aka The Puppy Who Barked Hugo At The Hearts Of The Fans
A modest roundup today because Your Host is under the weather. Will catch up in the next post. Meantime here are thoughts from Eric Franklin, Megan Leigh, George R.R. Martin, Alexandra Erin, Soon Lee and less easily identified others. (Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editors of the day Paul Weimer and Rev. Bob.)
Eric Franklin on Gamethyme
“Awards and Geekdom” – May 6
It’s caused a huge stir. To the point where more than a few nominees have withdrawn, either because they don’t want to be associated with the “Puppies” lists or because the winners of this year’s Hugo awards may feel like there will always be an asterisk associated with that award.
And it’s a shame, because there are some really good works on the list. For example, I really liked Ancillary Sword (which is the sequel to Ancillary Justice, which is well worth the read).
To make things worse, the folks involved with this are using the “We didn’t break any rules,” argument. And have co-opted GamerGate language, referring to their opponents as “SJWs.”
As a gamer, I am well aware that “We didn’t break the rules,” is shorthand for, “I know I’m being an asshole.” Because I hear it at the table all too often.
Nightly Nerd News On Facebook – May 6
So If I vote for someone on at a Puppy slate I am fighting “puritanical bullies” or “the amoral culture of human degradation” while if I vote for someone on the other slate, wait, there isn’t another slate. Those bullies and their amoral culture must have already subsumed and conquered everyone else. No wonder we are getting metaphors from the Puppies of their donning old gray uniforms or suits of armor to ride forth into battle. The most I see on the non-puppy side is “hey, we’re fantasy and science fiction fans, we should read all kinds of things by all kinds of people.”
Larry seems to have confused the “puritanical bullies” side.
I don’t like being dragged into wars, on either side. So I will read and look at all the nominees and compare some to Locus Award nominees and see if the Hugo nominees are really the best from last year and worthy of awarding.
My past preferences have always been I like all kinds of things from all kinds of people.
electricscribbles
“The 2015 Hugo Award Kerfluffle makes me glad I’m not a Trufan!” – May 6
Admittedly I’m a fan of Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, Michael Z. Williamson, Sarah Hoyt, John Ringo, well almost the whole Baen Stable really. My politics are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, limited government with a hawkish bent (that’s my military upbringing speaking). Classic Liberal if you will, libertarian versus Libertarian. I’m a military veteran and I like military SF, it speaks to me. But that’s beside the point really. The sad reality is that both sides are more interested in tearing each other down then they are convincing anybody of the righteousness of their cause.
Megan Leigh on Pop-Verse
“The boys’ club: Why literary awards are so problematic” – May 6
To rectify this perceived problem, a bunch of white males have gathered together to herd the fans back into line. The Sad Puppies campaign, led by Brad L. Torgersen and Larry Correia, created their own list of suggested nominees for all categories. They asked those who were eligible to vote to follow their suggestions, which kept the number of female nominees to a scant 8, most of them being either writers of short stories or editors, none in the best novel, novella, or novelette categories. Not only do Torgersen and Correia take issue with the leftist movement in the voting, they disagree with the inclusion of these kinds of publications within their beloved genre at all.
George R.R. Martin on Not A Blog
“STATION ELEVEN Wins Clarke Award” – May 6
I must admit, I am partial to awards that come with cool trophies. I mean, the honor is great and all, but a plaque is a plaque is a plaque and a certificate-suitable-for-framing is a piece of paper, really. SF and fantasy have been uniquely blessed with some nifty awards. The Hugo rocket is, of course, iconic, and still number one for me… at least in the years when the worldcon doesn’t go overboard with the base. (We have had some VERY ugly-ass bases, huge ones that overwhelm the rocket, but also some great ones). Some people prefer the Nebula, and the early Nebulas with the quartz crystals were really striking, but in more recent decades they have been more hit-and-miss. I also love HWA award, the Tim Kirk haunted house, and of course the wonderfully ghastly head of H.P. Lovecraft (by the wonderfully ghastly Gahan Wilson) that is the World Fantasy Award. (I have one of the former, and three of the latter).
Stages of #HugoAwards #controversy:
1.Shock & anger
2.Pile-on/Knee-jerk reaction
3.Acceptance
4.Considered response
5.Make jokes
I'm on 3-5— Soon Lee (@SoonLeeNZ) May 7, 2015
Sad Puppies Review Books: THE MONSTER AT THE END OF THIS BOOK http://t.co/xI0iyjB2DO fuck I can't stop laughing send help #bookreviewtheatre
— Nov? Ophiuchi (@Gazztron) May 7, 2015
Alexandra Erin on Blue Author Is About To Write
“Sad Puppies Review Books: The Little Prince” – May 6
Reading this book it is obvious that the author was relying more on demographic appeal than quality storytelling, a fact that is only confirmed when you realize that The Little Prince was written by a Frenchman. It is well-known that the French have been Stalinists ever since they were conquered by Hitler. Did you know that Hitler was a leftist? They teach kids in school that Fascism is the opposite of Stalinism but Hitler and Stalin agreed to carve up the world between them and they would have got away with it if it wasn’t for God’s America.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
VD: They’re the same thing, as you would recognize if it wasn’t over your head
Except for one being true and one not being true, of course. Which is why it doesn’t count when you get pointed out as being dishonest because Aristotle.
Sad Piggies, 2015.
@Tuomas – The reason he was asking which books have been kept out of the awards by the cabal is because the puppies keep claiming that all the good books have been kept out of the nominations in order to give the awards to bad books with SJW messages.
Since no one has been able to actually point to any book that this happened to, it leaves neutrals and anti-puppies wondering, ‘how do the puppies know?’
If there is no evidence that can be seen, what is this certainty based upon?
In a lot of ways, VD has been the most honest of the puppies- he hasn’t tried to manufactur any proof, if you look through his posts he has at various times in the threads on this site admitted that this whole thing is just to get back at the authors he thought were mean to him and to bring the culture war into science-fiction.
MickyFinn, I actually posted the link to that blog a couple of pages of comments back on this thread.
Also, this post brought out an interesting group of people.
“Mr. Mamatas has put forth a request for a list based on nothing but one’s personal preferences and interests. The request is almost like asking for someone’s favourite colour.”
Your response is a cop out. Anyone who feels like the Hugos have gone to social justice warrior hell the past 20 years should be able to meet his challenge. All they have to do is tell us one winning work a year that was guilty of “foregrounding a left message to the extent that the story was ruined or misshaped.”
Hell, just name 10 works from that period that were guilty of this. We’re waiting.
“We point to PNH, Stross and Scalzi having more Hugo nominations than Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke.”
A not very useful comparison, since there were fewer Hugo categories when Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke were in their prime. And a fair amount of their work wasn’t eligible, because the Hugo hadn’t been invented yet.
Also, John C. Wright did surprisingly well with nominations this year. Shenanigans or strategic voting? You decide.
Maximillian, rcade:
I don’t think you’re going to get much traction there. This is the same guy who keeps insisting that the Hugo awards have obviously been gamed for years, because there is no viable means of narrowing down all the SFF books released in a year into a list of likely suspects.
Tuomas Vainio @ 6:06 pm
I am starting to really get tired from everyone coping put from the question. So let me reverse the question slightly and ask you directly.
Do YOU think that the SJW (or whatever the secret cabal is called for you) had influenced the Hugo in the last 20 years to the point where more deserving works had been kept out from the ballot? If you believe that, can you please provide an example from each year when you think that happened? If you cannot provide even a few examples per year (and I am asking of one per year), then on what do you base your belief that there is a cabal that keeps the worthy works out from the ballot? Because you did not like the ballot? Fine. Tell us what should have been.
This is not subjective. It is a question that will show what kind of SF/F you like and feel had been excluded?
The problem is that noone seems to be able to either show a work that won and that is nothing but a message OR to show which are those works that should have been on the ballot and would have won only if these bad people had not made sure they are not on the ballot…
Anyone else wishes to answer that one – please feel free to. Maybe this will finally get us all to talk about books again…
@JJ on May 7, 2015 at 6:42 pm
Wow. Read the blog post. That… Seemed to have missed the point. I think it missed *all* of the points. How can we tell if the slate pushed better books off the noms unless there was a predetermined conclusion???
I will quote (paraphrase) a famed destroyer of puppy arguments for my rebuttal: “I am going to vote for 3 Body Problem for the Hugo and I would have put it on the Rabid Puppy slate if they had sent me a free copy earlier.” I can’t quite remember who said that, but they seem to think that the slate pushed the best book of the year off the nomination list…
Right. You’re all crying up a storm and shrieking about feelbads, newspapers from the UK to New Zealand are reporting on it, Martin himself has written more about it in the last month than anything set in Westeros, and panels at conventions in England are debating my true intentions… because I’m a non-entity.
They’ve been writing mostly about Correia and Torgersen. You’re an afterthought who desperately wants to be center stage. No matter what happens with the Hugos, you’ll still be a fifth rate nobody craving attention.
We point to PNH, Stross and Scalzi having more Hugo nominations than Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke.
And when you do, it just shows how ridiculous your claims are. All three of those men had substantial portions of their careers before the Hugo Awards were even created. For most of their period when their careers and the Hugo Awards overlapped, the Hugo Awards had far fewer categories than they do now. Asimov spent most of the 1960s not writing science fiction. By the time the mid-1970s rolled around, Heinlein’s books were not up to his normal standards. And so on and so forth.
All that you really demonstrate when you tout the relative number of nominations between the two groups is how little you know about the history of the Hugo Awards.
Did they?
Grabbing the Hugo award lists and doing some basic grepping, and possibly some sloppy counting:
1) Asimov: 12 noms (1966, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1992, 1995, 1996)
2) Clarke: 9 noms (1956, 1963, 1969, 1972, 1974, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1990)
3) Heinlein: 12 noms (1956, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1966, 1967, 1974, 1983, 1985, 1990)
vs
3) PNH: 14 noms (1984, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013)
4) Scalzi: 10 noms (2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013)
5) Stross: 15 noms (2002, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2014, 2014)
Huh. So the second set got a total of 6 more nominations than the first.
What are we supposed to conclude from that?
@Maximillian, if the reason he asks is what you claim, he really does a bad job at asking about it.
But fine, let us momentarily entertain a discussion on entirely subjective preferences with just as subjective political definitions and ideals. Let us head to Wikipedia and open the page for past Hugo award nominations and winners for best novel. Let us open Amazon on the side for those long one star reviews. From Wikipedia we get the summaries of what happens in each nominated work. On Amazon we get more specific details on what went wrong according to some of the readers.
DISCLAIMER:
The following list contains possible reasons why someone might have disliked a work that was nominated and eventually won the Hugo award of its year. It does not represent the views of any single individual. Hence the following list is an excercise in basic human empathy, an attempt to understand and list the views you might disagree with.
2014: Ancillary Justice
> Possible reason: Both men and women are used as soldiers controlled by genderless AI. In other words it presents a violation of more traditional gender roles, and a blatant ignorance of how gender differences do exist.
2013: Redshirts
> Possible reason: ‘Line name said.’ A repeating pattern that makes the work read out like a play script that did not even see the bare minimum of effort when it was converted into a novel. Therefore it can be difficult to see any merits to the work itself, beyond the author’s possible affiliations and fans just waving their flags in favour of it.
2012: Among Others
> Possible reason: Someone could easily have disagreements with the ‘one line reviews’ of the mentioned classics, or how some notable works of the day were not mentioned in the work. Not to mention how there appears to be disparity with the back blurb and actual content of the book.
2011: Blackout / All Clear
> Possible reason: Time travellers who are supposedly history students specialised in specific time frame, remain without knowing anything concrete about the actual historical events surrounding them. Not to mention the repetitious worrying over nothing makes it incredibly dull read.
2010: The city and the city
> Possible reason: One of the aspects of the novel are the citizens who spend their wilfully ignorant lives in an effort to ensure that things stay the way they are. Naturally it is not hard to see how someone could take it as a jab towards conservatives.
2009: The Graveyard Book
> Possible reason: It was marketed as a book for kids while it was not written for kids. In fact, you might even need to have dictionary at hand to follow what was going on, or just give up on the spot. Not to mention how some concervative criticism could be raised for the growing environment of Nobody Owens.
2008: The Yiddish Policemen’s Union
> Possible reason: It is alternative history, mystery, but not really enough science fiction or fantasy to warrant a Hugo.
2007: Rainbows End
> Possible reason: It just boring ad for new technology.
Ugh… Is it really that hard to grasp how someone might not like what you might possibly like?
I noticed that many of Asimov’s nominations were for non-fiction works.
Full list (hey, it’s only 12 lines):
1966: Foundation series
1973: The Gods Themselves
1975: “—That Thou Art Mindful of Him!”
1977: “The Bicentennial Man”
1980: In Memory Yet Green
1981: In Joy Still Felt: The Autobiography of Isaac Asimov, 1954–1978
1983: Foundation’s Edge
1987: “Robot Dreams”
1992: “Gold”
1995: I. Asimov: A Memoir
1996: Yours, Isaac Asimov: A Lifetime of Letters by Isaac Asimov
“Gold” appears to be a mix of SF and essays. So call it about 4.5 (Gold=.5 + the works from 1980, 1981, 1995, 1996) nonfiction works, say.
I think a long post just vanished into aether.
Oof, I see why VD chose to use nominations instead of wins, that secret SJW cabal managed to get nominated but not beat them in awards. I guess that makes a less persuasive factoid though 🙂 Ursula Le Guin, Anne McCaffery and Connie Willis I believe also had more nominations. The original conspiracy!
@Aaron-
>All that you really demonstrate when you tout the relative number of nominations between the two groups is how little you know about the history of the Hugo Awards.
No, no, you forget: VD is smarter than all of us. He knows that the ‘proof’ he is offering is worthless, he knows about the history of the Hugos. He isn’t trying to offer real proof, he’s trying to ‘rhetoric’ us with a statement that he knows is untrue, but sounds good and feels truthy if nobody thinks about it too much.
@ Annie Y…
What I think? Some people nominated the works they liked. Some others threw hissy fits and tantrums as they did not like the said works or authors or any else like it. So what I think: let whoever gets more votes win the blasted rocket.
As for secret cabals? Pfft, don’t be silly. But then again, anyone can affect the result of the nominations and votes. Authors and fans alike have been posting their ‘recommendations’ since what… 1995? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFR9TYxAVZQ Or at least shared their thoughts on whoever is the most deserving this year. (Those posts also pop up here on file770.)
And generally speaking… Hear him out, he was very happy to hear Kloos was nominated until he withdrew: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr2c5eQy9BE
And as for my taste in SFF… Neither this year nor the past 20~ years actually have something I like. The nonliterary categories perform bit better.
And really. These days with selfpublishing being a click away, we have tens of thousands of new SFF coming out every year. Out of all these eligble works, five are nominated. It is not an exception, it is a simple fact: there exists a plethora of worthy works that simply do not get nominated.
Of course I used wikipedia as my source so my info might be incorrect. Didn’t want to scroll year to year on the Hugo site.
Tuomas: “let whoever gets more votes win the blasted rocket. ”
When has this ever not been true?
“It is not an exception, it is a simple fact: there exists a plethora of worthy works that simply do not get nominated.”
When has that *ever* not been true, esp for a mass-market award?
I see that you’ve gone on to start posting lengthy youtube screeds. Truly, this whole thing is becoming like #GG writ small.
@Tuomas – Just because a lot of books come out each year and a bunch of people threw a hissy fit about the awards doesn’t mean that we should accept their decision to start using slate voting and capture the nominations, so that people can’t vote for the best books, but have to choose from whatever is on the slate.
As VD admitted here, his slate didn’t even include what he thinks is the best book of the year. Given that mistake, does it really seem as if letting two people make up the slates based on their friends and people who publish with their magazines is the best way to find the best book of the year?
Tuomas:
Responding to
“Do YOU think that the SJW (or whatever the secret cabal is called for you) had influenced the Hugo in the last 20 years to the point where more deserving works had been kept out from the ballot? If you believe that, can you please provide an example from each year when you think that happened?”
with
“As for secret cabals? Pfft, don’t be silly. But then again, anyone can affect the result of the nominations and votes.”
is not an answer, it is an evasion.
And “not the hugo winners” isn’t an answer about your taste in SFF.
Annie Y
I’m not a SP so this list will be more than somewhat spurious but it was built off author names that I hear mentioned on the SP blogs. Any fans of these writers able to weigh in as to if you’d have liked to see these novels shortlisted for a Hugo?
2003 A Forest of Stars by Charles Gannon
2004 Flash by L.E. Modesitt
2005 1812: The Rivers of War by Eric Flint
2006 Mistborn: The Final Empire by Brandon Sanderson
2007 White Knight by Jim Butcher
2008 Null-A Continuum by John C. Wright
2009 Storm from the Shadows by David Weber
2010 Darkship Thieves by Sarah Hoyt
2011 Count to a Trillion by John C. Wright
2012 The Dirty Streets of Heaven by Tad Williams
2013 Fire with Fire by Charles Gannon
Maximilian: No, no, you forget: VD is smarter than all of us. He knows that the ‘proof’ he is offering is worthless, he knows about the history of the Hugos. He isn’t trying to offer real proof, he’s trying to ‘rhetoric’ us with a statement that he knows is untrue, but sounds good and feels truthy if nobody thinks about it too much.
You forgot to mention the magic word “Aristotle”. Unless you mention the magic word, people won’t realize how smart you are, and might think you’re just a dishonest weasel or something…
@Matt Y, feel free to correct the errors on Wikipedia if you spot any.
@snowcrash: Maybe this year. Quite the upset ruckus.
@snowracsh: It is more of a criticism towards the line of thought that suddenly this year the Puppies have stolen the award away from more derserving authors and works… by reminding people to vote on works they like.
@snowcrash: Not very lengthy… and the 22+ minute one is actually very positive and cheerful to listen to. Probably the only one who was happy about this years Hugos.
@Maximillian, except that is exactly how the award works year after year. Might explain the low participation percentages year-after-year… well, this year might be something different.
@MickyFinn: It is an answer, and it is not evasion. Every year someone could mention a more deserving work that went unnoticed. Every year we have the same group of people making the buzz about the awards on the blog spots. Or do you claim that the opinions of popular authors hold no sway, when they recommend?
@MickyFinn: Except that it is. I have not seen a work of SFF that I personally liked nominated for the best Novel in forever.
“Every year someone could mention a more deserving work that went unnoticed. ” except you didn’t, when directly asked. you answered a parenthetical comment instead. you evaded the point of the question.
“Except that it is. I have not seen a work of SFF that I personally liked nominated for the best Novel in forever.” It is no more an answer than “Not Lamb shanks” is an answer about what food I like.
Darrell – I love Tad Williams, but Dirty Streets of Heaven (and following series) to me has been his weakest work. I love Otherland though and would have been overjoyed to see it be nominated. It wasn’t (and to my knowledge he hasn’t been ever) and yet instead of harboring any ill will Tad Williams was the toastmaster the year the final volume could’ve been nominated, and he put the speech he gave online and it was all about the past, present and how to pay forward the inspiration others have given us.
@MickyFinn What are my preferences to you or anyone else? What purpose would my preferences serve beyond some kind of badge to measure my creditability? I have no interested in cliques and elitism.
As for “Not Lamb Shanks.” Sounds to me you eat everything except lamb shanks. Childhood trauma, something else? Who knows, but what I know, is not to serve lamb shanks to you. (If you were honest.)
Tuomas: “let whoever gets more votes win the blasted rocket. ”
Me: “When has this ever not been true?”
Tuomas:” Maybe this year. Quite the upset ruckus.”
That’s a hell of an implied accusation to make. May want to back off on that.
Tuomas: ” …stolen the award away from more derserving authors and works… by reminding people to vote on works they like.”
ITYM by telling people to vote on works (Brad/ Larry/ Day) liked.
@Darrell
I’ve read the sequel to the second Gannon on the list. It was good clean fun, albeit with an incredibly Mary Sue master-of-all-trades main character.
Flint- no. I enjoyed the Grantville series, but not enough to nominate for a Hugo.
Love the Honor Harrington books, but also not something I would nominate.
Hoyt- isn’t that the book where the main character rips off her nightdress to use her breasts as a stun-gun? Nope.
I am a Butcher fan, I could see White Knight earning a nom, but Changes would have been a better choice.
Matt: I thoroughly enjoyed the first otherland book, couldn’t make it through the series. I lost faith that he was going to bring it home. Or ever finish. I do love his stuff, but think he needs a tighter and stricter editor (YMMV).
@Tuomas- “Ugh… Is it really that hard to grasp how someone might not like what you might possibly like?”
No, it isn’t hard at all… But I didn’t say anything remotely like that, so I’m not sure why you bring it up.
It isn’t the rest of us who are claiming that kind of thing, in any event- it is the puppies who are telling us that we didn’t really enjoy reading those books and are just voting for them because of some kind of political message.
@Tuomas-“@Maximillian, except that is exactly how the award works year after year. Might explain the low participation percentages year-after-year… well, this year might be something different.”
But just two posts ago you admitted that there actually hadn’t been a conspiracy. Now you are back to claiming that the nomination list was always chosen by just one or two people like Brad and VD did this year?
This is why people keep asking what you are talking about. This doesn’t make any sense.
oh, and the two John C Wright entries on the list? Is he much, much, much better in long form than in his nominated works this year? I’ll need someone I trust to vouch for anything written by him before I try to read his stuff again. I’ve worked through the nominees he has up this year, haven’t I suffered enough?
@MickeyF
I haven’t read anything of Wright’s since Orphans of Chaos, but those three were good. The characters weren’t the best, but the world buildng was well done. Those may have been from before the brain-eater got him, though, I don’t remember the books being as pompous as his blog posts.
Oh, here’s one that I would have liked see get a nom-
Redliners, David Drake, 1996
I read the Brightness Reef and Diamond Age that year, I remember thinking that BR wasn’t anywhere near as good as Startide Rising. What did other people think about Redliners?
maximillian: Redliners, aka my favorite thing by drake ever? yeah, its ok 😉
Darrell @ 9:14 pm
Well – just because someone likes an author, that does not mean that anything they ever write will get nominated. But thanks for posting the list – at least with a list, we can start talking about books 🙂 Maybe someone from the people that think that there is a problem will come out and start talking books?
Butcher – I’ve already said that I am a fan. And my reasons why I never nominated him – he is good but nothing that makes me go “wow, I need to nominate this”. Not on an individual book without it being a buildup from the previous series. Some of the older Tad Williams’s books are amongst my favorite ones. This one? I barely finished it. Something is just not clicking for me there. Had not read any of the others (Sanderson is on my list though).
Tuomas Vainio @ 9:17 pm
“Every year someone could mention a more deserving work that went unnoticed
Tuomas Vainio on May 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm
“What are my preferences to you or anyone else? What purpose would my preferences serve beyond some kind of badge to measure my creditability? I have no interested in cliques and elitism”
One part of the fandom this year decided that they had had enough of another group nominating and decided to take the nominations in their hands. As someone that usually gets a few of her nominations on the ballot and someone that does not have major issues with what is nominated, I am asking someone from the unhappy group to share what they would have liked to see on that ballot and what made them so unhappy. It is a simple question.Let me make it simple – what were your favorite 10 novels published last 10 years? (again – anyone that wants to answer this one is welcome to).
So asking about why you think the awards were unfair makes you part of a clique? If you are not willing to talk about the books you are reading, why did you decide to be unhappy with the awards? Because someone said so?
This is the whole issue with all this mess. Noone is talking about the books – these are awards for books, not for author’s life achievements. If there are issues in the awards, there are books that were left out – as this year everyone pointed them out immediately – the books that were kept out of the ballots. Except that noone seems to be coming out with those books that were left out in previous years… all that is heard is evasions and silence. In order to claim that the awards were influenced by whatever, you need to know what you think should have made it. Right?
Maximillian: I remember reading that before Wright got God, he generally did some fun playing with the gods of his settings, and that post conversion, he replaced that with sticking Christianity into everything, and being way less fun with it.
@snowcrash, this year has seen far more drama than usual. So who knows.
And are those really works that “(Brad/ Larry/ Day)” liked. Who knows, but clearly the people who could nominate did.
@Maximillian Oh, that post has reappeared from the aether! And no, it is not what Puppies are saying. They are saying they didn’t like those books. Not their preferences, so they did something kick their sleeping fans… And now we have a bunch of other people feeling they do not like the nominated works.
And how about you copy and paste what I have actually admitted.
Late to the party on this and repeating what many others have said already, but damn:
“Ringo is so filled with women with agency that quite frankly they have ceased sounding like women.”
I was just lurking and reading along when my brain slammed into this comment so hard that it induced what can only be described as a catastrophic bout of eye-rolling (very nearly prompting my eyeballs to shoot out of their sockets). Honestly, GK Chesterton couldn’t have illustrated the undercurrent of misogyny in the Sad/Rabid Puppy movements more successfully if he’d tried.
Anyway:
“Darrell – I love Tad Williams, but Dirty Streets of Heaven (and following series) to me has been his weakest work. I love Otherland though and would have been overjoyed to see it be nominated. It wasn’t (and to my knowledge he hasn’t been ever) and yet instead of harboring any ill will Tad Williams was the toastmaster the year the final volume could’ve been nominated, and he put the speech he gave online and it was all about the past, present and how to pay forward the inspiration others have given us.”
I love the Otherland novels too, though the plot meanders at times. Seeing them mentioned here makes me want to go back and re-read them.
@Tuomas-
Why do you want me to paste it? It was just acoe of hours ago, how could you forget so quickly?
Tuomas Vainio on May 7, 2015 at 8:11 pm said:
“As for secret cabals? Pfft, don’t be silly.”
As to puppies telling me that I was lying about enjoying Hugo winners, all I can say is that I think you must not have spent much time reading the comments at Larry or Brad’s blogs. That is a very common accusation there.
So I will repeat myself, whatever made you ask me about an ability to understand that other people have different tastes? I haven’t said anything about that, but was aware that it is true.
Maximillian: “I’ve read the sequel to the second Gannon on the list. It was good clean fun, albeit with an incredibly Mary Sue master-of-all-trades main character.”
I liked the books becaue I just think it’s cool, for a change, to read about a main character who isn’t triumphing simply because he’s a (dumb) muscleman. Although the author uses a certain rather far-fetched subplot device in the first book, I was willing to suspend my disbelief about that because (with the exception of a couple of unrelated passages which inspired much eye-rolling) I enjoyed the book immensely.
But I have to admit, when he used the very same subplot device in a different context in the second book, it went from “far-fetched” to “you’ve got to be effing kidding me”. Which is what knocked it off the list of books for me to consider when drawing up my Hugo shortlist.
But I still really enjoyed both books in that series, and am looking forward to the third.
@Tuomas-
“And are those really works that “(Brad/ Larry/ Day)” liked. Who knows, but clearly the people who could nominate did.”
Well, we know. We all know, because we can see the slates and what ended up being nominated. As you should know, Brad’s slate was about 75% his choices and 25% suggestions from his blog, while VD’s was largely the original plus John C Wright stories and things from VD’s publishing house.
So… As I said. We do know the answer to this. There isn’t any confusion.
And as VD has said here, a lot of people voted for his slate not because they liked the stories, but because they wanted to stick it to their perceived political enemies.
Tuomos Vainio: “And no, it is not what Puppies are saying. They are saying they didn’t like those books. Not their preferences, so they did something kick their sleeping fans.”
You are conveniently eliding the part where the Puppies claimed that all the books which have been getting nominated for the Hugos in the last x years were making the shortlist because of a Sekrit SJW Cabal who was gaming the system.
Annie Y: I can’t guarantee that these are my favorites from the last 10 years, but they’re on the short list, and hopefully from within the timeframe.
Ancillary Justice.
Stross’s Glasshouse and The Jennifer Morgue (I love the whole Laundry Files, but thats my favorite).
The Name of the Wind & The Wise Mans Fear
A Madness of Angels
The Rook (by Daniel O’Malley, apparently a local author, who I should really track down and get to sign my copy at some point)
My Pratchett choices fall just outside the envelope (Night watch, Monstrous Regiment and Going Postal), likewise Bujold (A Civil Campaign, Paladin of Souls, Memory.)
I’m sure I’m missing things, but I’m not in front of my bookshelves, or my kindle at the moment.
Maximillian
Other than some blog posts I’ve never read anything by Sarah Hoyt. Truth be told I am woefully under-read in what I think the SPs might like to see nominated.
Butcher, like Dean Koontz, is one of a handful of authors whose novels I have had regularly recommended to me yet I’ve never been able to get past the first chapter of any that I’ve tried. Does he have any standalone novels that you think would make a good gateway into his writing?
Mickey Finn
I’ve read Wright’s duology, Last Guardian of Everness and Mists of Everness. I thought that they were above average with some very good scenes between Raven and Wendy, a married couple important to the novels, but the final book was significantly marred by heavy handed political observations and an economic speech that seemed to have been included for no particular reason. My understanding is that his Golden Age trilogy and Null-A Contiuum are very good but haven’t personally read them.
@Mickey
After discussing Redliners and now seeing your best of list, I’m glad to confirm my suspicion that you are a gentleman of exquisite taste!
maximillian: I had always suspected as much, but it is nice to have it confirmed 🙂
Darrell: “Other than some blog posts I’ve never read anything by Sarah Hoyt.”
Don’t read the posts over at her blog. That place is just scary, with all the wild paranoia and unfounded dire conspiracy theories spewing out of it. It’s like dropping down the Rabbit Hole after dropping acid.
Hoyt’s urban fantasy Shifter series is pretty enjoyable, IMHO. In fact, those books have got all sorts of wonderful SJW messages about minorities being misunderstood and excluded and oppressed by The Man in them. I’m still trying to figure out why they haven’t revoked her Evil Puppy League of Evil membership card for those books.