Re-Entering The Lists: Measuring The Slates’ Impact on the Final Hugo Ballot

Now that Sasquan has made the final changes to the Hugo ballot required by withdrawals and eligibility rulings, it is time to update the scorecard for Sad Puppies 3 and Rabid Puppies.

SAD PUPPIES 3: the 2015 Hugo slate

  • Recommended 60 nominees; 49 made the final ballot and 11 did not.


  • Recommended 67 nominees; 55 made the final ballot and 12 did not.


  • A total of 59 nominees from both slates made the final ballot.
  • This consists of 45 items recommended by both lists; 4 items only on Sad Puppies; and 10 only on Rabid Puppies.


  • 26 final ballot nominees did not come from either list.

Comparative lists follow the jump.

Continue reading

Sasquan Final Hugo Ballot Adds Novel Three-Body Problem, Short Story “Single Samurai”

In the wake of two authors pulling their nominated works from contention, Sasquan Hugo administrator John Lorentz has made two more adjustments and locked the final 2015 Hugo ballot.

In the Best Novel category, The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu (translated by Ken Liu) replaced Lines of Departure, which was withdrawn by its author, Marko Kloos.

And in the Best Short category, Steven Diamond’s “A Single Samurai” filled the vacancy left by “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet, which also was withdrawn by its author.

The ballot is now going to the printer and there will be no further revisions.

The Hugo administrator explained The Three-Body Problem was originally published in Chinese in 2008, but the 2014 publication by Tor was the first English-language version, rendering it eligible again for the Hugo, according to section 3.4.1 of the WSFS Constitution.

Lorentz also corrected the listing for “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” (by Thomas Olde Heuvelt) which originally did not include the name of the translator, Lia Belt.

The full press release, which outlines all the revisions made since the original announcement on April 4, follows the jump.

In respect to the Sad Puppies 3 and Rabid Puppies slates, the cumulative turnover has replaced four nominees on a slate with two nominees not on a slate – The Three-Body Problem and “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” – and two nominees that were on a slate, “A Single Samurai” (Sad Puppies 3, only) and artist Kirk DouPonce (Rabid Puppies, only).

Continue reading

Two Hugo Nominees Withdraw Their Stories

Hugo Award finalists Marko Kloos and Annie Bellett announced today they are withdrawing their stories from consideration.

At this writing, the Sasquan Hugo administrator has yet to announce that the withdrawals have been accepted (although there is no reason to assume they will not), or whether the vacancies will be filled by the next highest-voted works.

Kloos is the author of the novel Lines of Departure, and Bellett of the short story “Goodnight Stars.”

Marko Kloos posted this statement on his blog:

I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards.

It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.

I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics.

Thank you to everyone who voted for “Lines of Departure” because you read the novel and genuinely thought it worthy of award recognition. Please be assured that I did not reach this decision lightly, and that I don’t want to nullify or minimize your opinion. But keeping the nomination is not a moral option at this point, and I hope you will understand.

This is my choice alone, and I am making it without pressure from any side in the current Hugo debate. Please respect it as such.

Annie Bellett gave this explanation on her blog:

I have withdrawn my story “Goodnight Stars” from consideration in this year’s Hugo Awards.

I want to make it clear I am not doing this lightly. I am not doing it because I am ashamed. I am not doing it because I was pressured by anyone either way or on any “side,” though many friends have made cogent arguments for both keeping my nomination and sticking it out, as well as for retracting it and letting things proceed without me in the middle.

I am withdrawing because this has become about something very different than great science fiction.  I find my story, and by extension myself, stuck in a game of political dodge ball, where I’m both a conscripted player and also a ball. (Wrap your head around that analogy, if you can, ha!) All joy that might have come from this nomination has been co-opted, ruined, or sapped away. This is not about celebrating good writing anymore, and I don’t want to be a part of what it has become.

I am not a ball. I do not want to be a player. This is not what my writing is about. This is not why I write. I believe in a compassionate, diverse, and inclusive world. I try to write my own take on human experiences and relationships, and present my fiction as entertainingly and honestly as I can.

Sasquan Replaces Two Ineligible Nominees on Hugo Ballot

Sasquan, the 2015 Worldcon, has made changes to the final Hugo ballot to reflect  eligibility rulings by Hugo administrator John Lorentz.

  • “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by John C. Wright was previously published on a web site in 2013 prior to its inclusion in The Book of Feasts & Seasons in 2014, so it is not eligible for the 2015 Novelette Hugo.
  • Jon Eno did not publish any qualifying artwork in 2014, so he is not eligible for the 2015 Professional Artist Hugo

Replacing Wright’s novelette on the ballot is “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014).

Kirk DouPonce has been elevated to take Eno’s place in the Best Professional Artist category.

Lorentz also reviewed the eligibility of two other works and allowed them to stand:

Both Big Boys Don’t Cry (Kratman) and One Bright Star to Guide Them (Wright) were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication.  Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.

Here is the new final ballot incorporating all these changes:

BEST NOVEL (1827 ballots)

  • Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
  • The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
  • The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos (47North)
  • Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)

BEST NOVELLA (1083 ballots)

  • Big Boys Don’t Cry by Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • “Flow” by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Pale Realms of Shade” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy” by John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)

BEST NOVELETTE (1031 ballots)

  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium” by Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, May 2014)
  • “Championship B’tok” by Edward M. Lerner (Analog, Sept 2014)
  • “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House” by Michael F. Flynn (Analog, June 2014)
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale” by Rajnar Vajra (Analog, Jul/Aug 2014)

SHORT STORY (1174 ballots)

  • “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet (The End is Now (Apocalypse Triptych Book 2), Broad Reach Publishing)
  • “On A Spiritual Plain” by Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, Nov 2014)
  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “Totaled” by Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, July 2014)
  • “Turncoat” by Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)

BEST RELATED WORK (1150 ballots)

  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF” by Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts (
  • Wisdom from My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

BEST GRAPHIC STORY (785 ballots)

  • Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt, (Marvel Comics)
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)


  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Guardians of the Galaxy written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Interstellar screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO System A/S, Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))


  • Doctor Who: “Listen” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • The Flash: “Pilot” teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper” written by David Benioff & D. B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves ((HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods” written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)
  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions, Space/BBC America)

BEST EDITOR (SHORT FORM) (870 ballots)

  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Vox Day
  • Mike Resnick
  • Edmund R. Schubert
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt

BEST EDITOR (LONG FORM) (712 ballots)

  • Vox Day
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Jim Minz
  • Anne Sowards
  • Toni Weisskopf


  • Julie Dillon
  • Kirk DouPonce
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Alan Pollack
  • Carter Reid

BEST SEMIPROZINE (660 ballots)

  • Abyss & Apex Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Bursztynski
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons Niall Harrison Editor-in-Chief

BEST FANZINE (576 ballots)

  • Black Gate edited by John O’Neill
  • Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
  • Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Alissa McKersie, Colin Harris and Helen Montgomery
  • The Revenge of Hump Day edited by Tim Bolgeo
  • Tangent SF Online edited by Dave Truesdale

BEST FANCAST (668 ballots)

  • Adventures in Sci-Fi Publishing Brent Bowen (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward, Shaun Ferrell & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)
  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • The Sci Phi Show Jason Rennie
  • Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman & Peter Newman

BEST FAN WRITER (777 ballots)

  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Laura J. Mixon
  • Cedar Sanderson

BEST FAN ARTIST (296 ballots)

  • Ninni Aalto
  • Brad Foster
  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Steve Stiles

Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).


  • Wesley Chu *
  • Jason Cordova
  • Kary English *
  • Rolf Nelson
  • Eric S. Raymond

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

Update 04/14/2015: At 4 p.m. PDT. The official Sasquan press release follows the jump.

Continue reading

Sasquan Numbers Blow Up

Sasquan, the 2015 Worldcon, has released another membership update hard on the heels of the one reported here the other day.

The con now has 7,016 members, including 3,418 attending and 3,300 supporting.

The surge is mainly in supporting memberships, the minimum requirement to become eligible as a voter in 2017 site selection and to vote on the winners of the Hugo Awards.

This compares to the figures reported as of March 31 as shown:

Sasquan Total Members
3/31/2015 5,466
4/12/2015 7,016
Increase 1,550


Adult Attending Members
3/31/2015 3,240
4/12/2015 3,418
Increase 178


Supporting Members
3/31/2015 1,948
4/12/2015 3,300
Increase 1,352

New Sasquan Membership Totals

Sasquan, the 2015 Worldcon, has updated its membership numbers through March 31.

There are 5,466 total members, which includes 3,240 attending and 1,948 supporting.

This compares to the figures reported as of January 31 as shown:

Sasquan Total Members
1/31/2015 4,952
3/31/2015 5,466
Increase 514


Adult Attending Members
1/31/2015 2,950
3/31/2015 3,240
Increase 290


Supporting Members
1/31/2015 1,765
3/31/2015 1,948
Increase 183

Note: my January numbers came from the committee but were slightly different than the published Sasquan number on that date.

2015 TAFF Voting Deadline Imminent

The deadline to vote on the winner of the 2015 Trans-Atlantic Fan Fund is Tuesday, April 7 at Midnight EDT. (Click here for complete details.)

This year TAFF will select either Nina Horvath or Wolf Von Witting, two European fans, as a delegate to Sasquan, the World Science Fiction Convention in Spokane. Which one will it be?  You will decide that with your vote and your contribution.

In the UK and Europe send your votes to Jim Mowatt, the European administrator in Cambridge, and in North America and other parts of the planet, please send your votes and contributions to Curt Phillips in Abingdon, Virginia. It only takes a few moments and a few dollars to vote (though more is certainly appreciated…) Please consider joining one of Fandom’s oldest and most noble traditions and SUPPORT TAFF!

Vote by e-mailing your pick of these choices:  Nina Horvath, Wolf Von Witting, Hold Over Funds, or No Preference. And you can send in your TAFF donations either by PayPal or by sending a check or cash in the mail.

For full details on TAFF including downloadable ballot, the candidates platforms, and the addresses of both administrators, please visit David Langford’s wonderful TAFF website.

Curt Phillips says, “Thank you very much for supporting TAFF. My TAFF trip in 2014 was one of the highlights of my life. Let’s keep the tradition going by giving another fan the chance for world travel as the 2015 TAFF delegate!”

  • Curt Phillips – US Administrator: 19310 Pleasant View Drive, Abingdon, VA  24211. Paypal address: Absarka_prime (at)
  • Jim Mowatt – UK Administrator: 273 The Rowans, Milton, Cambridge, CB24 6ZA. Paypal address: jim (at)


Puppies Fetch Hugo Nominations and the Neighbors Have Plenty To Say

I was skeptical when people said the internet would explode on Saturday when the Hugo shortlist was announced. I was wrong. It blew sky high.

Here are samples of the thunder and lightning, beginning with someone who declined his nomination.

Matthew David Surridge at Black Gate

“A Detailed Explanation” – April 4

This is going to come out at some point, so I might as well say it here and now: I declined a Hugo nomination for this year’s Best Fan Writer award. I think it’s only fair to the people who voted for me to say why…

Add that all up, and I think it’s clear how extensively I disagree with the Puppy campaigns, and why I don’t want an award nomination that primarily comes from being placed on their slates. I should have investigated the situation more thoroughly in February when I found out that I was on those slates, and I should have asked to be removed then. Again, I extend my apologies to everyone for not doing so at that time.

A few concluding points:

Firstly, I want to say that while I appreciate anyone finding value in my work, I would like to ask that people refrain from voting for me as ‘Best Fan Writer’ in future Hugos. More broadly, I would like to ask that people assembling future Hugo slates not include my name in any category. That goes for Sad Puppies 4 (and future iterations), and it goes for any anti-Puppy slate that also might be put forward.

I understand there’s a slippery slope involved in asking not to be put on a ‘slate.’ Is there a difference between somebody putting forward their personal Hugo ballot and putting forward a slate? Well, I think so. I think at least in this case the differences are, one, is the person putting the ballot forward requesting that others vote the same way, and two, is there a desire in putting the ballot forward to have a major effect on the speculative fiction field as a whole. If the answer to one or both questions is ‘yes,’ I would prefer not to be involved.

Secondly, on a personal level, this whole sequence of events is working directly against the Puppies’ stated intentions. Torgersen’s consistently written about wanting to bring more people into ‘fandom,’ however it’s defined. For me, the net result of the Puppy activities has been to alienate me from fandom and the speculative fiction world. It’s not an absolute alienation, of course; I’ll still be writing here at Black Gate. But involving me in a controversial campaign without asking is not something that I find particularly welcoming, to say the least.

Frankly, it’s lucky I found out about the Puppies putting me on their slate before I found out I’d been nominated. Imagine if I hadn’t. I’d have had no reason not to accept the nomination. And in the long run that would have been embarrassing for everyone.

Finally, I understand that when somebody outside a community takes a stance that can be perceived as repudiating one faction within that community, opposing factions are likely to celebrate. I think that’s unfortunate. I cannot stress enough how much I’ve done what I’ve done because I don’t want to take sides in a dispute that is not mine. I can only say that if what I have said and done has any effect on the discussion going forward, I hope that effect will be to make the discussion one of ideas and not of personalities — that this all may move the controversy, however slightly, away from insults and toward constructive talk. I don’t say I think that will happen; but it’d be nice if it did.


Simon Petrie

“Hugo Nominations: Fan, Incoming, 3…2…1” – April 5

So ASIM [Andomeda Space Inflight Magazine] is on the Hugo ballot. We at the magazine have known about this for about ten days’ time, and have long since sent through the acceptance. But because none of us are exactly active in US fandom, we only became aware of the Sad Puppies connection very late in the piece — in fact, a scant three days before the nominations were made public, and well after all the dust had settled on the nomination process itself. ASIM was never informed about our inclusion on the Sad Puppies 3 slate — if we had been, I very strongly suspect our response would have been a resounding ‘Hell, No’ — and there was no time, nor any point, in looking to remove ourselves once we did get there.

My own take on this is that a Sad Puppies vote for ASIM is a ‘pity-sex’ vote. This doesn’t benefit the magazine, doesn’t benefit fandom, not one bit. Fans who are eligible to vote should only endorse ASIM (which, btw, will be included in some form in the Hugo voters’ packet) if they’ve read and enjoyed the magazine, and judged it worthy of the award against the current competition. That’s what voting is supposed to be about. Sometimes we forget that.


Teresa Nielsen Hayden comment on “The 2015 Hugo Finalists” at Making Light

#134 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: April 04, 2015, 08:35 PM:

Rochrist @20:

@13 Problem is, a lot of those catagories are entirely, or almost entirely SP nominations. That Vox Day gets 2(!) nominations is beyond disgusting. Not to mention the 27 nominations for that pervert John C Wright.

And all the works published by Castalia House, whose two most prominent authors are John C. Wright and Vox Day.

This is pretty discouraging. To dominate the ballots this way means they had huge numbers of people buy memberships, likely including a lot of #GGers.

Around 199 at most, and there may have been fewer. That’s the difference between the total nominating votes cast in 2014 and 2015.

I’m not sure how to fight this, and frankly, I don’t know if I have the energy. I may just check out of the Hugos and Worldcon altogether.

Don’t. I’ve been thinking about this, and I bring you a message of hope.

It’s too late to salvage the 2015 ballot, but not the 2015 Hugo Awards. Supporting memberships are still being sold, and they can vote.

Want to strike back against the Sad Puppies and everything they represent? Buy a supporting membership. Vote for the nominees you love or like or find worthy. Do it with no agenda beyond your love of SF. Next year, buy one early enough to nominate.

We’ve been worrying about bringing on a system of warring slates. It’s unnecessary. You don’t need a slate to beat a slate. What you need are a lot more votes, chosen according to the individual voters’ preferences. It doesn’t matter if their distribution is unfocused, as long as there are enough of them.

Even if block voting campaigns manage to wedge a few nominees onto a ballot, the combined votes of all those supporting memberships applied to the five nominees in each category is going to swamp any slate-based voting that doesn’t represent a sizeable fraction of actual fannish taste.

I know that many commenters have expressed hesitation about nominating when they haven’t read everything. I have three observations.

First, you aren’t voting for the eventual winners. You’re voting for your own preferences. If you pick a nominee that other voters think is minor, your vote for them will vanish into the background haze when the nominations are tabulated: no harm done.

Second, you can do the same thing that’s done by every experienced Hugo voter I know: vote where you have knowledge and preferences, and refrain where you don’t. I nominate and vote for Best Fanartist, but in a year where I haven’t been keeping up with TV, I skip Dramatic Presentation (Short Form).

Third, when the people doing a block voting attack on the Hugos claim to practically worship Heinlein, but aren’t aware that the second huge volume of his first major biography has come out, perhaps you ought not worry about your own lack of omniscience.


I love the idea of beating the SP’s covert elitism with an answer that’s more democratic, draws more fans into voting for the Hugos, and finds its winners in the combined preferences of many more voters.


Brad R. Torgersen

“Stealing the Enterprise” – April 4

Now, obviously, no Hugo ballot ever arrives without controversy. With limited slots per category, the ballot cannot encompass everything that the field is. Each year the Hugo is a slit-lens peak at what the members of WSFS believe to be the best representative works and people, for the year prior. Many worthy works and people will have missed the cutoff. Not for lack of fan enthusiasm per se, but mainly because not everyone can vote for everything at the same time. But it’s precisely because not everyone can vote for everything at the same time, that SP3 decided to proactively and strongly suggest a roster which would — we hoped — give WSFS something different to pick from. A bit like adding a new table of steam trays at a buffet. To give people a new group of choices, from which to fill their respective “plates” during the nomination period.


Larry Correia on Monster Hunter Nation

“Sad Puppies Update: The Nominees Announced and Why I Refused My Nomination” – April 4

This is just one little battle in an ongoing culture war between artistic free expression and puritanical bullies who think they represent *real* fandom. In the long term I want writers to be free to write whatever they want without fear of social justice witch hunts, I want creators to not have to worry about silencing themselves to appease the perpetually outraged, and I want fans to enjoy themselves without having some entitled snob lecture them about how they are having fun wrong. I want our shrinking genre to grow. I think if we can get back to where “award nominated” isn’t a synonym for “preachy crap” to the most fans, we’ll do it.


Will Shetterly on It’s All One Thing

“Four essential points about the Hugos and Sad Puppies” – April 4

When awards go to the best work, it’s unintentional. There are two models for awards in the fantasy and science fiction genre, and they’re both flawed. The Hugos and Nebulas are popularity contests that tell you more about how well the stories were promoted than written. The World Fantasy Awards are chosen by a committee, which means the winner is not everyone’s favorite and often is no one’s favorite. Mind you, this isn’t to knock the winners—awards usually go to decent stories, and sometimes go to great stories, but occasionally, as a critical look at the history of any of the awards will tell you, go to stories whose virtues are impossible to see now and were dubious then. That said, four points: 1. People have gamed the Hugos and Nebulas for decades. As a young writer, I first noticed it when Scott Card attended many conventions, recommended a lot of work by his fellow writers in his book review column, and generally promoted the hell out of himself. I didn’t hold that against him. He had the financial resources to do it, and he was playing by the unwritten rules. (My disappointment with Card came later, when I learned of his opposition to gay rights.)


Kary English

“The Disavowal” – April 3

There’s a call in certain corners of the internet for disavowals from people on the Sad Puppies slate.  Here’s mine:

I disavow racism wherever I find it.

Calling someone a half-savage because of race? I disavow it. Denying someone’s ethnicity and heritage because that makes it easier to stereotype them as  white oppressors? I disavow it. Calling a whole slate racist because of someone who’s not even on it or because some of the people are white? I disavow it.

My characters come from multiple races and ethnicities because they’re drawn from the vast diversity of the world around me. I write them as faithfully and authentically as I can. If I should stumble, my hope is that the world will correct me when needed and accept an apology when offered.


Robert Reynolds comment on Kary English

As to the whole “Sad Puppies” thing-I just looked at the Hugo final ballot and noticed some troubling things. Apparently, one writer’s work is so exceptional that he comprises fully one-third of the short fiction nominees, with fully three-fifths of one category. Three of the pieces are from one book of short pieces and all of them are from the same publishing house. A publishing house edited by the source for one of the lists being circulated and urging people to nominate works from their “slate” of suggested works. That editor also received nominations in both editor categories.

Nothing made the ballot in any short fiction category from, Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Strange Horizons or Lightspeed, even though the latter three were nominated for Best Semiprozine. Apparently, of the major print magazines, only Analog was worthy of notice, with four stories nominated. Asimov’s and F & SF were shut out.


Vox Day on Vox Populi

2015 Hugo Nominations – April 4

In less than an hour, the finalists for the 2015 Hugo Awards will be announced. You can watch the livestream here. Regardless of what happens, I encourage everyone to remain calm, cool, and collected. If we fail, so be it. Kate the Impaler is leading Sad Puppies 4 for 2016 and the long march continues. If we succeed, then that is one more strong point broken, but many still remain. The long march continues.

Whether we are beaten back this time or we break through the enemy lines and leave them reeling in disbelief and disarray, we will continue to methodically and patiently advance. We will defeat the SJWs in science fiction, we will break the stranglehold of the gatekeepers, we will reclaim the genre for freedom of speech, thought, and association, and we will continue to expose the pretenses and posturings and pernicious accusations of the SJWs for the lies that they are. And in doing so, we will show others, in other industries and areas of the culture, that not only is resistance possible, but that it is possible to reclaim long-lost ground. We will show them that even a small number of people who are willing to stand up and say “you shall not pass” can make a real and substantive difference.


Cedar Sanderson on Mad Genius Club

“2014 Hugo Nominations” – April 4

Pretty cool, isn’t it? I no longer feel like my vote has just vanished into a black hole.


Amal El-Mohtar

Hugo Puppies and the News – April 4

My heart goes out to those to whom the Hugo awards mean a great deal, who have worked hard making it into something with brand recognition and significance outside of genre, and who are seeing something they love twisted and perverted in bad faith to celebrate, not art, but a triumph against diversity in art.

But the reality is, for me, that I am used to bigots dominating the conversation and being galled by my existence. I am used to people vilifying my name, my language, my ethnicity, my gender, my sexual orientation. I am used to resistance as default, as the condition by which I exist. So this year’s Hugo ballot — on which are heavily represented men far better known for advocating white supremacy, violence against women, and hatred of queer people than they are for their fiction, to the point where it appears they were chosen for their advocacy over their fiction — feels like business as usual where I’m concerned.


Brian K. Lowe

“Cry Havoc and Let Slip the Puppies of War” – April 4

Most f/sf fans, however, will stand by and ignore/watch with horrified awe the train wreck that the Hugos will have become. Very soon, the awards will cease to have any marketing or promotional or even personal value, because it the award will no longer even pretend to honor literary excellence, but merely which side can buy the most votes by assembling the most voters.

This year it was the Sad Puppies who bought the most votes. Next year it may be the Soft Kitties. The year after that–the year after that it won’t matter because fandom will be divided into armed camps that don’t speak, don’t read the same books, and refuse to attend the same conventions.

Which will make the Puppies and the Kitties very sad.


Marie Brennan on Notes From The Teleidoplex

“My Hugo Nominations” – April 4

I don’t want to see a move toward counter-slates. I pretty much categorically refuse to follow a slate because my reading habits and preferences will never align with other people’s. I don’t have time to read comprehensively, and I won’t nominate something unless I’ve read it. The SP/RP contingent would say (and has said today) that this is why they won this year. They’re treating their gamification of the nomination process as a feature rather than a deeply divisive bug.


Paul Weimer on Blog, Jvstin Style

“Advocati Diaboli: The Sad Puppies and the 2015 Hugo Award Nominations”

This Sad Puppies ballot voting and their political motivations makes the Hugo Award look like a parochial US only thing. What about fans in Britain? Germany? Australia? Pakistan? Their voices are only slowly being heard in SF awards, and with this slate, those voices are silenced completely this year.


Charlie Jane Anders on i09

“The Hugo Awards Were Always Political. But Now They’re Only Political” – April 4

Honestly, you’re never going to have a perfect system for identifying the best works of fiction published in a given year — even with a juried award, these decisions will inevitably wind up including factors that are external to the quality of the work. So the best you can hope for is that the quality of the work winds up getting considered first and foremost, over other factors. The only processes that really get you there are deliberative, involving a lot of public discussion and private rumination. That’s how you get surprising, out-of-nowhere choices. As someone who won a Hugo Award in 2012, I’m sad that there might be one less avenue out there for new writers to be plucked from obscurity and put on a stage with their idols.


Deidre Saoirse Moen

“The Puppy-Free Hugo Award Voter’s Guide” – April 4

Follow, or don’t, your choice. If you are voting the strict ix-nay uppy-pay slate, here’s the options in each category:


John Scalzi on Whatever

“A Note About the Hugo Nominations This Year” – April 4

  1. This year I’ll do what I always do when voting for the Hugos, which is to rank the nominees every category according to how I think they (and/or their particular works in question) deserve to ranked. Preferential balloting is a useful thing. I will be reading quite a lot.
  2. If, in the fullness of careful consideration, I come to believe certain nominees in a category do not merit being on the ballot at all, then I will do two things:

One, I will leave those nominees off my final ballot. If they’re not on my ballot, they can’t be ranked.

Two, after ranking the nominees I do believe deserve to be on the ballot, I will use the “No Award” option to signal that I would prefer that no Hugo be awarded, rather than to give it to any of the remaining nominees.


Allum Bokhari on

“Hugo Awards Nominations Swept by Anti-SJW, Anti-Authoritarian Authors” – April 4

What a time to be alive! Liberals write for Breitbart, a carton girl in green and purple is a symbol of terror for the authoritarian Left, and now an online campaign with a manatee for a spokesperson is exposing political cliques in the world of science fiction and fantasy publishing.

In February, we reported on the “Sad Puppies” campaign, a tongue-in-cheek bid by science fiction & fantasy (SF&F) authors to draw attention to an atmosphere of political intolerance, driven by so-called “social justice warriors,” that is holding the medium back. Spearheaded by authors Larry Correia and Brad R. Torgersen, the campaign sought to break the stranglehold of old cliques by encouraging a more politically diverse group of fans to take part in the annual Hugo Awards.

A week of rumours about the campaign’s success were confirmed this Saturday with the announcement of the final Hugo Awards ballot. Authors and works endorsed by the Sad Puppies nominations slate swept the field, a reflection of just how many new fans the rebel authors have brought into the Hugo process

Entering the Lists

This is a scorecard of the effectiveness of Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies slates. It is purely binary — did the item make the final ballot or not — because official eligibility rulings and nominee withdrawals are not available at the moment I am writing.

SAD PUPPIES 3: the 2015 Hugo slate

  • Recommended 60 nominees; 51 made the final ballot and 9 did not.


  • Recommended 67 nominees; 58 made the final ballot and 9 did not.


  • A total of 61 nominees from both slates made the final ballot.
  • This consists of 48 items recommended by both lists; 3 items only on Sad Puppies; and 10 only on Rabid Puppies.
  • Failing to make the final ballot were 4 items recommended on both lists, 5 items recommended only by Sad Puppies 3, plus 5 items that only appeared on Rabid Puppies.


  • 24 final ballot nominees did not come from either list.

Comparative lists follow the jump.

Update 04/06/2015: Made a correction to the Combined Scorecard. I had accidentally undercounted some items that failed to make the final ballot which had been recomended only by Sad Puppies 3, even though they were marked on my checksheet.

Continue reading

Instant Analysis of the 2015 Hugo Nominees

New Voting Record: Sasquan received 2122 valid nominations (2119 online and 3 paper ballots), making this the seventh year in a row a new record has been set.

Loncon 3 received 1,923 ballots last year. Prior to that LoneStarCon 3 received 1,343 in 2013, Chicon 7 received 1,101 in 2012, Renovation received 1,006 in 2011, Aussiecon 4 received 864 in 2010 and Anticipation received 799 in 2009, each a record-setting figure at the time.

Puppies Lock Up The Ballot: A total of 61 final ballot nominees appeared on Brad Torgersen’s Sad Puppies 3 list or Vox Day’s Rabid Puppies list. Only 24 nominees did not come from either list.

Six Hugo categories are completely filled with nominees from the two slates. The only category totally without puppies is Best Fanartist — doubtless because neither Sad Puppies nor Rabid Puppies recommended any fanartists.

Another New Record: John C. Wright received six nominations, breaking the old record of 5 on the same ballot held by Seanan McGuire.

Missing in Action: Surprisingly, Larry Correia’s Monster Hunter Nemesis and Brad Torgersen’s The Chaplain’s War are not on the final ballot. Each was backed by one or both slates and one would think the novels from the slates that did make it would have had less support than these two books. The authors certainly had no problem getting their works on the final ballot in 2014. Did they lack enough votes in 2015, or did they decline their nominations?

Update: Larry Correia confirmed in a post on his blog that he did decline his nomination.

The Hugo administrator tells me he will not report on withdrawals or his eligibility determinations until after the Hugo ceremony at Sasquan.

However, I think a few of the eligibility rulings can be anticipated. The following items were on one or both lists but didn’t make the final ballot.

  • Best Short Story: “Tuesdays With Molakesh the Destroyer” – Megan Grey – publication date 2015, is eligible in 2016, not this year.
  • Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form): Coherence – IMDB shows this as a 2013 release.
  • Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form): Supernatural: “Dog Dean Afternoon” – IMDB shows this as a 2013 release.
  • Best Semiprozine: Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show — It’s listed by as a professional publication, so may be ineligible.