and found you unworthy. So what. I think I would rather spend time with people who respect me and don’t look at me as a cockroach crawling on their Hugo and invading their private club.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 24, 2015 10:18 pm

  22. What Thomas Parker said, above.

    Comment by markrigney - August 24, 2015 10:58 pm

  23. Wild Ape – The Sad Puppies stacked the nominations, and had their pick (of the litter, if you will) of what works to put on the ballot. It’s not my fault these works … sucked.

    Returning to John C Wright’s short story “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”: “I was forced to wet myself — a humiliation my kind never loves — to cross the running stream which ran in an endless circle about the round pagoda, and by this I achieved the island.” There is so much wrong with just this one sentence, you have to wonder who edited it. And speaking of Wright – three nominations for Best Novella – honestly? How can anyone take that seriously?

    Did some people vote a straight anti-puppy list? Probably, and that’s unfortunate. They did the voting process a disservice by not reading the nominations and voting accordingly – like I did. Would the results have come out different? I really don’t think so, with a few exceptions like Toni Weisskopf, and maybe the Best Related category.

    Comment by Kesrith - August 24, 2015 11:03 pm

  24. There’s a few factors at work here I fear.

    I’ll comment on the political aspect on the item for that as it’s only an oblique part of this.

    One of the reasons there was cheering on Saturday night, in the bar at least, where I was watching, was the huge relief that when looking at the vast numbers of people who’d voted (yes, yes, it’s relative…) the bulk of them were people who dearly love the WFSF and Worldcon and what it stands for.

    The WSFS is a club, it’s a weird and varied club, and it has all the weird and varied trapping of old clubs that have grown up over decades and have managed to maintain a degree of continuity with the past. It isn’t for everybody. That’s a fact. It also isn’t necessarily as welcoming as a lot of people think it is. I’ve been going to Worldcons for a decade or so and have a ball every time but like with anything like this, it’s hard to ‘break in’ to something that’s been going for decades if you don’t have a social network to drop into. I can certainly fault myself, and fandom for that.

    However, something else happened here. As has been discussed in many other places and threads Worldcon fandom reacted badly to the slates – I happen to think if it had just been the Sad Puppies, things wouldn’t have turned out as they did – it was the Rabid Puppy slate and the domination of certain categories of works that (and yes, I read them) were just complete rubbish. A lot of people who otherwise haven’t bothered with Worldcons for years came back and voted with their feet and their money. I decided to go to the Con itself to make sure I could take part in the business meeting. That’s a fairly large commitment but I felt it was worth it even if Spokane was an odd place to go. I’ll almost certainly go to KC next year to make damn sure we ratify what we decided.

    However, the slates looked at all those sign ups and saw people flocking to their cause – this feels to me like genuine shock that a) their side was actually relatively small – given all the talk of standing up for ‘real’ fans and b) those that voted would, by a significant margin prefer to not award bad behaviour.

    At least that is my take on it, and nothing has changed since April, in many respects I am in 100% agreement with everything my namesake is saying.

    Comment by daveon - August 24, 2015 11:04 pm

  25. > One of the reasons there was cheering on Saturday night, in the bar at least, where I was watching, was the huge relief that
    > when looking at the vast numbers of people who’d voted (yes, yes, it’s relative…) the bulk of them were people who
    > dearly love the WFSF and Worldcon and what it stands for.

    Daveon,

    I think that’s an astute observation. The WSFS IS a club, and a pretty cliquish one. And when outsiders (of any stripe) come in and try and dictate how things would be, they react exactly how you might think they would.

    > in many respects I am in 100% agreement with everything my namesake is saying.

    OK, maybe I’m just dense, but who is your namesake?

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 11:15 pm

  26. Sorry, I thought the profile caught that – Daveon (Dave O’Neill)…

    Comment by daveon - August 24, 2015 11:20 pm

  27. “The WSFS IS a club, and a pretty cliquish one. And when outsiders (of any stripe) come in and try and dictate how things would be, they react exactly how you might think they would.”

    Except that we’d been told for years that the Hugos belonged to all of fandom. As Larry Correia put it when things got started this year, if it hadn’t been held out as an award of all of fandom, there wouldn’t have been all this brouhaha in the first place.

    Or is the WSFS all of fandom?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 11:23 pm

  28. Dear Mr. O’Neil,

    For myself, I see no real reason to applaud the Hugo results with their various “No Award” badges of dishonor. I am pretty sure that Dr. Asimov would not have been pleased with this mess. I have felt this way since April, too. If I feel relief now, I feel it less demonstratively.

    As for the issue of “healing the breach”, there is some good news from Sasquan – the “E Pluribus Hugo” (EPH) proposal passed on its first reading by the Worldcon Business committee. The EPH proposal is a change to the nominating process that will allow each nominating ballot to carry as many nominees as permitted per category, but it will only count as a single (1) vote. So, a ballot with 1 Best Novel nominee counts as 1 vote for that book, while a ballot with 5 Best Novels counts as 1/5th for each of them. In each round, the lowest vote getter is eliminated and the ballots that contained it are re-calculated, so our 5-nominee ballot would be 4 nominees at 1/4th vote each after its least popular nominee were dropped. For the technical among us, this scheme is known as Single Divisible Vote – Least Popular Elimination (SDV-LPE).

    It does not preclude bloc voting entirely, but it does restrict a bloc to voting for only 1 nominee per category, which thus allows a book popular enough to attract a bloc to earn a nomination without shutting out an entire category.

    Full disclosure: I know a few of the people who worked on the E Pluribus Hugo proposal and spoke with them a month or so before Sasquan.

    Comment by Eugene R. - August 24, 2015 11:27 pm

  29. One thing that would help moving forward is if more people would take the effort to distinguish between Sad and Rabid puppies. I don’t think any Sad puppies were looking for a best novella by John C Wright category. VD has done a lot of damage to everyone who cares, and will continue to do so for as long as he is responded to. He is not the Evil Overlord, rather a troll that is being fed by the buffet table.

    Comment by Calven - August 24, 2015 11:31 pm

  30. Eugene, I put on my parliamentarian hat and read over the EPH proposal. I see no particular problem with it, myself…except that I have extreme doubts that, should a slate of the maximum number of nominees all get on the ballot, the voters would agree with the drafters that “it deserved to be elected”.

    For that matter, I have no troupe with the 4/6 proposal, either.

    Are the results of the business meeting available online anywhere?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 11:32 pm

  31. @Kesrith—sounds to me like you did your duty. If they didn’t measure up then they didn’t measure up. Nomination process should be partisan. Vote and campaign for what you like. Why not? I think in the finals you need to read the list and determine what is the best nomination. You know how Hugos have been in the past. But this year if the puppies were not here this is what it would look like:

    http://funagram.com/this-is-what-the-2015-hugo-ballot-should-have-been/

    And if you think there wasn’t a conspiracy in the past to dominate the Hugos read this:

    http://file770.com/?p=24450

    Look at the timeline and the results of the Hugo. Then look at PHN’s column pouting about why he never gets a Hugo. Check out the timeline.

    https://archive.is/DzUDZ

    It is pretty obvious to me. The whole thing ended like a Scooby-Doo ending. I can almost hear PHN say, “And it would have worked too if it weren’t for those meddling Puppies!”

    “It’s not my fault these works … sucked.”

    Nope, that is your opinion and your right. It is also mine to say they are worthy and to vote for them. I’m glad that you gave them your honest best.

    @markringey and Thomas Parker—me too. The gloat fest has to go on until it wears itself out. That is just the way of things. But if you want a good read for a short story/novella try “The Fortuitous Meeting” It takes place in the 1600s in Brazil. The writer did a lot of historical research and he also used Brazilian monsters from legend. It was talked about here on Black Gate. The digital price is .99 cents but the writer told me that it might be free in a couple of months. If you are up for a good sword and sorcery tale, that is the one. The writer is Christopher Kastenschmidt

    Additionally I found the Battlecruiser Alamo series to be very good. It is a kind of Star Trek crew with a little more disfuntionality between crew members that makes it entertaining space opera. The writer is Richard Tongue.

    Well, the good news for you all is that I’m outta here. I’ll be back if and when I get back. Till then all the best to y’all—specially you TW.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 24, 2015 11:35 pm

  32. There are two things here. I’m not Dr Asimov and under no obligation to him nor anybody else over how I show relief at a result I wanted to occur – that said, apart from the Editor Hugos I honestly believe the correct award was awarded.

    Secondly, I strongly recommend finding a copy of PITFCS (http://www.nesfa.org/press/Books/Advent/Cogswell.htm) – we are rather deluding ourselves if we think what we do at the speed of the internet is anything but a vastly speeded up version of what Asimov, Heinlein, Pohl and others were doing in the Letters Columns of the fanzine.

    We’re forgetting the time that Dr Asimov had, it seems, no issue with Fred Pohl being barred from the first worldcon for his politics…

    Plus Ca Change.

    Comment by daveon - August 24, 2015 11:35 pm

  33. I voted for both EPH and 4/6 – I actually think combined they’re effectively ‘Belt and Braces’ protection from many things, including domination of popular TV shows.

    I do think we might need to do something to allow for alternative Hugo recognition, but I’ll have to think more on that and take some soundings before I dare bring it up to a Business Meeting.

    Comment by daveon - August 24, 2015 11:37 pm

  34. > Or is the WSFS all of fandom?

    Jay,

    Great question. I’m not really part of the club, so you’ll have to ask someone who’s been to a few more Worldcons than me, but I expect the answer is that WSFS is very much a club, one that tries hard to be inclusive of all of fandom, but when it senses a threat to its self-interest it reacts accordingly.

    I would say that Vox Day’s Rabid Puppy slate, with its stated goal destroying the Hugos, pretty clearly constitutes a threat. The Sad Puppies are a little murkier, but in general they seem closer to VD’s Rabid Puppies than the WSFS, so I would think it quite logical for the WSFS to close ranks and exclude them, with prejudice.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 11:46 pm

  35. > One thing that would help moving forward is if more people would take the effort to distinguish between Sad and Rabid puppies.

    Calven,

    I agree. I’ve made an effort in my own writings, but I think I could be a lot clearer.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 11:48 pm

  36. I’ve been trying to come up with a way to describe the thing that vexes me, personally, about efforts to talk about the Hugo controversy with people who lean to the right. It’s a little bit like this archetypal conversation that I think most married people will have had with their spouses at least once. For my part, I’ve been on both sides of this dialogue, an embarrassing number of times in my 21 years of marriage.

    Spouse J: Your relative has a habit that really bothers me.

    Spouse T: I am not my relative.

    Spouse J: I know. I’m glad you’re not. I’m just trying to figure out a reasonable way to respond when your relative’s habit that bothers me is on display.

    Spouse T: Will you stop lumping me with my relative?! I don’t have that awful habit, and I resent your implying that I do!

    Spouse J: But I didn’t say anything like that. You’re a person I can talk to about your relative and the problem habit precisely because you don’t do what your relative does.

    Spouse T: Everybody thinks just because my relative does that awful thing, I do it, too. I would have thought you knew me better.

    Spouse J: I do know you better. Why are you lumping me with the people who see you that way? And I don’t think it’s everybody else who sees you that way, in any case.

    Spouse T: Yeah, well, you’ve got some bad habits, yourself.

    There are a lot of ways to see this kind of interaction, depending on where you find it. Like most painful things, it would be funny if it were happening to cartoon characters. Unfortunately, it’s happening to us, in a community we all value but doubt we can hold together.

    From where I sit, Vox Day is the problematic relative with the ugly habit that most people agree is beyond the pale. His own statements fit dictionary definitions of fascism, racism, and sexism. His recent demand for the skulls of authors and bloggers he dislikes is as perfect an illustration of eliminationist rhetoric as you could want to find. As I’ve explained elsewhere, I think it’s inaccurate to describe Vox Day as a Nazi, neo or otherwise, because that’s specifically a party affiliation, and as far as I know, he’s not affiliated with that party. Fascism is the ideology I think is intended by that labeling anyway. When you disagree with someone, it’s worth making sure you know what it is you disagree about.

    Vox Day so extreme, and in my view so repugnant, I wouldn’t assume any individual agreed with him unless that individual said so.

    Some points raised by the Sad Puppies seem to me to have merit. Some points don’t. Since the Sad Puppies here have argued persuasively that there are major differences between their issues and those of the Rabid Puppies, Vox Day’s worldview, which is offensive to me on many levels, doesn’t really come into the way I think about the Sad Puppies…except that the Sad Puppies keep bringing it up.

    If Spouse J wishes Spouse T’s cousin would stop getting so drunk at family gatherings that s/he passes out in the only bathroom at the ancestral homestead, and then the thirty other people at the reunion can’t get in without picking the lock — and Spouse T wishes s/he would knock it off, too — how is Spouse J’s annoyance at the cousin a judgement on Spouse T?

    If someone who doesn’t side with either of the Puppy factions finds Vox Day’s speech and conduct appalling, how is that a judgment on Sad Puppies who are, at least some of the time, making real efforts at good faith discussion?

    Spouse T is making a very human mistake, one that is at least in part driven by pain at feeling misjudged. But whether you put your variation of that initial dialog in a Monty Python cartoon or a Tennessee Williams tragedy, you know that sooner or later Spouse J’s patience with being blamed for a view s/he doesn’t have is going to snap.

    There are plenty of other dimensions to the Hugo controversy, but that’s plenty for one blog comment.

    Comment by Sarah Avery - August 24, 2015 11:52 pm

  37. Jay,

    A few years back regular Worldcon members got into a fairly nasty (but less nasty than this) fight with a lot of book bloggers and other younger fans who asked the same question. While technically speaking the Hugo belongs to Fandom, it isn’t, in my opinion quite that clear.

    The reason that people want to fight over the Hugo Awards is that they actually mean something – just like the Oscars, even though ‘normal’ people don’t get to vote for them, they have a higher ‘social’ rank. They have that because for 60 years, generations of dedicated fans have worked damn hard to make sure they mean something.

    That said, nominations and voting for Hugo Awards is open to any member of the World Science Fiction Society and they take it upon themselves to represent Fandom.

    As was said over and over to the book bloggers and others who complained that it was all a bunch of elitist rich old white men (not necessarily an unfair charge at a certain level – it’s a bloody expensive hobby) – you don’t like how it works and don’t want to join and change it – set up your own awards, the internet is right here. The thing is, they didn’t, a lot of them joined up and we got a lot more diversity in the nominations… sadly, I think the fact they took Worldcon fandom at it’s word and joined up to change things from the inside is what got us in this mess.

    What you do not get to do is decide that the Hugos aren’t working for you, then throw a tantrum demanding that it works the way you think is fair. One of things that has saved the Hugo Awards over the decades is the fact they’re designed to be very hard to muck around with on a whim.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 12:01 am

  38. I will comment more at some length about EPH and 4/6. It is true that they are compatible — both can be enacted at the same time, and both work to some extent to reduce (not eliminate) the power of slates.

    I made a proposal (here at Black Gate) for a variant of 4/6 that could be called 5/10. I still think that’s better (I could sign up for 5/8 as well), for a couple of reasons. One, well articulated to me by an EPH supporter who sat next to me at the Business Meeting, is that 4/6 weakens EPH (just a bit), while 5/10 (or 5/8) leaves EPH just as strong as it would be with no other change to the rules.

    But my biggest reason for preferring 5/10 (or 5/8 or even 4/6) is that these changes address another problem with the current situation, entirely unrelated to slates: there are too many stories for anyone to fully comprehend the field, so more finalists, and an acknowledgement that no one’s list can be the complete list, are good things.

    One problem I have with EPH — and if I’m wrong, as I might be, I’ll be glad to hear an explanation — is that is seems unfair to give the casual reader who read one story he really liked and figured he’d nominate it a vote worth 5 times the votes of a dedicated reader who read 2500 stories and chose 5 outstanding ones. (And, by the way, when it comes to movies, I’m that casual reader.)

    Comment by Rich Horton - August 25, 2015 12:03 am

  39. I nearly called for a division on 5/8 I think it was close but didn’t much feel like being *that* person in that meeting on Sunday when so many of us were sleep deprived and hungover.

    From a purely statistical perspective, I think Kilo made some good points about how weak ‘bullet’ voting actually is.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 12:10 am

  40. Dear Mr. Maynard,

    I cannot find any official minutes of the Business Meetings on-line, only a lot of live blogging threads.

    And it is important to recognize that if a bloc is nominating a work that is also nominated by enough other attendees to form a majority, then it is a work that deserves nomination. So, bloc voting will assist in nominating works, but it will not shut out works that have wide support but are not bloc-voted, because bloc voters do not get 5 votes for Best Novel, only 1 (split 5 ways initially, perhaps).

    Dear Ms. Avery,

    My issue with the conflation of the Puppies is similar to yours, but with the added complication that the “related” spouse is also profiting from the bad cousin’s behavior, so protests of “But I am NOT my cousin!” ring a bit hollow.

    Comment by Eugene R. - August 25, 2015 12:35 am

  41. In my family, cousins only get 1/5 of a vote anyway.

    Comment by Thomas Parker - August 25, 2015 12:41 am

  42. Dear Mr. Horton,

    Let us suppose that your scenario exists, with 1 casual “fan” for 1 story and 1 “reader” of 2500 who nominates 5. Under EPH, we have 6 stories with 1, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5 votes. #6 is eliminated and the re-calculation is 1, 1/4, 1/4, 1/4, 1/4, at which point we have our 5 nominees. So, the dedicated “reader” puts 4 stories on the ballot, while the casual “fan” gets 1 listed.

    Comment by Eugene R. - August 25, 2015 1:26 am

  43. “you and I are pretty far apart, and it may be that we will never effectively communicate. But I appreciate the fact that you try.”

    Thanks, I wish that I felt like the “try” part was mutual.

    “John’s rhetoric pales beside that which you’ll find on Scalzi’s blog”

    I agree, once upon a time, I tried to converse on Whatever…but I quickly learned that Scalzi would just hammer away any disagreeing comment that he couldnt counter with a snarky passive aggressive insult.

    “TW, my brother. Don’t waste your time. The Lords of Truefans have spoken and found you unworthy. “

    Glad I dont put much value on what other people think of me…especially the self-righteous elitists among the trufen. Plus I like a good argument every so often.

    “WSFS is very much a club, one that tries hard to be inclusive of all of fandom”

    Sorry, with that I will have to vociferously disagree. They try be exclusionary much more than inclusionary. They want to be a small club of friends that decides the fate of thousands…a politburo of what is acceptable fandom.

    “The reason that people want to fight over the Hugo Awards is that they actually mean something”

    Nah, the fight is so vicious because the reward is so insignificant. In the grand scheme of things, outside the world of the trufen, Hugos have about as much meaning as my choosing to have a sip of Ardbeg instead of Laphroaig before I typed this line.

    “they take it upon themselves to represent Fandom”

    And who died and made them King?

    “The thing is, they didn’t, a lot of them joined up and we got a lot more diversity in the nominations”

    For varying definitions of diversity…

    BTW John, you should read these:

    http://cedarwrites.com/this-puppy-has-been-muzzled/

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204934540299315&set=a.1656073077756.2081651.1114961140&type=1&fref=nf&pnref=story

    Worldcon fandom is winning…I guess.

    Comment by TW - August 25, 2015 2:32 am

  44. So much talk about fans applauding and cheering for No Award. Well.

    Lets remember that the slates were a No Award against all those worthy nominees they pushed out by gaming the system. Was there no cheering when the nominees were announced? As Sarah Hoyt, gleefully quoted by puppy nominee Wright, wrote:

    “I suggest we kick them while they’re down and make them fight for the awards and prestige they crave. Also, that we point at them and make duck noises.”

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/01/a-message-from-my-publisher-concerning-sad-puppies/

    Thats how the world is. Some people are bad losers. Some bad winners. But yes, I smiled and was very happy when No Award was announced. I can’t sa if I would have applauded if I was there. I think I would have for the first one, the relief would have been that great.

    I’m human. When overcome with emotion, I will react. Not always in ways others would have liked.

    Comment by Hampus - August 25, 2015 2:38 am

  45. I agree with Hampus. Id like also point out that many were simply happy the rabid puppys didnt win.
    Like I said before: The rabid puppies hurt the sad puppies cause. A lot.The sad puppies distance themselves from the rabid puppies, but they dont acknowledge this damage but resolve to finger pointing.

    Comment by peer - August 25, 2015 3:17 am

  46. Dave … I also wanted to call for a division on 5/8, and also didn’t want to be “that guy”, especially as I had been up until 4 the previous night as well.

    You ran the trivia contest, right? Thanks very much for that — it was great fun. And it was great to meet you.

    Comment by Rich Horton - August 25, 2015 7:22 am

  47. All right, so what *was* adopted, then? I take it front he comments that 5/8 was proposed and came close to being adopted (otherwise, there would be no point in calling for a division).

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 7:46 am

  48. I definitely agree on the applause for the “No Awards”. It wasn’t a moment to be cherished – it was indeed gloating and I felt very uncomfortable watching it. Even more so when it came to the Editors section. Resnick, Gilbert, and Sowards are editors who deserve their weight in gold, and to see so many people slam a “No Award” higher than them was very disappointing, and the clapping afterwards didn’t do much to ease the atmosphere.

    But it’s done now, and we can only strive to do better. We’re only human after all.

    Also, quite unrelated, but I have to ask: why do you keep using StarShipSofa’s Hugo as an example? Not that we mind at all, but I mean, Tony can’t be that good looking!

    Thanks for the read,
    Jeremy

    Comment by Jeremy Szal - August 25, 2015 7:59 am

  49. I will be as clear as I can be.

    I believe that cheats are not entitled to win an award – even an award that they would have obtained through their own efforts without cheating.

    Slate nominations are cheating. Morally and ethically, they are exactly like taking steroids in baseball in the 1990s. They cross an ethical and moral boundary, but not a boundary of a formal rule. Correctly, WSFS has acted to bring in a formal rule on the subject through EPH, just as MLB did by bringing in some testing and penalties for the use of PEDs.

    The downfall of those who cheated was something I celebrated in exactly the same way I celebrate each year when Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are denied their places in the Hall of Fame.

    So yes, I was (albeit at home watching over the internet) cheering when No Award won those categories. Because it was a defeat for cheating.

    That Toni Weisskopf deserves an award for Best Editor Long Form is something of which I am in no doubt, and the day she appears on a Hugo ballot without cheating to get there, I will vote for her with my first preference, and will continue to do so until she has won one.*

    But the honorable course was to do as Black Gate did and to decline the nomination. To have accepted that nomination is a stain on her honour. Not a sufficient one to prevent her winning the award in future, but a sufficient one to deny her the award this year.

    * I regard the Editor and Artist awards as essentially lifetime awards and will not vote for anyone to win one more than once, or at the very least not until it’s been long enough that I’ve forgotten they won before.

    Comment by po8crg - August 25, 2015 9:27 am

  50. 4/6 was adopted. Numerous other options were proposed (1/5 (a TERRIBLE idea), 5/10, 6/9, 5/8). 5/8 came close, yes. None of the others were even close.

    Comment by Rich Horton - August 25, 2015 9:28 am

  51. EPH will definitely help. 4/6 will also help. I almost wonder if they would’ve been better-served by a sliding scale — maybe 4/6 for novels and 5/8 or 5/10 for shorter works (where it’d be less of a burden to read all of the nominees, and where the relatively low number of nominations makes it easier for a slate to have an outsized effect, possibly even after EPH).

    Comment by Joe H. - August 25, 2015 10:19 am

  52. Sarah, your argument about Spouse J and Spouse T ignores one important point: What, exactly, does Spouse J expect Spouse T to do about it? Resign from the family? Harping on the same old annoyance over and over and over gets to be a problem in and of itself is Spouse T is powerless to affect the obnoxious uncle’s behavior.

    Hitting me over the head repeatedly about Vox Day, as still happens around here, serves only to piss me off, considering that I have repeatedly and clearly stated right here that Vox Day does not speak for me.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 10:26 am

  53. Jay, I don’t understand exactly what you want from the anti-slate side. The leaders of the Sad Puppies allied themselves with Vox Day, and treated the entire affair like a war. That contributed to the feelings of relief, the happiness at the total repudiation of their efforts, and the applause. You were hurt by the applause, and you keep insisting that Vox Day doesn’t speak for you. How are all of the people in the room supposed to recognize that you, out of all the Sad Puppies, are not standing with Vox Day? Do you expect the auditorium to tailor its response to your private philosophical stance?

    As for ‘healing the breach’ — the Sad Puppies slate was put forward on the explicit understanding that there had been secret slates in the past, and this was just rebalancing things. Their total domination of several categories suggests that they were wrong — but regardless, the anti-slate people have put forward a very fair new approach to voting. It will reduce the power of slates, and limit the power of organized ballot strategies. Several Sad Puppies have backed it. It works towards the spirit of their original complaints, it will not put power in the hands of any particular cabal, what’s the problem with it?

    Personally, I think that the EPH voting proposal is an excellent demonstration of good faith, one that stresses that all fans have a role to play in choosing Hugos. That role is one vote. If you read the threads where it was developed, you will see almost no suggestions at all that it be ‘gamed’, and those that do crop up are slapped down.

    If you read Torgerson’s blog, you see a lot of real rhetorical violence against CHORFs, SJWs, and whatnot. One of the SP nominees doxes and taunts critics. I’m sure that these people don’t ‘speak’ for you either — I’m curious why the people who put forward the EPH proposal DON’T speak for you, though, since their proposal is designed to produce a fair, unweighted vote?

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 25, 2015 10:38 am

  54. Jay: The problem is that while Beale might not speak for you, he has rather taken it upon himself to speak for the Puppies and has a sufficiently loud voice to do so. It is not helped by the fact that the ‘leaders’ of the sad movement basically invited him to play and haven’t exactly distanced themselves from him.

    Rich: yeap, that was me and the quiz, glad you liked it! We did it first in London, and I think people actually like having a pub quiz so who knows? It might become a feature.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 10:41 am

  55. Nick, I guess you missed the comment above (about 11 hours ago) where I said that I had no problem with either the EPH or 4/6 proposals.

    And the SPs did not ally with Vox Day. Vox Day grabbed the SP agenda and made it his own. There’s a difference.

    I can’t make it any plainer than my own comments in this and my own posts: Vox Day does not speak for me. Would you PLEASE quit hitting me over the head with him?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 10:48 am

  56. Right, but as daveon points out, he does speak with the Sad Puppies. Torgerson has made it explicit that he and Vox Day are allies. How are the people in the audience supposed to know that you, individually, support the Sad Puppies but not Vox Day?

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 25, 2015 10:53 am

  57. So what, exactly, am I supposed to do, Nick? Just shut up and go home? Or, since I’ll never escape Vox Day, grasp the nettle and throw my lot in with him explicitly? Comments like yours are driving people into his camp.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 11:00 am

  58. Dear Mr. Maynard,

    The issue of Rabid vs. Sad Puppies, for me, boils down to the Puppies nominee slate essentially being Rabid Puppy picks. There were only 3 Sad/non-Rabid nominees (2 semiprozines, 1 fan writer) according to File 770. So, sorry to say, the Sad Puppies were sidelined by the Rabids. The argument over bloc voting was directed at the person who succeeded in getting his slate on the ballots. There is no avoiding Mr. Beale. He is the tail that wags this particular dog.

    I would be glad to avoid hitting you over the head with Mr. Beale. But I cannot if the Sad Puppies persist in thinking that this argument is theirs to make.

    Comment by Eugene R. - August 25, 2015 11:03 am

  59. Well no, but it seems fairly obvious that when your movement allies itself with a nasty racist loudmouth who takes it over, people are going to cheer when the nasty racist loudmouth doesn’t win any Hugo awards. When that happens, it seems strange to take the cheering so extremely personally.

    As for the larger picture, fandom has been characterized by what I would term ‘extreme butthurt’ pretty much ever since fandom existed. Read The Immortal Storm for a wonderful example; someone upthread mentions Pohl getting the boot for being a nasty Commie. You could even argue that fandom as it exists today is the product of this sort of event. The drubbing that Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies took last weekend is actually in the finest fandom traditions, as is the amplified outrage from the other camp. Episodes like these define fandom, and I’m happy to have Vox Day defined out.

    And I still don’t understand why, if you support the revisions to voting, you don’t find that the people who proposed them speak for you? Why insist that the people who booed Vox Day, Torgerson, and the associated vocal assholes were booing you?

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 25, 2015 11:08 am

  60. Jay, I think Nick’s point is that the applause was pretty explicitly directed towards the leaders of the Rabid Puppy movement, an explosion of relief that the “Destroy the Hugos!” camp was repudiated.

    When you say you were insulted by the applause, we hear that you have thrown your lot in with Vox Day, and any affront to him and his movement, you will take personally. But by the way, you don’t stand with Vox Day? It doesn’t make sense.

    Demanding that those who applauded somehow make exception for you and those other Puppies who disagreed in some vague philosophical way with part of Vox’s platform doesn’t make sense. Applause doesn’t work that way.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 25, 2015 11:13 am

  61. > I believe that cheats are not entitled to win an award – even an award that they would have obtained through their own efforts without cheating.
    > Slate nominations are cheating.

    po8crg,

    I wish I’d said this as clearly and succinctly as you. Thank you.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 25, 2015 11:20 am

  62. > why do you keep using StarShipSofa’s Hugo as an example? Not that we mind at all, but I mean, Tony can’t be that good looking!

    Jeremy,

    Guilty! And I use it because it’s an AWESOME pic.

    I beg forgiveness. Also, do you know took the photo? I’d like to credit the photographer, if possible.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 25, 2015 11:38 am

  63. Nick: “when your movement allies itself with a nasty racist loudmouth who takes it over”

    Bzzt, wrong, thank you for playing.

    My movement did not ally itself with Vox Day. Vox Day grabbed my movement and tried to make it his own int he eyes of the average voter. That he succeeded with you and John and the others does not make it correct.

    The people who cheered the NO AWARDS do not speak for me, period, end of discussion. They may have had good ideas, but I remind you again that ideas are not responsible for those who believe in them. They supported EPH and 4/6? Great. That still does not mean they speak for me on other subjects.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 11:47 am

  64. Jay, you cant have it both ways: You cant distance yourself from Vox day and at the same time be insulted, when he gets voted down.

    Comment by peer - August 25, 2015 11:48 am

  65. > My movement did not ally itself with Vox Day. Vox Day grabbed my movement and tried to make it his own int he eyes of the average voter.

    To let up on Jay for a minute, I want to say that I think his characterization of events in the sentence above is 100% correct. Sad Puppies came first, and Vox Day co-opted their effort for his own purposes.

    > The people who cheered the NO AWARDS do not speak for me, period, end of discussion.

    Jay, I cheered for NO AWARD because it was Rabid Puppies who nominated Black Gate (not the Sad Puppies), and I wanted to see the Rabid Puppies effort repudiated. So if you’re trying to say that those who cheered the NO AWARD weren’t directing their ire towards you, I think that’s correct.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 25, 2015 11:56 am

  66. Sorry Jay, as others have said, you can’t have it both ways there. For better or worse, he has made damn sure he has become the public face of all the puppies, and frankly, I am sure he likes it that way.

    But this gets away from the point. The initial claim was that bad fiction was getting on the ballot and being voted for and it was due to a political campaign machine. Well, I think we can see that if it had been, it would have been a little more obvious and effective by how easily Vox Day took control of everything from the Sad Puppies – we can’t ignore that it was really a Rabid slate.

    However, that aside, the initial claim is, was and remains unto eternity utter rubbish. The Dark Between the Stars was a terrible book; I didn’t meet a single Butcher fan at Sasquan who said anything other than Skin Game was ok but not the best; Lines of Departure isn’t badly written but the core plot points are; given his behaviour I won’t read anything by Larry but nothing I’ve heard says it’s anything other than well written fun….

    I expect more of my Hugo Awards. Where was something by Neal Asher? He’s British, fairly conservative (going by the subtext of his novels) and writes amazing stuff. Peter Hamilton? Big picture space opera, also a fairly conservative guy. There’s lots more. The Puppies could have brought their A Game, should have brought their A game.

    Instead you brought ‘One Bright Star to Guide Them’ – saved only from being the worst written story I read this year by Turncoat.

    That’s the problem. Stop carping about politics and nominate some decent gorram stories.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 11:58 am

  67. Dave, you speak of having it both ways, but you can’t have it both ways either: either the vote was a repudiation of slate tactics, or it was a rejection of crappy literature. Which is it?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 12:03 pm

  68. Actually there I can because I believe it was a bit both. I’ll also point out that neither of those options are political in motivation, or not party political anyway.

    If the Sad Puppies had brought forth decent nominations I think we would be having a very different debate.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 12:14 pm

  69. Dave: Toni Weisskopf.

    And I just saw that David Gerrold was bragging about having distributed the asterisks. Yes, it resulted in lots of money for Terry Pratchett’s favorite charity (ook!), but it’s still a jerk move, and renders a bit suspect his claim not to have said that cheering NO AWARDs was a good thing.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 12:18 pm

  70. > I believe that cheats are not entitled to win an award – even an award that they would have obtained through their own efforts without cheating.
    > Slate nominations are cheating.

    po8crg,

    I wish I’d said this as clearly and succinctly as you. Thank you.

    one problem.

    “Slates” (ie people making voting recommendation lists) were not, and are not, against the rules.

    They were not, and are not, “cheating”.

    So unless you are willing or able to explain which rule was being broken, saying that they were cheating is either a misunderstanding of the rules, or a lie. Take your pick.

    (btw if you want to ban people from the baseball hall of fame for “performance enhancing drugs” then you need to add most of the guys who played in the 60s, 70s and 80s, for greenies…)

    Comment by TW - August 25, 2015 12:18 pm

  71. Exactly Daveon – I don’t think near enough attention is being paid to the poor quality of the slate-enabled works. I’ve heard apologists say that there was at least one or two in each category that could have gotten a vote ahead of Noah Ward – even if that were true it is tacit admission that three or four hand-picked works in each slate-dominated category were not worthy. And how many actual Hugo-quality works were edged out by the slates? Or others that have said the stories this year were better than the crap from last year – sorry, but a story doesn’t get my Hugo vote because it is relatively better than something else.

    I do feel bad for the few deserving nominees who basically got slate-shamed, though.

    Comment by Kesrith - August 25, 2015 12:26 pm

  72. She *might* have won, she might not. You cannot say for sure. She has been nominated fairly in the past and lost, she will be nominated in the future.

    Using her or Sheila Gilbert as proof of something is as weak tea as constantly harping on about the Dinosaur story as proof all the Hugos were crap.

    You might think the asterisks are a jerk move, but it’s valid – 2015 is going to be stuck with a big damned one next to the results in perpetuity for no damn reason.

    Which is back to my point. Works were not blocked for political reasons – Toni didn’t get onto earlier ballots because she was magically blocked, she didn’t get on because there were not enough people who cared about her were voting.

    Slates, campaigns and the 70 foot high fire breathing monster that is PNH didn’t make that happen, people not nominating did.

    Fortunately we’ve fixed that now.

    Still doesn’t mean she’s going to be taking home a rocket. But actually that really doesn’t matter.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 12:30 pm

  73. Oh and Jay, as I may not have said here, I don’t vote in the editor category – I have zero basis on which to make that call, especially in Long Form, and being told that X or Y is a good person doesn’t cut it for me.

    I didn’t place any preference in that category and I am unlikely to in the future unless I get published and have an editor with whom I work and can judge.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 12:32 pm

  74. I don’t understand why Toni Weisskopf is considered some sort of trump card. I’m sure that she’s a decent editor, but that doesn’t entitle her to a Hugo. It’s obvious that large numbers of voters rejected the idea of a slate as cheating.

    You’re right that using a slate was not technically against the rules; but it is clearly considered against the spirit of the rules. I have always thought it odd that the Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies were willing to violate the understood spirit of nominating people, but then insisted that voters were required to vote for the work they liked best? Slates violate the spirit of nomination; voting No Award is the response of people who object to that.
    Ms. Weisskopf was on a slate, why shouldn’t they vote her down if they want to? As someone above points out, all of the No Awards were some combination of revulsion at the quality of the nominations, and revulsion at the tactics. What’s wrong with that?

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 25, 2015 12:38 pm

  75. She has been nominated fairly in the past and lost, she will be nominated in the future.

    If you are referring to Toni Weisskopf, then AFIAK she has only been nominated through the efforts of Larry Correia and the puppies.

    It’s obvious that large numbers of voters rejected the idea of a slate as cheating.

    By slate voting no award.

    it is clearly considered against the spirit of the rules.

    I hope you say the same thing about the numerous recommendation lists that had gone on for years before a sad puppy was a twinkle in Larry Correia’s imagination.

    Comment by TW - August 25, 2015 1:20 pm

  76. Has it occurred to anyone that strong criticisms of the Puppies, either Sad or Rabid, or of conservatism in general does not equate personal attacks?

    Comment by sftheory1 - August 25, 2015 1:46 pm

  77. I haven’t said the same thing about the recommendation lists, for this reason: fans accept them. The Hugo is a fan award, and this year, a few people tried to do something dramatically different in the nomination process. If some of the Rabid Puppy or Sad Puppy nominees had won, then that would have demonstrated that fans accepted it. It turns out they don’t.

    Also, I’d like to make a point that I’ve read elsewhere — the Alfies that were given out show exactly what will happen if a fan award is changed into something that fans don’t like. They’ll create a new award — I suspect that the Alfie that Annie Bellet received is going to mean as much, if not more, than a Hugo; she got it by making a painful sacrifice (taking herself off the Hugo ballot), and received a highly personalized distinction from fandom. That’s awesome.

    If the Hugos end up ruined, fans of how they are now will create new awards with the same meaning, and people will love them just as much. It’s a mystery to me why the Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies didn’t just do that, instead of proclaiming their contempt for the current Hugo community and hijacking the nomination process.

    I’m curious to see what the justification of the slate next year will be; they can’t claim to be a silent majority any more.

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 25, 2015 2:01 pm

  78. Punch, counter-punch, then it’ll begin again. It’s not the end, just the beginning. This is a gang war over turf (like most human interactions between groups), not an argument, and it will steadily escalate.

    Comment by joatsimeon - August 25, 2015 2:14 pm

  79. fans accept them

    Puppies arent fans? They can never be part of the community…

    How Elitist. And having seperate awards, for “puppies” and “fans”…

    “Separate but equal (but not really)” is alive and well…

    Maybe that attitude is the reason so many folks that are puppies, or puppy sympathetic, think that the worldcon community is a bunch of elitist jerks and in serious need of an infusion of fresh blood.

    I will admit I have little respect for the worldcon community. It stems from my attendance of a worldcon nearly twenty years ago and meeting attitudes just like this. That you cant be a trufen and have opinions that stray too far from the norm of the self selected worldcon crowd.

    I have never advocated “burning down the awards” (though after the behavior of the elites this year, I am much closer to converting to that opinion) I have always tried to get other fans (well I count them as fans, though you may not) involved in the process.

    Something you “gotta keep them separated (que guitar riff)” folks seem to fear more than burning down the awards.

    Comment by TW - August 25, 2015 2:16 pm

  80. Nick: “It’s a mystery to me why the Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies didn’t just do that, instead of proclaiming their contempt for the current Hugo community and hijacking the nomination process.”

    Because, until this year, we were told that “the current Hugo community” was all of fandom. Well, everyone knows different now.

    TW: “I will admit I have little respect for the worldcon community. It stems from my attendance of a worldcon nearly twenty years ago and meeting attitudes just like this. That you cant be a trufen and have opinions that stray too far from the norm of the self selected worldcon crowd.”

    GRRM tried to raise that same argument, that the Puppies weren’t showing themselves to be truly fannish (in a reply to Mad Mike Williamson) because they weren’t showing themselves to have fannish values. Well, let me tell you what experience I have had with “fannish values”…

    My first two cons were Penguicon 1 and 2, in 2003 and 2004. They weren’t really SF cons as much as they were a celebration of the crossover between the SF and open source software communities. Indeed, I was invited to speak at the first one because I was the leader of an open source project they wanted to hear about. I went back to the second one because it was fun, and thought it might be fun to make a Masquerade costume. The rest, as they say, is history.

    Fast forward a couple of months, to CONvergence 2004. I thought SF fandom might be a fun thing to get more involved in. Boy, was I wrong. I went to a panel Friday evening on LiveJournal. One of the folks there said it was acceptable to mock and troll on LJ, giving the same BS excuse trolls usually do about it being a good thing to take down the self-important. Having just survived a few months of that, I objected. Probably a bit too emphatically, as it happens, but still, it quickly escalated into a full-blown argument.

    I was completely ostracized, to the point of being actively ignored in a panel Saturday morning. The other folks involved? They were embraced and comforted. That might have had something to do with the fact that one of the folks on the other side of the argument was the con chair for Marscon later that year…

    Acceptance? Tolerance? Sense of humor? Inclusiveness? Yeah, right. I was so furious I almost said the hell with it and left Saturday morning. I haven’t been to a fannish event since, until Libertycon this year. It would take something drastic for me to consider returning to Twin Cities fandom, and I look at “fannish values” with a jaundiced eye.

    So no, as much as I consider myself a fan of SF, I don’t think I’m accepted as a “true fan”.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 2:43 pm

  81. Jay,
    What happened to you at Convergence is inexcusable. However, that does not reflect fandom, just a bunch of abusive jerks.
    From my understanding, there is a movement on with the intended aim of preventing harassment and bullying at conventions. Hopefully things are better now.
    All that said, you don’t want to be tarred with Beale, but aren’t you doing the same?

    Comment by sftheory1 - August 25, 2015 3:03 pm

  82. “Jay, you cant have it both ways: You cant distance yourself from Vox day and at the same time be insulted, when he gets voted down.”

    Sure I can. The people cheering NO AWARD don’t differentiate between Sad and Rabid Puppies. I count myself as a Sad Puppy, and if they’re going to cheer the destruction of both, then that lands on me as well as Vox Day. It doesn’t matter to them that I’m no more a fan of Vox Day than they are. They wanted to see Puppies go down, go down they did, so they cheered.

    “So if you’re trying to say that those who cheered the NO AWARD weren’t directing their ire towards you, I think that’s correct.”

    No, John…when I said that the people cheering NO AWARD weren’t speaking for me, I was referring to Nick’s attempt to tie me to them by my support of 4/6 and EPH. That’s all.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 3:06 pm

  83. sftheory1: Perhaps I am being unfair in tarring all of fandom with that brush. At this point, though, I can’t risk a kilobuck to go to another con just to see if I’ll have another miserable experience. If I want to blow a kilobuck like that, I’ll put it into the engine on my rustbucket of a sports car. At least then I’ll have something to show for it.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 3:09 pm

  84. First of all, it’s silly to bring ‘separate but equal’ into this. We’re discussing science fiction awards, and people can get together to create all that they want. That’s not discriminatory.

    I’m sorry if you needed an explanation that “the current Hugo community” was not, in fact, all of fandom. I assumed that was obvious, but I guess not.

    Sad Puppies are part of fandom, probably; I don’t know them personally. Rabid Puppies, maybe not, who knows? But what I do know is that the Sad Puppy/Random Puppy slate gambit was rejected by fandom this year. Is that in question? Most fans don’t like slates. People who want slates will either have to show up in enough numbers that they win the vote, or they can start their own award for ‘conservative’ writing. That’s not ‘separate but equal’.

    The Hugo is a fan award. As it turns out, the majority of fans feel that an award where Vox Day controls the nomination process is not a very valuable one; or, it’s a valuable enough award that none should be given when Vox Day controls the nomination process. If you want some sort of institutional protection for Vox Day, so that he gets to control the nomination process, then you should set up your own award: the VD, perhaps. It’s not discrimination, just the fact that other fans aren’t interested in that award.

    As for what happened when you were rejected socially at a convention 11 years ago, that is irrelevant to this argument. I have no idea what you said or how you said it, or why other people found it offensive. If that is relevant to what happened yesterday, then so is my happy experience at an inclusive D&D club back in the early 90s.

    I think my last thought on this matter is this. Your arguments are all based on what has been done to you, what has been said to you, and definitions of fandom that you’ve been given. If the Sad Puppies had put together a sub-award (perhaps on the vein of the Hugo Loser’s party) and spent the last 8 months celebrating the fiction that qualified for it, discussing its quality, arguing about what was good about it, then they would have produced something of value. Instead, they spent the last 8 months chortling and huffing about CHORFS and SJWs and some nasty acronym for Teresa Nielsen Hayden, a woman who has devoted her life to this community. Where is the value that these Sad/Rabid Puppies are bringing to fandom? Seriously, think about what you can create and build instead of seeking out opportunities for aggrieved butthurt.

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 25, 2015 3:09 pm

  85. Oh Jay, to quote the title – grow up. People didn’t really say ‘we were told that “the current Hugo community” was all of fandom’, if they did they were talking nonsense too.

    It is certainly, and very technically true that the Hugo Community represents all of Worldcon Fandom which is, itself, a tiny, tiny subset of all of Science Fiction fandom – but Worldcon fandom owns the Hugo Awards and runs them so they get to make that call. As I, and others said to the whiny ones 4 or 6 years ago that we were ‘picking the wrong things’ – if you don’t like, get involved and pick something else or set up an Award you prefer. You Do Not Get The Hugos.

    So you got into a fight at a convention and people wouldn’t talk to you afterwards? Were they under an obligation to?

    That happens. It doesn’t just happen in Science Fiction either.

    Maybe conventions aren’t for you – I can’t speak to that, they certainly aren’t for everybody. I like them myself.

    But the Hugo Awards? They belong to the members of the Worldcon and they get to make that call. Don’t like that and don’t like the convention – there is nothing I can do about that.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 3:12 pm

  86. A lot of regular convention goers do actually know each other, they’ve been going for years – they know people, faces, general dos and donts.

    The closest analogy I can think of are some of the annual trade association events I go to around the world where I’ve been a regular for a decade or so. I know where the bars that people meet at are, I know where the good places to eat are and I know where the parties are and I know a bunch of people.

    Even outside of fandom, if you turned up at a trade event and went to a panel on some technical issue and started a fight with people who have been going for years and know each other, what on Earth do you expect to happen?

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 3:19 pm

  87. “if you don’t like, get involved and pick something else”

    They did. That’s what Sad Puppies 2 was about. That went down, to the sound of raucous cheering and victory laps.

    So those words ring particularly hollow.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 3:23 pm

  88. Jay,

    From my perspective, you are more a truefan than me. I haven’t been to a convention in 20 years (even if will go to Worldcon in Helsinki). I think you are wrong in many things you write, but you are a truefan.

    And I do not like those who try to associate you with Beale. You have said what you thought about him and people should accept that.

    For myself, I voted No Award for all the puppies except two: A Single Samurai and Guardians of the Galaxy. First I wanted to no award everything slated. Then, after reading GRRM, I decided to give them a chance. Then I became pissed of at the quality and wanted to No Award. Then thought better… and so on.

    * It is my belief that nominated short stories should actually be short stories, not parts of long going series in a magazine. So No Award to those.
    * It is my belief that fan nominees shouldn’t be based on insulting others as SJWs. No Award to them.
    * It is my belief that rampant homophobia and sexism shouldn’t be nominated. No Award there.
    * It is my belief that a collection of random tweets from internet is as unworthy as can be. No Award.

    And a bigger problem. In an ordinary year I wouldn’t have voted for editor. This time I had to vote Beale below No Award. Which meant I had to rank the other editors even if I knew little of them. It became No Award. Maybe it was bad of me, maybe not. But giving Beale even a small chance of winning? The hell no.

    So yes, for me it was relief when No Award one. Relief because of cheating tactics didn’t win. Relief because the cheating tactics didn’t make subpar work win. Those two go together.

    You might not like that. You might have thought the puppy nominees worthy in some way. That is where we disagree.

    Comment by Hampus - August 25, 2015 3:35 pm

  89. I think it really comes down to this. People cheered and laughed and celebrated when your side lost. I’ve explained a few reasons why I wouldn’t take that personally — particularly the fact that your side seems to have Vox Day on it as well. You’re not interested in those reasons, and you heard people cheering and laughing at you. They weren’t, but don’t want to believe that. That’s life — most of what happens to us is internal.

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 25, 2015 3:37 pm

  90. Let me also note a few things:

    * When, during the Campbell presentation, people started cheering individual nominees, they were told by Gerrold to cheer for all of them together. Otherwise we would have load cheers for some candidates and almost quiet for others.

    * People were instructed not to boo. If booing had been acceptable, think of how it would have sounded when Wrights or Beales names had been read.

    * Applauds for best related works wore started from the podium to make the audience applaud. Otherwise people would have been lots of more quied.

    There are more details, but I’ll stop there. This is just to show that there were parts of the presentation that were made to spare the puppies extra humiliation. Humiliation they should have *known* was coming had they learned from history and the scientologists attempt to game the system.

    Comment by Hampus - August 25, 2015 3:40 pm

  91. “get involved and pick something else “

    LOL….

    You havent been paying attention.

    That is precisely what has been occurring, and much like spoiled children when parents tell them they should share their toys, people are throwing absolute fits.

    “or set up an Award you prefer”

    Yet more seperate, but not really equal.

    “You Do Not Get The Hugos.”

    Why not? arent they property of worldcon, which is made up of people that simply purchase memberships?

    What if enough sad/rabid/warging puppies join and become the majority?

    Would support them telling the worldcon elistists to shove off and make their own award?

    Comment by TW - August 25, 2015 3:43 pm

  92. > This is just to show that there were parts of the presentation that were made to spare the puppies extra humiliation. Humiliation they should have *known* was coming had they
    > learned from history and the scientologists attempt to game the system

    Hampus,

    Perfectly said. This humiliation was 100% obvious back in April — so obvious, in fact, that I turned down a Hugo nomination.

    The Hugo electorate will not stomach an obvious slate. Period. Trying to play the victim, and pretending this has something to do with your political beliefs, is willful blindness.

    Now those who signed up for the humiliation have their feelings hurt when it finally happens, and are blaming those of us who voted NO AWARD for somehow hurting their feelings? Or claim we’re slandering them because they’re conservatives, or live in Ohio, or eat kale, or some other nonsense?

    I can’t say it any plainer than I did above: those who couldn’t see this coming back in April are either idiots, or so blinded by pride that they couldn’t see the obvious.

    Blame us all you like. It doesn’t fly.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 25, 2015 4:06 pm

  93. TW: you seem to be more than just a little confused about how the WSFS works and I had started writing a REALLY long post explaining it – when I remembered that there was, in fact, a gigantic, global, database which lets you search things and learn them for yourself.

    The best I can say for what did happen was the Prime Rib carvery they threw in the Con Suite on Saturday night was delicious and thank you to everybody who signed up who wasn’t planning to because I enjoyed it very much.

    The thing is, and I hate the fact we’re still arguing this point: you didn’t sign up and pick something. You used a well known and unused exploit in the nomination system and jammed a bunch of stuff onto the ballot that had no place being there – no really, it didn’t.

    Now you’re upset that when it came to the voting system, which uses a different and much harder to screw with system, you lost (Sad and Rabid). Grow a pair, that’s what happens when you try and game something you didn’t research properly.

    John O’Neill outlined what would probably happen back in April and he was right. I must admit that until Saturday I couldn’t be sure if all the new sign ups were actual Worldcon fans protecting the institution or Sads and Rabids there to make a point. Now we know which it is we can move on.

    Here’s my recommendation, and I think Kate Paulk has said it is her plan: publish a damned reading list, just like the BASFA ones and others, let people read and nominate as they like. Let The Rabid’s publish a slate of whatever Beale will come up with (which will probably lock up the short fiction, again) and then we get to put another asterisk against 2016 and move on to 2017 when slates won’t work.

    That said, if Beale does take hostages and people clearly say they want nothing to do with him or his slate, I suspect we’ll just ignore him.

    That was not an option this year.

    I will also say, I think the Sad Puppies have more reason to be annoyed at him than the rest of us – but they still have to own the substandard stuff they put up for the fiction categories and accept it didn’t make their argument any stronger.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 4:07 pm

  94. Oh and TW – if the Sad and Rabids want to take control of the Worldcon, and, as per the constitution of the WSFS, run the damn things too. I couldn’t be more happy for them and would be interested to see if a) they could bid and win, and b) what they do with it.

    You believe that’s likely? Because I don’t.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 4:13 pm

  95. “You used a well known and unused exploit in the nomination system and jammed a bunch of stuff onto the ballot that had no place being there – no really, it didn’t.”

    Sounds like “get involved and pick something else”…just because you personally dont like what is picked doesnt make you the arbiter of what should be on the list.

    What makes an arbiter of what goes on the list is paying your fee, and taking your chances.

    “Now you’re upset that when it came to the voting system, which uses a different and much harder to screw with system, you lost (Sad and Rabid). Grow a pair, that’s what happens when you try and game something you didn’t research properly.”

    Nah, Im not upset about the voting.

    Heck I am not even really upset about the childish behavior of the ceremony, I think it just proves something I have thought for years. (though I will admit Mr ONeills open support of that childishness is a tad upsetting, simply because I thought he was a better person, but I will get over it)

    Sad and Rabids … take control of the Worldcon, and, as per the constitution of the WSFS, run the damn things too…You believe that’s likely? Because I don’t.

    Nah, I think the worldcon elitists will burn the place down (with ever increasing rules changes to keep the “riff raff” out) long before that has a chance of happening.

    “grow a pair”

    WOW, resorting to petty sexism is nice. Though typical.

    “The Hugo electorate will not stomach an obvious slate. Period.”

    Nah, it is much like sexism and racism, people will stomach what they agree with.

    The electorate stomached voting a “no award” slate.

    They stomached years of slates from various other sources. It just wasnt until one with with they disagreed with (sad puppies 2) that they had a problem with slates.

    Comment by TW - August 25, 2015 4:31 pm

  96. I think what’s bizarre about this whole conversation is how it completely ignores how communities work. The Hugo awards are given out by fans at an annual convention. Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies spend 9 months mocking fans for past choices, after they screw up the nominating process this year. Result? HOW DARE THEY CHEER WHEN OUR NOMINATIONS DIDN’T WIN.

    Sad Puppies invent insulting nicknames for fans — CHORF, SJWs, whatever they had for TNH — and deploy these liberally for months. Result? I DON’T FEEL WELCOME AS A CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE THEY CHEERED AT NO AWARD.

    Sad Puppies invoke the metaphors of battle for 8 months. They are Churchill and FDR. They are fighting the good fight. Result? THAT CHEERING FOR NO AWARD IS REALLY REALLY OUT OF BOUNDS AND IT MAKES ME FEEL UNWELCOME.

    As said above, grow a pair.

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 25, 2015 4:32 pm

  97. “They stomached years of slates from various other sources.”

    Yes yes, of course we did. The thing is, after months and months and months of reading this charge, I’ve not seen one.

    But I don’t want to go over that again because George RR Martin demolished it better than I ever could hope.

    Finally, the WSFS Constitution is available, the processes involved shouldn’t come as a shock to any adult human being who has spent any time in a structured formal association. But keep with the self-pity and complaining about being locked out – it’s just serving to confirm my growing biases.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 4:54 pm

  98. I am a (Canadian) Conservative, which makes me essentially a communist in the US. I didn’t purchase a membership for WorldCon because I had not read all the stories that were nominated, so I was not going to vote with ignorance. I have only read 2 of all the nominated works, “Turncoat”, which wasn’t that good and “Red Hot Equations” which was one of the best things in Riding the Red Horse, but still not great. I didn’t like the snarky references in Riding the Red Horse about SJW and the like in the author introductions, it turned me off. I have a couple of Bryan Thomas Schmidt anthologies, both of which I enjoyed. I look forward to more work he does.

    That first paragraph is to establish where I am as a reader. What I want to say is “Quit playing the victim card.” I tire of groups that don’t get their way complaining that everyone is picking on them. The Puppies, both Sad and Rabid, put forward a plan to push people into choosing their selections. This plan was rejected, now Sad & Rabid are both putting forward these arguments that they are victims, after months of gloating, veiled insults and the like. Jay, complains about being grouped with VD, but here is the question, have you commented negatively on his poor behavior? If yes, then great, otherwise you can understand how others lump the two of you together.

    Grow up, please. This applies to anyone gloating over the fact that the SP/RP slate went down in flames and to those playing the “Oh we are hated”, both are obnoxious and uncalled for.

    Comment by JLB - August 25, 2015 6:21 pm

  99. “Jay, complains about being grouped with VD, but here is the question, have you commented negatively on his poor behavior?”

    Yes, repeatedly, here and other places.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 6:51 pm

  100. 100th comment. Woo-hoo!

    Comment by CMR - August 25, 2015 7:38 pm

  101. A couple of comments before writing my own damn post:

    First addressing “our” side:

    1) Some have said, “The Puppies were mocking and jeering and would have been gloating like crazy if they had won.” All true, I think (for a subset of the Puppies, at least, not all). But responding to that with your own mocking and jeering is Second Grade Schoolyard stuff … don’t you want to be BETTER than them?

    2) John, you keep saying the applause was directly only against the Rabids … very possibly true, but not something easily parsed when sitting there. I can see why Jay was offended, and I don’t think his saying he was offended means he was at all allying himself with Vox Day.

    Now addressing the “Puppies”:

    1) You keep saying there were slates before this, organized by SJWs or Truefen or whoever. Yet you never show actual evidence. I do believe there have been somewhat quiet (or not) campaigns in favor of a single person (and sometimes a single work, as with the Hamilton/Beese novel, or the Elron stuff). Most of those were sort of “humanitarian” in intent, like the efforts to finally get Stanley Schmidt a Hugo. Some were perhaps less savory. I disapproved of them all (and said so) — when I detected them, in any case. But it should be noted they weren’t affecting more than 1 or at most 2 slots on the ballot. There were also cases, and I complained about these as well, where very popular authors with devoted followings got what I thought were undeserving works on the ballot because they mentioned Hugo-eligible works on their popular blogs. I can’t say they did ANYTHING wrong (though I can see the argument that what can look like Hugo-begging might be a tad distasteful) … I do, however, wish their fans would be more discriminating in their nominations.

    2) And why oh why don’t you all GET the difference between legality and morality? Sure, the slates were not ILLEGAL. But they were — in their execution — IMMORAL. (Or UNETHICAL, if you prefer.) Stop bleating “We did nothing against the rules”. So what!

    More detail later somewhere (not sure John wants an endless seris of posts here).

    Comment by Rich Horton - August 25, 2015 7:56 pm

  102. > “Jay, complains about being grouped with VD, but here is the question, have you commented negatively on his poor behavior?”
    >
    > Yes, repeatedly, here and other places.

    I’m happy to vouch for Jay on that score.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 25, 2015 8:03 pm

  103. Please tell me more about this cost to peoples’ careers and reputations.

    I can see in the context that you think it should be glaringly obvious, but it isn’t clear to me.

    Comment by jeffro - August 25, 2015 8:38 pm

  104. “And why oh why don’t you all GET the difference between legality and morality? Sure, the slates were not ILLEGAL. But they were — in their execution — IMMORAL. (Or UNETHICAL, if you prefer.)”

    Morals and ethics are necessarily individual. It can be argued that what was done was done to prevent a greater breach of ethics, that of systematically excluding non-SJW-approved works.

    And before you chide me about fannish ethics, reflect that my experience of them is not the rainbows and unicorns that fans make it out to be.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 9:27 pm

  105. Just as arguing that applauding the No Awards was OK because the Sad Puppies had promised to do the same or worse had they won is childish, so is arguing that breaching ethics because you have decided that others have also breached ethics.

    Morals are not, in my opinion, “necessarily individual”. And ethics, by definition, are not individual, but are a product of a group’s shared social construct.

    Your treatment at Convergence was appalling, Jay, and I am sorry that fans acted that way, and I know very well that they do sometimes act that way. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

    Comment by Rich Horton - August 25, 2015 9:32 pm

  106. As I said else thread, I will accept that there is a problem with how a lot of fans see themselves and how they act (see also, geek social fallacies: http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) – but actually the idea that conventions are ‘safe’ places is and always has been misleading, there’s a reason my wife doesn’t do conventions.

    Doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make what was done to the Hugo Awards right either. But one of the reasons I get so wound up about this stuff is the lying just won’t end.

    ” It can be argued that what was done was done to prevent a greater breach of ethics, that of systematically excluding non-SJW-approved works”

    No, no it cannot. It can not be argued that way. It has never been possible to argue that way. And the reason for that is that it is simply not the case. In all of this, there has been no evidence presented that this happened. The whole of this nonsense has been built on a fabrication that will just not die.

    Rich: Between the name calling, the constant repetition of canards and half truths, it really does get harder and harder to maintain any degree of high ground.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 10:20 pm

  107. Dave, as long as you continue to ignore the Puppies’ complaints, you will never get anywhere toward resolving this divide.

    Hard data? Maybe not. But when I’m told that the stuff I like is inferior to stuff that’s literarily good but doesn’t meet the threshold requirement of actually being SFF (If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love) or values gimmicks over story (Leckie’s work, Scalzi’s Lock In) or preachily hits the common leftist tropes (Scalzi’s Fuzzy Nation, far heavier on the anticorporate hatred than the story called for), then I’m going to conclude, when it’s true fans telling me this, that SJW-approved works are indeed being systematically excluded.

    I’ll believe they’re not when David Weber, or John Ringo, or David Drake, or Tom Kratman, or any of the current crop of MilSF writers wins a Best Novel. (Even if not for a piece of MilSF.)

    And don’t take Laura Mixon as a counterexample, either. She punched her SJW ticket at the Hugos by bringing up the totally irrelevant-to-that-venue Black Lives Matter nonsense.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 11:08 pm

  108. “Only the most hardened Puppy kickers refuse to acknowledge that the Puppies have a point about the fiction they love being shoved aside for major awards.”

    And what fiction would that be? Entertaining fiction about brains in jars? Literary fiction about talking cats? Bland fiction about bored priests shepherding lost souls? Thematically, the puppy slates were all over the map (which in a way is a good thing, but certainly does not support the idea that they were about a certain KIND of fiction that had been overlooked).

    And I don’t buy the idea that it was about MilSF (Ancillary Sword was MilSF, and many puppy nominees were not) or conservative messages (The protagonist of Dark Between the Stars was a single father railing about mining interests that destroyed the planet with their unchecked greed). What the nominees had in common was that they (a) were buddies of the puppy leaders and (b) their fiction was short of the standards of Hugo winners.

    “And for the most part, the puppies have (grudgingly) admitted that they could have fielded a better slate.”

    Which ones? Every puppy post I read still complains about the best minds of their generation destroyed by puppy-kickers etc.

    Comment by microtherion - August 25, 2015 11:10 pm

  109. Jay, I appreciate that you named specifics

    “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love”

    which did not win.

    “or values gimmicks over story (Leckie’s work”

    Have you actually read it? Do you really think so many people would like non-story novels just because they used gender pronouns in nonstandard ways?

    “or preachily hits the common leftist tropes (Scalzi’s Fuzzy Nation”

    which was not, to my knowledge, even nominated for a Hugo.

    “when David Weber, or John Ringo, or David Drake, or Tom Kratman, or any of the current crop of MilSF writers wins a Best Novel.”

    Why, then, did the puppy slates only nominate ONE work by these authors combined? And did you really consider that particular work to be Hugo caliber?

    Comment by microtherion - August 25, 2015 11:32 pm

  110. Jay:

    “GRRM tried, and I think he made headway…but even he is now defending the cheering, if tepidly.”

    Could you give as an example of this? Because GRRM wrote his absolutely first post about the Hugos today. And in it he writes:

    “I also misliked the roar of approval that went up at the announcement of the first No Award. I understand it, yes… fandom as a whole is heartily sick of the Puppies and delighted to see them brought low… but No Award is an occasion for sadness, not celebration, especially in THESE two categories. For what its worth, neither Parris nor I participated in the cheering.”

    Comment by Hampus - August 26, 2015 12:52 am

  111. Jay: here lies the rub, extraordinary claims and actions require hard data.

    Dinosaur, which didn’t float my boat either, didn’t win.

    Scalzi didn’t get nominated for Fuzzy Nation, even without the slates Lock In wouldn’t have made the ballot.

    Anciliary Justice was about the best SF book I read last year, I nominated it and voted for it. Had Banks made the ballot that would have been different, but he did not. The pronoun thing was a minor part of an amazingly well crafted novel. But don’t take Hugo voters word for it, the damn thing practically swept the boards.

    Where was Weber? Ringo? Hamilton? Asher? Reynolds? In the puppy slate? We had a mediocre offering from Tom Kratman which didn’t deserve to be there.

    You do not get to make extraordinary claims and demand Justice then fail to deliver,

    I’d love to see Alistair Reynolds lift a rocket, he is, in my opinion, one of the best Hard SF writers working today, but I don’t think the fact he doesn’t win is some vast conspiracy either.

    How about Ian McDonald? The Dervish House had AI, international politics, art theft and a huge commodities con…. That lost btw, but it sounds up the puppy street, so to speak.

    So give me hard data or stop claiming conspiracy. There’s no more a conspiracy to keep the stuff you like off the Hugo’s than there is to keep mine off.

    Comment by daveon - August 26, 2015 1:10 am

  112. I did not like Ancillary justice (I diodnt read the sequel) because I felt the pacing is way off. But I see that the Worldbuilding is great, probably on par with Dune (which I really, really like) which was probably why its nominated and won.
    The other titles were already discussed.

    Comment by peer - August 26, 2015 9:28 am

  113. […] zingers here and there among the spin and the sour grapes that are particularly entertaining. But this bit from John O’Neill over at Black Gate I think deserves more […]

    Pingback by Tell Me More About This Cost to Peoples’ Careers | Jeffro's Space Gaming Blog - August 26, 2015 10:04 am

  114. I guess David Gerrold couldn’t stand having his jerk move with the asterisks called out for being a jerk move on his Facebook page, since he’s now blocked me.

    Typical SJW behavior: when uncomfortable truths crop up, shut down the one telling them.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 10:13 am

  115. I saw the asterisk as a sincere attempt at a gentle and affectionate joke.

    It’s clear it failed, because feelings were raw. But in fandom — or in any organization nominally composed of friends — jokes of this nature are common, and accepted with grace and (usually) laughter.

    It was not a jerk move, and it is a jerk move (sorry, Jay, but that’s the way I see it) to complain about it in such a way. To gently suggest that it was, as it were, “too soon” for such a thing, I can see that. But for Ghu’s sake, please try to ascribe the best motives you can to all involved.

    Also I don’t believe David originated the asterisk.

    (And anyone who does not see that all the awards this year, even (I’m sad to acknowledge) ours at Lightspeed, are to some extent tainted — asterisked — is blind. Those of use who won while some of the competition was No Awarded know that we didn’t face a “full field”. We can think (I certainly do for Lightspeed, and I have last year’s win for affirmation) that we would have won anyway, but we still acknowledge that if people had voted for Abyss and Apex and/or Andromeda Spaceways who No Awarded them as a protest against the process, it might have changed the outcome; and also that if other contenders (Interzone, perhaps?) had been in the field, it might have changed the outcome.)

    Comment by Rich Horton - August 26, 2015 10:43 am

  116. Rich, it’s obvious to anyone who’s paying the slightest attention that that attempt at a joke would come across as a mean-spirited slam, especially given the acrimony that led up to it.

    And I don’t know if Gerrold originated the asterisk or not, but since he was the one bragging about sending $2900 to Terry Pratchett’s charity from selling them, he was obviously deeply involved…and that, in turn, calls into his question as a neutral MC for the awards ceremony.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 10:59 am

  117. They were being sold at the WSFS table which is essentially the ‘management body’ of the Worldcon – David was effectively working for them to deliver their award. And you don’t think raising money for a charity favoured by a much loved fan figure and former GoH is something to crow about? I do.

    There was an entire track of the program and a hall expo dedicated to Terry Pratchett and the Diskworld too – rather a good one it much be said.

    Jay – would a ‘Hugo for being a good writer of stuff people like but generally not recognized otherwise’ Hugo help here? Because obviously people are struggling with the idea of awarding the best works in a given year versus awarding people who have a good body of work.

    If you think that would help this mess, I’m prepared to be a sacrificial lamb and present it at the toe curling horror of next year’s business meeting.

    Yea gods I’ve said it in public now.

    Comment by daveon - August 26, 2015 11:49 am

  118. That the joke would be perceived as mean-spirited by some (many) was fairly clear, yes. That is SHOULD have been is less so. To take an example, my wife, a generally neutral observer, was appalled by the applause during the ceremony for the No Awards, but thought the asterisk genuinely funny.

    This is a clear case to me where the SPs should have taken the high road and taken the asterisk in the spirit it was presented.

    As for David bragging about raising money for Sir Terry’s foundation — and it wasn’t bragging, it was general praise for the efforts of fandom in general, and of the WSFS — are you seriously COMPLAINING that a worthy charity benefited?

    Dave, not sure how I’d define such an award in a useful way. And I might be a bit worried that such an award would be seen as another slam: “Hey, you’re not good enough for a real Hugo, so here’s a consolation prize.” Much like many folks took Robert Sheckley’s Author Emeritus award from SFWA — he was fairly clearly a Grand Master candidate (if not a shoo-in), and the Emeritus thing looked like a “well, no GM for you, here’s a consolation” to some (though by all accounts not to Sheckley, who received it happily, I believe).

    Comment by Rich Horton - August 26, 2015 12:29 pm

  119. > Please tell me more about this cost to peoples’ careers and reputations.
    > I can see in the context that you think it should be glaringly obvious, but it isn’t clear to me.

    Jeffro,

    There are multiple aspects to it, obviously, but let me dwell on those that seemed instantly obvious back in April.

    First, don’t piss off your audience. As I’ve said many times, the Hugo electorate don’t like to be dictated to. Their response to the Puppy ballot was entirely predictable — they were going to (fairly or unfairly) reject the whole thing out of hand. It didn’t take any great insight to see that, even back in April.

    When it happened to us, the temptation was strong to accept the nomination anyway, and then spend the next four months lobbying for a fair shake. But that’s a fool’s game, because almost no one is paying attention… and anyway, most voters made up their mind the instant they heard about the slate. There was just no way we were going to be able to reach the bulk of voters.

    Accepting the nomination, and becoming part of the Puppy slate, meant we were going to get spanked, and hard. The Hugo electorate was pissed off, and there was nothing we could say to them that would mitigate that.

    Now, plenty of Puppies tried — and tried hard — to make their case in the intervening four months. I paid attention, and I thought several did a great job. So much so that, just as I said in my Sunday article, I began to doubt my initial prediction, and believed that a compelling majority of Hugo voters would give the Puppies a fair shake, and vote on the merits.

    Nope. In the end, nothing we nominees said made any difference. The Hugo electorate spanked the Puppies, and hard, for the crime of being a slate, and threatening the integrity of the awards.

    So, now that it’s over, how has being a losing Puppy nominee damaged reputations and careers?

    The answer is twofold. One, you’re a loser. You lost out to “No Award.” That’s only happened 10 times in Hugo history… and half of them were on Sunday.

    Second, rightly or wrongly, the nominees are branded as Puppies, and right now that’s a losing brand. It may not be a losing brand forever, but from the looks of the Hugo voting, it sure ain’t a brand that the majority of Hugo voters look kindly on.

    There are things the nominees can do, of course — continue to produce good work. continue to network, and continue to make their case.

    But I think the evidence of the past four months is pretty compelling: no one is listening. You were part of a slate that was loudly and very successfully repudiated by fandom, and that’s all they need to know to form a negative opinion.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 26, 2015 12:29 pm

  120. Mr. Maynard: “Typical SJW behavior: when uncomfortable truths crop up, shut down the one telling them.”

    I am truly amazed that this actually raises hackles. When Scalzi brags about blocking people I always think, “Who would care about that?” It always seemed to me like the equivalent of my kids saying “I won’t be your friend anymore.” But apparently on the internet (on the internet!) it really does cause distress. Odd how we respond emotionally more to some of these virtual interactions than we ever would to the same thing face to face.

    NB: Arguments we don’t feel like responding to for the millionth time, ad hominem assaults on our character, and endless repetition of banal non sequiturs do not constitute “uncomfortable truths.”

    Comment by Matt W - August 26, 2015 1:09 pm

  121. Jay simply will not drop this stick, and neither will many of the Puppies. Some of the language posted by them is truly ridiculous. I don’t need to quote it because it’s all being collected over on File770 by Mike Glyer.

    But I want to suggest what’s happening with this description of a personality called a Wound Collector. A Wound Collector is someone who holds onto all the slights, disagreements, and perceived wrongs forever, and brings them up over and over and over to justify lashing back. A Wound Collector is the opposite of a Gandhi or a Christ or a Dalai Lama.

    I submit to you that the Puppies are, for the most part, Wound Collectors. In this very site, we have Jay complaining about how he was treated at a con, what, 10 years ago? Longer? This is the exact same kind of “I’ll show you” rage that Larry Correra displayed over his treatment when he was up for a Campbell.

    Wound Collectors are inflexible. They will not let go of perceived slights, no matter what the reality is. They will not forgive. They will not reflect. They will not move beyond.

    What I don’t understand is why so many people here are trying to placate Jay, and to lesser extent angrier Puppies like TW and Wild Ape. Wound Collectors CANNOT be placated, because they are narcissists. Everyone else must apologize to THEM, and maybe, if they are feeling magnanimous this minute, they will drop it. But they will never let it go. Another perceived slight and they are back at it again.

    Jay, there was no slating before this WorldCon. There was no cabal. There was no conspiracy. The majority of fans were offending by slating, which has nothing to do with anyone’s politics. But the behavior of the Puppies is ultimately related to politics, because, for some reason, Wound Collectors seem to be Conservatives (and no, I am not saying all Conservatives are Wound Collectors, because they aren’t). That’s why Puppygate is so similar to GamerGate: it’s a lot of the same inflexible personalities who hold on to miniscule grievances and repeat them over and over and over and over and over.

    John, I discovered Black Gate because of the Puppy Kerfuffle. I love this site. I admire your principled refusal of the Hugo. I promise to nominate you for next year for all your good work. I appreciate your continuing to engage with the Puppies, but I suspect the arguments are for those playing along at home. Wound Collectors are not interested in learning. They are there to punish everyone else, and to see the world burn.

    I conclude with a brief quote on how Wound Collectors view the world, which seems apropos:

    There is no forgiveness on their part, no balanced look at life; they are always looking backward instead of forward.

    – For the wound collector, time does not heal all wounds. In fact, time allows them to collect even more wounds.

    Comment by cathy from encino - August 26, 2015 3:00 pm

  122. Note, in the last Hugo Thread (which is pretty much dead), I called out one of the Puppies, Wild Ape, for lying about reading Anita Sarkeesian’s contribution. It was locked out of Best Related Work by the slate.

    I will say it again, Wild Ape, you lied when you said you read it. I can prove you did not, and challenge you to tell us what it was about, when and where you happened to read it, and why you are so vitriolic toward what is basically a basic feminist critique of video game tropes. The material is the sort of exercise any college freshman would be expected to do in a gender studies class. There is nothing offensive to anyone unless you think women are not people. I do not believe you ever read Sarkeesian’s work and I can prove it. And I want you to apologize to the Black Gate readership for lying and saying you had and for misrepresenting it.

    Comment by cathy from encino - August 26, 2015 3:05 pm

  123. Does anyone else feel like their computer has been taken over by hackers showing an endless loop of the Zapruder Film?

    Comment by Thomas Parker - August 26, 2015 3:17 pm

  124. “The material is the sort of exercise any college freshman would be expected to do in a gender studies class.”

    This is its own indictment, considering that gender studies classes are nothing less than SJW indoctrination sessions.

    “There is nothing offensive to anyone unless you think women are not people.”

    I think women are people. I think gender studies classes are fluff designed to provide employment for idiots who can’t earn their way in the real world. I am offended that there are people who think they’re worthy of serious academic study and required material for all college students. I am even more offended that those promoting them think that college should be a safe space where people’s beliefs should not be challenged.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 3:43 pm

  125. Rich: I need to think on this more, as I think we need something that deals with the problem of people doing an amazing body of work that individually ends up lost in the noise of the Hugo Award categories – so we end up with things like the Best Series Hugo and the YA Hugo, neither of which I expect to live to see come out of committee :)

    I think the question of value is a good one, although I’ll say that people love Hugos irrespective of what the category is, and it would largely depend on what company you find yourself in. Then again I’m thinking about people like Pratchett, Banks and others who even with the GoH title should certainly have had a rocket.

    Comment by daveon - August 26, 2015 3:54 pm

  126. > What I don’t understand is why so many people here are trying to placate Jay, and to lesser extent
    > angrier Puppies like TW and Wild Ape. Wound Collectors CANNOT be placated, because they are narcissists.

    Cathy,

    I appreciate the comments. And you may even be right.

    But I think it falls on us to try to reach out, and — at the very least — UNDERSTAND what the other side has to say. I truly believe the big underlying issue in this debate isn’t narcissism, or a culture war, or inflexible hatred, or those other things Vox Day or N.K. Jemisin like to claim. It’s a far more common human ailment: misunderstanding.

    I bet that if the Hugo electorate understood what the Puppies were trying to say — really understood it — then no one would have voted No Award this year, and the Puppy ballot would have been accepted. (Having said that, I chiefly blame the Puppies for the complete lack of understanding of their motives…. the PR campaign to win over the hearts and minds of the electorate consisted mostly of celebration, vitriol and hatred.)

    There’s only one way to heal this, and that’s to keep talking. Even if — especially if — it seems that other side side will never understand you.

    Jay, TW, Ape and some others have put up with an enormous amount of criticism here on BG blog, but in large part they keep at it, because I think they believe the same thing I do. That understanding is possible, and is a worthwhile goal. I salute them for that.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 26, 2015 3:55 pm

  127. I think gender studies classes are fluff designed to provide employment for idiots who can’t earn their way in the real world.

    I am even more offended that those promoting them think that college should be a safe space where people’s beliefs should not be challenged.

    These two statements are contradictory, no? Gender sensitive classes in college were precisely the ones that challenged my beliefs. What sort of curriculum do you envisage here? What beliefs should be challenged? Only ones that you disagree with?

    Comment by Matt W - August 26, 2015 4:09 pm

  128. I’m referring to the clamor for “safe spaces” where only the SJW line is acceptable and those who disagree with its tenets should sit down, shut up, and be properly indoctrinated.

    And would you agree with the push to have gender studies classes at Dartmouth in every department? Even the hard sciences, like physics and math?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 4:19 pm

  129. Apparently I don’t read BG enough to have seen your condemnation of VD, fair enough.

    later you post this:
    “Typical SJW behavior: when uncomfortable truths crop up, shut down the one telling them.”

    Since SJW is a derogatory term, how would you feel if you were constantly referred to as a RWNJ?

    Grow up, please

    JLB

    Comment by JLB - August 26, 2015 4:26 pm

  130. > And would you agree with the push to have gender studies classes at Dartmouth in every department? Even the hard sciences, like physics and math?

    I’m not sure what you’re asking here; it seems like a straw argument. I took the time to look it up and Dartmouth has no gender studies requirement for any undergraduate students (except, of course, Gender Studies majors/minors), though they do require a non-English language, Physical Education, and Natural and Technological Sciences courses (even for non engineering/sciences majors.)

    But, yeah, I do think that every student, even, you know, engineering students like I was, would benefit from taking a gender studies course. Just like I think writing, politics, economics, world religions, literature, etc provide exposure to more rigorous critical thinking about aspects of culture.

    Comment by Matt W - August 26, 2015 5:02 pm

  131. angrier Puppies like TW

    I’m angry?

    Nah.

    Passionate in my particular worldview and in arguing my points, I would take. Disappointed in people I “know on the internet”, sure.

    But Im not angry. Believe me…You wouldnt like me when I am angry. (Of course you probably dont like me now 😉 ) This is me being Felix, not “The Engine”…(anybody get that reference?)

    Reading around various websites over the last few days. Compared to huge swathes of puppy sympathetic folks, the ones that post here are the calm ones.

    We seem to be the ones who still think an accord would probably be best.

    Think on that.

    The ones that have been posting here are the most conciliatory of the “puppy” side (for lack of better, easier nomenclature).

    There is A LOT of pent up anger at the SF/F elitists among groups of “puppy” fandom. People who have for years ignored things like the Hugos, people who have long decided that that the worldcon flavor of fandom wasnt their style.

    The problem has always been motivating those folks who have “walked away” to get involved.

    The behavior at the ceremony, and subsequent gloating and “rubbing the puppies nose in it” on twitter, facebook, and other places around the ‘net, did nothing to soothe any ruffled feathers.

    In some strange ways that behavior seems to have motivated people more than it has disheartened people.

    I have seen more folks on the puppy side say they are going to get involved “next year” than I saw last year. Though, since distance makes people forget their short term anger, I am not sure it will happen, but it could.

    But as usual, time will tell.

    Comment by TW - August 26, 2015 5:02 pm

  132. > In some strange ways that behavior seems to have motivated people more than it has disheartened people.

    I hope so. I hope that it gets people buying books, writing criticism, discussing the merits of particular sub-genres, trading lists of favorites, exploring ideas, advocating for forgotten favorites or passed-over gems, organizing events, making friends, etc. I hope all that energy isn’t spent in meta-discussion and virtual tactics on the internet.

    Comment by Matt W - August 26, 2015 5:24 pm

  133. I was a small-town newspaper reporter for a number of years before law school, and covered a number of fires. I’d be on the scene taking pictures, and the firefighters were spraying water, and eventually, when the fire went out, there would be some applause.
    Relief applause. I never heard someone say “Those jerks are applauding that a building burned down!”
    I feel like the Rabid Puppies stormed in and lit the thing of fire with a wide-ranging slate and encouragement to vote it exactly as is. The perception that they set the thing on fire is not b/c they are politically conservative, but b/c they were kind of loudmouthed dicks about it. The sad puppies were talking about it, and left some gasoline and flares lying around in reach of some rabids (um, all metaphors break down at some point, right?) and as a result, get some of the blame.
    So I understand the applause. At the same time, I’m thinking “why applaud? There’s a lot of rebuildling that needs to be done.”
    Having said all that, I think the asterisk was kind of jerk move. The slates were instituted within the rules (not the spirit, but the letter). They were no awarded within the rules. The Hugos awardes should be in-rule Hugos, which means no asterisk.

    Comment by thehessiangoeshome - August 26, 2015 5:26 pm

  134. Matt, I’m referring to this list of demands made at a sit-in in the office of Dartmouth’s president, as reported at Power Line.

    And no, it’s not a requirement to have every student take a gender studies course. It’s a specific demand to “Incorporate into each department at least one queer studies class.” Queer physics? Queer chemistry? (Not my word; theirs.)

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 6:52 pm

  135. Jay,
    What’s your point about Dartmouth? Not everyone finds a small scale sit in at Dartmouth terrifying.
    Cathy,
    I think you’re right about wound collecting being an integral part of the puppies.

    Comment by sftheory1 - August 26, 2015 7:28 pm

  136. My point is that that’s what the SJWs demand, and they’re going to keep demanding until they get it…and I don’t find “that’s introductory gender studies material” to be an excuse for SJW bigotry.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 7:38 pm

  137. JLB: I’ll quit calling them SJWs when they quit using the bogus term “social justice” as something to be fought for.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 7:38 pm

  138. Jay,
    Gender Studies or Women’s Studies ensure that 50% of the human population isn’t ignored in scholarship. History does have a distressing history of ignoring women. Things are better now, but how much better?
    The students involved in the sit in are fighting to make Dartmouth a better university and safer campus. Dartmouth wasn’t investigated over its handling of rape cases for nothing, was it?
    Social justice is always something to be fought for. Otherwise, only the aristocracy would have any rights to speak of.
    Finally, where’s the bigotry?

    Comment by sftheory1 - August 26, 2015 7:56 pm

  139. Jay:

    1) There’s nothing in that document requesting queer chemistry or anything of the sort. The quote you’re referencing is a clear sub-demand applying specifically to the African and African American Studies, Latin American, Latino and Caribbean Studies, and Native American Studies programs they’re asking the university to instate. The want queer studies courses in those departments (which, to be clear, don’t even exist at Dartmouth at present) not in every department in the university. You’re throwing straw.

    2) You’ve decried above how you don’t like liberals or SJWs or whatever putting you in the same category as Beale. But, you sure do like to use a pretty broad brush in reverse.

    You’re not discussing in good faith. You’re using half-truths and straw arguments to bolster your points. You’re attacking with words like “idiots” and “vile”. And you’re marching out tired old talking points that have long since ceased to carry any rhetorical function other than sloganeering.

    Comment by Matt W - August 26, 2015 8:27 pm

  140. Matt, John used the word “idiot” more than I have, and the only use of the word “vile” is in your message.

    I’ll go back and reread that document, instead of just the Power Line summary. You may be right, and if so, then that’s not as silly as demanding queer studies in every department of the university…but come on, now: multiplying studies programs are still only designed to give employment to academics who can’t make it in the real world. They bear no resemblance tot eh real world at all.

    sftheory1: Dartmouth was investigated because its handling of rape cases didn’t meet the current federal guidance, which includes a total destruction of due process for the accused. Fortunately, courts are putting the brakes on those star chambers.

    And their proposals might make it a better place for unemployable academics, but for students? Not so much so.

    There is no such thing as social justice. Justice is individual and personal. “Social justice” is a leftist codeword for equality of outcome, the most evil concept ever committed to political theory. More people have been massacred in its name than any other cause, by an order of magnitude or so. “Social justice” should be fought, not fought for.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 9:22 pm

  141. Oh, and where’s the bigotry? How about in all the folks who talk about “white privilege”? A white male is automatically hated unless he genuflects at the altars of the Left.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 9:29 pm

  142. 1) And for that matter even if they did, so what? It’s not as if Dartmouth is the whole world, so if they want to turn equality studies up to 11 it will simply crash their reputation (“queer physics” == “we’re not serious about STEM”), not anywhere else.

    Comment by Orc - August 26, 2015 9:43 pm

  143. This is off topic (i.e., not about the Hugos), but I think it’s still appropriate given the positions people are taking and I think what really underlies the political animus that has and will drive the current brouhaha. Just for the record, I don’t consider myself a conservative or a liberal. I used to think of myself as a far leftist until I spent some time slumming with a group of anarcho-socialists. I came to realize that they really were just an activist club and if they had any political affinity it was solely to the socialist side of the hyphen. I felt a stronger allegiance to the anarchist side. And I still consider myself an anarchist, these days without the hyphen though.

    I have some views that would put me in the conservative camp (e.g., I’m a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and am an NRA member). I have other views that would put me in the liberal camp (e.g., I’m pro-choice and also a supporter of Planned Parenthood).

    I work as a psychology professor at a mid-size Midwestern public university. One of the more insidious ideologies that has manifest itself in the American university setting is what Christina Hoff Summers calls Gender Feminism. She compares it against Equity Feminism, which was first-wave feminism focused on equal rights, fair treatment, and anti-discrimination. Gender feminism holds as self-evident truths certain concepts which I believe have no value. The include the concepts of patriarchy, toxic masculinity, gender roles being solely or mostly determined by social causes, rape culture, rape apologists, and even the concept of misogyny (a concept which I feel is valuable but which I feel is applied too liberally in situations where the concept stereotype is more appropriate).

    Gender feminism is a political ideology that is tied to left-wing politics. I suspect, some of the motivation of the Sad Puppies (which I’m not a part of) has been in response to gender feminist claims in SFF.

    Comment by NOLAbert - August 26, 2015 9:58 pm

  144. > A white male is automatically hated unless he genuflects at the altars of the Left.

    Jay,

    I think we’ve reached the end of productive conversation.

    When you make statements like that and expect them to be accepted as part of a rational discourse on science fiction, I think we’ve stopped making good use of everyone’s time.

    I thank everyone for their time.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 26, 2015 10:04 pm

  145. > multiplying studies programs are still only designed to give employment to academics who can’t make it in the real world. They bear no resemblance tot eh real world at all.

    The academy is part of the real world. People do, in fact, get paid to teach there. The real world is the world we live in where professional athletes, coffee servers, movie stars, guitar tuners, people who wear Tron suits, and recreational drug farmers can all make a living. Academics too. There are ways in which every work environment carries its own ‘mystical’ qualities. I work at a lab investigating plasma physics for fusion energy research, which currently has almost no practical outside application. We’re not living in a stone age society — this is the real world.

    > There is no such thing as social justice. Justice is individual and personal. “Social justice” is a leftist codeword for equality of outcome, the most evil concept ever committed to political theory. More people have been massacred in its name than any other cause, by an order of magnitude or so. “Social justice” should be fought, not fought for.

    This is, almost word for word, the same thing you wrote yesterday. It’s only true if ‘social justice’ is a meaningless grab-bag concept that encompasses whatever failed ideology you want to throw into it. You’re seriously going to tell me that the Nazis were paragons of social justice? In truth, social justice is nearly meaningless. It’s meant different things at different points in the last 150 years, and to this day depends heavily on context. Most leftists don’t use the term, except ironically when calling themselves SJWs. And to most (me included), it simply means a value system oriented to one degree or another toward compassion and empathy. “Equality of outcomes” is a chimera made of straw. Support for some degree of redistribution by variously effective methods does not mean we imagine a totally egalitarian socialist utopia. However much I like to read Iain Banks’s Culture novels, I recognize that society as a fantasy, or at least so far beyond our technical capability as to be one. Liberals in the U.S. have an intuitive grasp of political power dynamics in the same way that conservatives understand the power of narrative and mythology. It’s part of the reason why we can’t help but talk past each other. But, again, debate the opponent you actually have, not the one you wish for.

    Comment by Matt W - August 26, 2015 10:14 pm

  146. “I think we’ve reached the end of productive conversation.”

    As you wish. This is, after all, your site.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 10:30 pm

  147. Yes John. I apologize for continuing after your stopping point. I actually wrote and posted it, then saw your note. Please feel free to delete it and let yours stand at the end of the discussion.

    Comment by Matt W - August 26, 2015 11:13 pm

  148. No problem, Matt. I was certain there would be some wrap-up.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 27, 2015 10:50 am

  149. I was certain there would be some wrap-up.

    Everything comes back to shrink wrap…

    😉

    Comment by TW - August 27, 2015 3:08 pm

  150. […] (4) John ONeill in a comment to Jeffro Johnson on Black Gate […]

    Pingback by Enriching Your Puppy Vocabulary 8/26 | File 770 - September 13, 2018 7:46 am


Comments RSS  |  TrackBack URI

 

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Black Gate Home
This site © 2019 by New Epoch Press. All rights reserved.