Sweeny Terrier: The Demon Nominator of Slate Street 6/28

aka Dandelion Whine

In the roundup today: Vox Day, Gary Denton, Spacefaring Kitten, Alexander Case, Leonie Rogers, D. Douglas Fratz, S.C. Flynn, A.J. Blakemont, Kary English, Damnien G. Walter, Mark Ciocco and Declan Finn. (Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editors of the day ULTRAGOTHA and May Tree.)

Grimlock * The Vision

“Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, Irene Gallo and Jim Butcher…” – June 28

Jim Butcher takes a lot of offense at what Gallo said, and yet he stands up for her when people harass her: ….

Classy, Mr. Butcher.   Very, very classy.

I’ll be reading more of the books I have, even though I was like, ‘meh.’  I keep thinking I might because I heard they got better, and now I want to do it to support Butcher for standing up against harassment, even when he was offended by that person.

 

Vox Day on Vox Popoli

“I don’t care what you do” – June 28

Rabid Puppies is not, and has never been, a marketing campaign of any kind. We don’t need it. Rabid Puppies is about one thing and one thing only: to prevent the SJWs in science fiction from imposing their thought-police on the genre. I’m no more interested in marketing myself in this regard than Charles Martel was when he led the Franks against the Umayyads.
As several of the VFM have pointed out, the SJWs have it all backwards. They have to think that I am somehow duping thousands of idiots and fools into openly opposing them because the alternative is to accept how massively unpopular they are and how dismally their decades-long campaign to tell people what science fiction they may and may not read has failed.

 

 

Spacefaring Kitten on Spacefaring, Extradimensional Happy Kittens

“Kitten/Puppy Dialogues (on America)” – June 28

I have to say. In my opinion, Captain America is a boring, one-dimensional (well, I did claim he is zero-dimensional, but I’m not sure if that’s possible) character. Therefore, you seem to think, I also want all men put down. There’s a logical leap I don’t quite follow. I also don’t think you should do too hasty conclusions about what my gender is, because you know nothing about it.

But let’s dissect your statement a bit further.

What I’m actually disliking here is a Hugo finalist that was not on either of the two Puppy slates you’re probably promoting. In fact, I believe Captain America: The Winter Soldier was plugged by some actual, outspoken feminists, such as the smart and wonderful Book Smugglers Ana and Thea. For the record, I don’t think they are in league with the imperialist patriarchy there. Rather, they and I have a somewhat different taste as far as superhero movies are concerned.

I have every reason to believe that the Puppy-supported Hugo finalists Lego Movie, Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar will all be better, even though I haven’t seen the first two of them yet. What I know of them so far seems promising. A Puppy supporter criticizing me for this seems odd.

 

Alexander Case on Breaking It All Down

“Small thing bugging me about the Hugo Awards” – June 28

All You Need Is Kill, by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, is published in English by Haikasoru in 2004. Gets an nomination for the Seiun Awards (Japanese version of the Hugos) in its home country, nothing at the Hugo awards.

Then, All You Need Is Kill gets a manga adaptation, with art by Takeshi Obata (of Death Note and Bakuman fame), which is published in the US by Viz in 2014 – both volumes and an all-in-one omnibus. Does not get a Hugo nomination for Best Graphic Novel.

The film version, on the other hand, with a white director, white stars, white screenwriter, and which generally is as white as hell, gets a Hugo Award nomination for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form.

That doesn’t seem right to me.

To be clear, I’m glad the film was nominated. However, the lack of nominations for any versions of the story made by, you know, Japanese people, gives a vibe that the only way a work of Japanese speculative fiction can get for a Hugo Award.

 

 

Leonie Rogers

“Frustrated” – June 28

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been working my way through the packet – which is what Hugo voters get in case they haven’t read the appropriate nominations. (I might add that I’m a prolific reader of Spec Fic, but there’s so much stuff to read, that I just don’t have enough time to read it all, so a lot of the stuff in the packet is quite new to me.)

The title of this post is ‘Frustrated.’ And I am. I’ve read quite a few Hugo nominees and winners over the many years I’ve been reading Spec Fic, and I’ve enjoyed pretty well all of it in all its varied forms. But this lot? I’m struggling through a lot of it. I’ve read all the short stories and novelettes and most of the novellas. Ho hum. Sigh. Honestly….sigh….

As an early career writer myself, I appreciate good writing. I also know that I don’t always get it right, but I really thought Hugo nominees would have it down pat. Nope. Or at least not this lot. Don’t get me wrong, there are some decent stories, and some of them are decently written, but so far, the vast majority are not exciting me at all. And as far as a couple of them go, they’re not well written at all.

I do have to thank the Hugo Packet for introducing me to Ms Marvel, though. I will actively go out and find more of her. (Apart from Phantom comics, I haven’t really read a lot of graphic novels.) In the meantime, I will continue to slog through the rest of the packet, hoping to find a gem here and there. Then I shall vote accordingly. On the upside, I’m feeling pretty happy about some of my own short stories right now….

 

D. Douglas Fratz on SF Site

“The Alienated Critic: Wherein the columnist endeavors to make restitution for his most recent profound death of productivity and steps into the fray on Puppygate”

As a result of all this, the Hugo Awards are now famous outside the field for all the wrong reasons. The New Republic even covered Puppygate, and sensible blogs were written by top authors — most notably serial blogs by George R. R. Martin — that made sure all of broader fandom knew what had happened. Connie Willis, Robert Silverberg, David Gerrold, and other deans of SF have all weighed in with level-headed views. The big losers here, of course, are the many fine authors who produced superior works in 2014 that should have been nominated, including many mentioned above, and we will know who they were when the full voting is announced.

But we all lost here. In the past, I would estimate that 90 percent of those nominated on the Hugo ballot are among the top 10 percent of candidates, making it a reliable index of quality. Everyone who relies on the Hugo Nominations and results to help choose future reading lost something this year. (Also everyone who wishes that those hours Martin, Willis, Silverberg, and others spent addressing the issue were used to write new fiction!) Thank goodness there are still other awards, including the Locus Awards and even the sometimes quirky Nebula awards, for this purpose. I hope that the Worldcon administrators will find a way to prevent future block voting, but there is some chance that (like our own government’s counter-terrorism policies) the solutions will simply make things slightly worse for all. Which is, in the end, just what terrorists seek to have happen.

 

S.C. Flynn on Scy-Fy

“Interview with A.J. Blakemont” – June 28

SCy-Fy: Thanks! What potential traps do you see in SFF blogging?

AJB: Let’s be respectful! It is always possible to express one’s opinion or disagreement without hurting other people’s feelings. SF fans tend to be passionate and opinionated, and, sometimes, they get carried away. The current debate about the Hugos is a good example. No one owns the truth: not me, not you, not this guy with hundreds of thousands of followers. No one….

SCy-Fy: Posts of yours that have had the most impact or controversy?

AJB: My recent post on the Hugos: “Is the system broken?” caused controversy. Sad Puppies’ campaign manager wrote to me. Something tells me that my chances of being nominated for a Hugo are close to zero. Well, fortunately I care naught for awards! A writer should care only about readers, period. I wanted my readers to hear my opinion, and if it means being at variance with influential people in fandom, so be it.

 

Kary English

“An open letter to Puppies and everyone” – June 28

If you read Totaled and loved it enough to nominate it, thank you. That’s exactly how the Hugos are supposed to work, and it shouldn’t matter to me or anyone whether you identify as a Puppy or not. So if you’re one of those readers, then rock on. I am humbled and grateful for your support.

But as we know, Bob, there was a push this year to nominate things sometimes without having read them, and for reasons that had little to do with fannish enthusiasm. I never asked to be part of that, and had I been given the choice, I would not have wanted my work used that way.

I’m also not comfortable with the ballot sweep. My sense from the Sad Puppies is that locking up the ballot was never one of the goals of the movement, and that it was accidental, unintentional and unforeseen. If I’m wrong, and nominating five works in some of the categories was a deliberate attempt to sweep the ballot, then I wouldn’t have wanted to be part of that, either.

The Hugos should represent all voices, so if Sad Puppies is about drawing attention to works that might otherwise be overlooked, I can support that and I’m happy to stand for it. But if it’s about shutting out other voices and other work, if it’s about politics or pissing off certain segments of fandom, that’s not something I can get behind.

The whole point of fandom is that our love for the genre unites us. It’s about having a place where genre is paramount, where literature comes first. So if that’s who you are, and that’s what you want, then I’m with you. That’s why I invited everyone to talk about books here on my blog.

But if you’re in this with some other agenda, take it elsewhere. I don’t want to be part of it.

 

Kary English on Facebook – June 28

Here’s what I hope will be my final comment on the Hugos.

As a result of this statement, I have been delisted from Vox Day’s voting preferences, which is fine with me since I never agreed to be part of that in the first place…..

 

Vox Day on Vox Popoli

“Hugo Recommendations: Best Short Story” – June 28

This is how I am voting in the Best Short Story category. Of course, I offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his 386 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.

  1. “Turncoat”, Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  2. “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  3. “On A Spiritual Plain”, Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, 11-2014)
  4. “A Single Samurai”, Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)

 

Mark Ciocco on Kaedrin Weblog

“Hugo Awards: Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form” – June 28

…. This year, we have at least two nominees that were deserving (and that didn’t have Upstream‘s impenetrable style), including Coherence (to be fair, there are some eligibility concerns on that one), The One I Love, and maybe even Snowpiercer (a film I kinda hated, but it seems up the voters’ alley). Alas, they did not make it, and to be sure, Hollywood had a pretty good year, putting out plenty of genuinely good movies. Indeed, I even nominated 3 of these, so I guess I shouldn’t complain! My vote will go something like this (I’m going to be partially quoting myself on some of these, with some added comments more specific to the Hugos)….

[Comments on all five nominees.]

 

[Very brave, Declan, pretending what I said about you was addressed to Sad Puppies in general. Now go and change your armor…]

758 thoughts on “Sweeny Terrier: The Demon Nominator of Slate Street 6/28

  1. what would we like you to do, Brian? well, someone came up with a list earlier

    Ask the Spokane organizers to host face to face panel and community discussions. Pass a resolution that WSFS does not encourage bloc voting if you want to. Ask a committee of people with a variety of different backgrounds and types of expertise to hold conversations with all the parties involved and draft “big picture” recommendations before geeking out on algorithms.

    You could write to the Spokane organisers, asking them to put on a panel. You could volunteer to contact speakers and chair it, or find a chair.
    You could write a resolution to be passed by WSFS about bloc voting.
    You could write some working guidelines for a committee, approach people to sit on it, volunteer to sit on it yourself.
    You could talk to the leaders of the puppies, and ask what it would take for them to stop voting slates.
    There’s a lot of things you could do. Why don’t you do them?

  2. I think I may see why Brian wants us all to wait a year before officially proposing and voting for EPH at the Business Meeting.
    Because, that way it would probably be a minimum of FOUR years from now before it goes into effect, not two or even three, because of the proposed extra year change to adoptions of WSFS changes. Four years of slates. Just think about that for a bit. Four years of widely-considered-deserving new authors being shoved out of their only chances at consideration for the Campbell. Four years of Castilia House, or maybe Castilia House and Joe’s House of SJW Publishing and BBQ Hut kicking works off the ballot. Four years of approximately 15% of the nominators making off with 90% of the ballot.

  3. Brian, while you may have answered this question, I don’t remember ever seeing you address it:
    Do you think it is right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot?
    Yes or No?

  4. “Houston, we have a problem.”

    “Roger that, but before we do anything we want to make sure everyone here at Mission Control has a discussion about whether smoking should be allowed inside the command center or not. Then we can talk about your problem.”

  5. Cally,

    Do you think it is right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot?
    Yes or No?

    Some of the most interesting Hugo results in history occurred when 15% of the nominators could control the whole ballot. The problem isn’t preventing an enemy from attacking, it is finding common ground for everyone to cooperate.

  6. @Brian Z

    I only see one thing in your/Ray’s list (chairing a panel) which requires your presence at Sasquan. The others sound perfectly doable from a distance.

  7. Ah, I see. Yes I’d volunteer my time for some of those things if others are interested in pursuing them. Hence, talking about them.

  8. Brian Z. You didn’t answer my question. Do you think it is right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot? Yes or No?

    Some of the most interesting Hugo results in history occurred when 15% of the nominators could control the whole ballot. The problem isn’t preventing an enemy from attacking, it is finding common ground for everyone to cooperate.

    Did 15% or so of the nominators actually control the ballot when those Hugo results happened? Or were people in those days honorable enough to not exploit the weakness in the rules, so the full 100% of the nominators were able to make their cases for their choices?

  9. But your post didn’t say, “this is what I want to work on, who is with me?”
    Maybe if you are serious about your proposals, you should start by doing some work on them yourself.

  10. Brian Z on June 30, 2015 at 7:25 am said:

    Cally [said] Do you think it is right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot?
    Yes or No?

    Some of the most interesting Hugo results in history occurred when 15% of the nominators could control the whole ballot. The problem isn’t preventing an enemy from attacking, it is finding common ground for everyone to cooperate.

    Could you give us an example of this happening?

  11. The problem isn’t preventing an enemy from attacking, it is finding common ground for everyone to cooperate.

    Remember, folks, Brian Z. tells us that enemies who attack you are not a problem, and you should never even try to prevent them from attacking. Not cooperating with that self-styled enemy when he attacks you? THAT’s a bad thing.
    Now we know.

  12. Brian Z on June 30, 2015 at 7:35 am said:
    Cally, I don’t think calling 15% of nominators dishonorable is a productive way to move forward.

    Do you think that the Puppy groups’ block voting tactics are honourable?

  13. Not me.
    Folks, if anyone is interested in working with Brian on these projects, his blog is linked through his username, perhaps you can contact him there and discuss it in email?
    kthxbai

  14. Brian Z: Is it honorable to exploit a rules loophole so that 15% of the voters can completely override the will of 85% of the voters in what is supposed to be a fair election? Yes or No?

  15. Cally, I don’t think calling 15% of nominators dishonorable is a productive way to move forward.

    Brian, I don’t think 15% of the nominators acting in a dishonorable way is a productive way to move forward.

    And given that you have demonstrated time and again in the threads on this site that you are, in fact, a dishonorable troll, I don’t think anything you have to say on any subject is worth considering.

  16. Brian Z on June 30, 2015 at 7:30 am said:

    Ah, I see. Yes I’d volunteer my time for some of those things if others are interested in pursuing them. Hence, talking about them.

    I’m not interested. I haven’t seen anyone in this community who is interested. You’ll have to recruit from other communities. Maybe the folks who read your blog?

  17. Brian Z —

    Some of the most interesting Hugo results in history occurred when 15% of the nominators could control the whole ballot.

    This is “interesting” in the sense of the Chinese curse, yes? This year is proving to be “interesting” in a historical sense; trouble is, it isn’t history while we’re living through it, and a historical perspective isn’t appropriate right now.

    And it’s of almost zero “interest” in the literary sense. If it wasn’t for the three real nominations in the novel category and the four in the graphic story, I’d despair for this year’s Hugos.

  18. Brian Z: Some of the most interesting Hugo results in history occurred when 15% of the nominators could control the whole ballot.

    [citation needed]

  19. P J Evans: What he’s failing to mention is that, while those nominations took place when 15% of the nominators COULD HAVE controlled the ballot, they took place when they DIDN’T.

  20. PJ Evans: Brian Z: Some of the most interesting Hugo results in history occurred when 15% of the nominators could control the whole ballot.

    [citation needed]

    Or maybe not. We’ve deduced that this exploitable flaw has existed ever since the nominating phase was added to the Hugos. Therefore Brian’s “could” condition applies to all the years since that addition was made. He will now proceed to conflate “nominators could” with “nominators did” in five…four…three…

  21. Interesting how Brian refuses to answer whether he thinks it is right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot, though he’s been happy to respond to other things.
    It’s not a trick question. I’m happy to answer it for myself. I think that it is NOT right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot in what is supposed to be a fair election. I think that it is a rules loophole that only dishonorable people, people who do not believe in democracy, or their dupes would exploit. I’m proud of fandom, conservative and liberal, readers of fantasy and science fiction and horror and even slipstream, readers of novels and of drabbles, watchers of TV and movies, that for the at LEAST 30 years that this loophole has been known, all of fandom until now was honorable enough not to exploit it. I think that now that we know there are people who are willing to lower themselves to exploit this loophole, it needs to be eliminated.
    Ok, your turn, Brian. Is it right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot? Yes or No?
    If you answer yes, then can you make the case as to why is it right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot?

  22. Cally, Brian will merely point out that any ballot with nominations from 15% of the electorate will have been controlled by the 15%. Because that’s what “control” means, you see, in Brian’s grammar-parsing engine.

  23. Some of the most interesting Hugo results in history occurred when 15% of the nominators could control the whole ballot. The problem isn’t preventing an enemy from attacking, it is finding common ground for everyone to cooperate.

    I’m sorry, but that is bovine excrement. Mr. Beale is not the least bit interested in “cooperating”–his only motive is to slash and burn, and serve a great big dish of frozen revenge to John Scalzi and the Nielsen Haydens. Furthermore, NO 15% of the nominators should control the ballot, whether they be Impacted Canines, Social Justice Weenies or anyone else. (Which is why I support E Pluribus Hugo, even though I’m not going to be at Sasquan.)

    Great Cthulhu, I understand why people here wish you would just hold your tongue and/or go away. You really are tiresome.

  24. Mike: true. ‘Could’ isn’t ‘did’ – no matter what he’s implying. And one nominee is not ‘controlling the whole ballot’.

  25. I figured it ‘could’ be said to apply to any ballot where 15% or less chose any given nominee. Since fandom is not a hive mind, I expect that applies to quite a lot of nominees, and probably quite a few ballots. Not that that is anything like what the Puppies did this time.

  26. I just think EPH fails to address the root problems by simply pointing at “puppies” and emitting a kind of Donald Sutherland shriek.

    Pure gibberish.

    Can we lose this troll, please?

  27. Mike Glyer:

    Therefore Brian’s “could” condition applies to all the years since that addition was made. He will now proceed to conflate “nominators could” with “nominators did” in five…four…three…

    Mike, is that fair? You’ve just made my point, that nominators “could” do it for quite a long time (and as we all know things usually went pretty well). I hardly need to add anything to that.

  28. Therefore Brian’s “could” condition applies to all the years since that addition was made. He will now proceed to conflate “nominators could” with “nominators did” in five…four…three…

    Mike, is that fair? You’ve just made my point, that nominators “could” do it for quite a long time (and as we all know things usually went pretty well). I hardly need to add anything to that.

    ……………..
    ……….
    …. I give up.

  29. You’ve just made my point, that nominators “could” do it for quite a long time

    And now have done it, two years running. Hence, Houston, we have a problem. With slates of nominees. EPH is a proposed fix to address that.

  30. Peace is My Middle Name:

    Ah gods, trilbys and those awful little pork pie hats. It bugs me no end that people refer to them as fedoras.

    To be fair, trilbys are very similar to “stingy fedoras”, of the sort that Frank Sinatra used to wear.

  31. Alain:

    @ Tuomas VainioAren’t you the chap that signs off using
    SJW always lie. Seems pretty hateful to me.

    That would be me, not Tuomas the confused fin. I suspect too much drink in both our cases.

    I wouldn’t say so. I would call it a meme, a rule of thumb, rhetoric, a principle. It helps those of us who are naturally truthful to deal with habitual liars.

    Please define the word hate or refer me to your preferred dictionary.

    SJWs always lie.

  32. Brian Z on June 30, 2015 at 11:03 am said:

    I hardly need to add anything to that.

    Could you please add an answer to the questions that were asked above by other commenters:

    Do you think the Puppies acted honorably by bloc-voting?

    Do you think it is right and proper that 15% or so of the nominators can control the whole ballot?

  33. Brian

    What work, Kurt? Other than talking about it, what would you like me to do?

    Me? I’d like you to pour yourself a hot, steaming cup of shut the fuck up, if you’re taking requests.

    But I’m not the one with all these burning concerns you want other people to address. You are. So if you want them addressed, then you should figure out how to get them addressed and take those steps, rather than hairshirting your poor concerned self on File770, which doesn’t run the Hugos. You want study groups? Convene them. You want the Worldcon Business Meeting to form a committee? Write a proposal and submit it.

    But if you only care enough about your raging concerns to repeatedly suggest that someone else address them for you, then you don’t actually care very much.

  34. Brian

    One of the things I love most about this conversation is how dishonorable I am.

    You’re the only one.

    I mean, I can’t authoritatively speak for anyone else here, but I’m pretty sure I’m right about that.

  35. Brian is a puppy;
    To VD and his hate,
    He wants us to surrender–
    At least, “cooperate.”

    Brian is a puppy,
    He’s not like you and me.
    Since EPH has promise,
    It gets his FUD.

    Brian is a Puppy.
    His rhetoric is spent
    On twisting others’ statements
    To things they never meant

    Brian is a puppy,
    You know it without fail
    His type of conversation
    Is chasing its own tail.

  36. sez brian z: “One of the things I love most about this conversation is how dishonorable I am.”
    [nods] Figured as much. Why else would you continue to be as dishonorable as you are?

  37. [skims last few pages of this thread]

    fun for some but exhausting for me. I am going to just skip these kind of discussions from here out.

  38. aeou —

    It helps those of us who are naturally truthful to deal with habitual liars.

    *cough* I’ll just… leave this here.

  39. fear, uncertainty, and doubt – used in negotiation to make untried choices or paths appear dangerous when there is a ‘safer’ alternative – usually the status quo

    Example ‘you can’t get fired for choosing IBM or Oracle’ when IT managers are looking at technology solutions.

  40. redheadedfemme — Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. As I recall, the basic operating principle of the IBM sales force when encountering a customer considering buying a computer that wasn’t — gasp — an IBM. That is to say, what they’d induce in a customer about their competitors’ products.

    Edit: Woo, so ninja’d.

  41. @Nelc, @Cally, @Shambles

    Thank you.

    the basic operating principle of the IBM sales force when encountering a customer considering buying a computer that wasn’t — gasp — an IBM. That is to say, what they’d induce in a customer about their competitors’ products.

    That’s exactly what Brian Z is doing, isn’t he? I suppose he thinks he’s clever.

  42. sez redheadedfemme: “I feel silly, folks…but *what* does FUD stand for?”
    Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The term “FUD”, as a distinctive term unto itself, was originally used to refer to Microsoft’s practice of using advertising/propaganda techniques to discourage would-be customers from buying The Wrong King Of Computers, which would of course be Computers Which Don’t Have a Microsoft OS. The applicability of the term ‘FUD’ to Brian Z’s little droppings should be fairly clear, methinks.

    Okay, IBM was into FUD before Microsoft got there…

Comments are closed.