It was a prolific day, with new posts from Sad Puppies’ Torgersen and Correia, and Rabid Puppies’ Vox Day, puppy supporters Dave Freer and Amanda S. Green, and detractors John Scalzi and David Gerrold. A host of new voices joined the exchange. And Adam-Troy Castro has penned something that is either a satire, or a candidate for the Sad Puppies 4 slate — decide for yourself.
Dave Freer on Mad Genius Club
“Battlers” – April 20
It’s been interesting to see how this has spun in the little circus that has been the Hugo Awards this year. The big guys, Nielsen Hayden, Stross, GRRM, Scalzi – you know wealthy, powerful white men who have won huge numbers of Hugo Nominations and indeed awards, are up in arms because some rag-tag bunch of uppity little battlers who’d never been there before, from across the social, political, racial and sexual spectrum got nominated, instead of a narrower group they approve of – including… just by chance, themselves and friends, many of whom who have multiple prior noms and awards. It’s taken away diversity and these nominees want women and ‘PoC’ (‘People of Color’ which bizarrely is not offensive, but ‘Colored People’ is just vile. It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?) Of course these rich, powerful white men are feminists and oppose racism. Are they leading the charge because they think white men are just naturally better at it?
Look, all we’ve really got is making fun of the bastards. I feel kind of guilty sometimes because it is so easy, but hell’s teeth, they’ve brought enough weight to bear against us. I’m kind of losing count at the rent-a-hit journalism (a plainly very ethical field, full of honest honorable folk) informing us we’re all rich white men oppressing everyone and winding the clock back. Is it daylight savings over there already?
Still, I’m glad to be learning my place from David Gerrold. I’d never have guessed that I was one of the little people otherwise.
John Scalzi on Whatever
“Keeping Up With the Hugos” – April 20
At this point Correia and Torgersen have to decide whether they want to be known either as Day’s fellow travelers, or his useful idiots. Or both! It could be both. Neither of these options makes them look good; nor, obviously, fits with their own self-image of being Brave Men Fighting the Good Fight™. But in fact, they aren’t fighting a good fight, and in fact, they got played. So: Fellow travelers or useful idiots. These are the choices.
* Also, can we please now stop pretending that this whole Puppy nonsense began for any other reason than that once upon a time, Larry Correia thought he was going to win an award and was super pissed he didn’t, and decided that the reason he didn’t had to be a terrible, awful conspiracy against people just like him (a conservative! Writing “fun” fiction!), as opposed to, oh, the voters deciding they just plain liked something and someone else better?
…(And yes, I know, Correia declined his nomination for the Hugo this year. Let’s talk about that for a minute, shall we. It takes a very special sort of fellow to allow himself to be on a slate to get nominated, marshal people to nominate him for the award as part of a slate, and then decline — and write a big ol’ puffed-up piece about why he was declining, social justice warriors, blows against the empire, blah blah blah, yadda yadda. Yes, nice he declined the nomination and let someone else on the ballot. But it’s a little like wanting credit for rescuing a baby squirrel when you knocked the baby squirrel out of the tree to begin with.)
To be clear, the Puppy nonsense now isn’t just about Correia really really really wanting validation in the form of a rocketship; Day’s stealing the Puppy movement right out from under Correia and Torgerson has changed things up quite a bit, and it’s certainly true at this point that this little campaign is about a bunch of people trying to shit in the punchbowl so no one else can have any punch. But at the beginning, it was Correia hurt and angry that someone else got an award he thought was his, and deciding that it was stolen from him, rather than being something that was never his to begin with. And I’m sorry for him that it didn’t go his way. But actual grown human beings deal with disappointment in ways other than Correia has.
Nick Mamatas in a comment on Whatever
If the Hugos have really been dominated by leftist material that prized message over story since the mid-1990s (Brad’s timeline), it should be very simple for members of the Puppy Party to name
a. one work of fiction
b. that won a Hugo Award
c. while foregrounding a left message to the extent that the story was ruined or misshaped
d. per set of winners since 1995.
That’s all. Just a list of twenty books or stories—a single winner per year. Even though a single winner per year wouldn’t prove domination, I’m happy to make it easy for the Puppies.
Any Puppy Partisan want to start naming some names?
Brad R. Torgersen
“Nuking the Hugos from orbit” – April 20
The chief sin of Sad Puppies 3 seems to be that we were transparent and we were successful beyond all expectation.
Many a red herring has been lobbed at us over the past three weeks. All of these are colossal distractions from the central question I’ve been asking my entire (short, so far) career: do the Hugos even matter anymore, and if they don’t, how to we get them to matter again?
My logic has been: get more people to vote, and bring those people in from diverse sectors of the consumer market, and the cachet of the award increases because more and more people from a broader spectrum of the totality of fandom (small f) will have a stake in the award, pay attention to what’s selected for the final ballot, and will view the award as a valid marker of enjoyability; or at least notoriety.
Especially since the Hugos have already been subjected to numerous manipulations (again, all behind the scenes) by authors, voters, and publishers, who all seem to want the Hugo to better reflect their tastes, their interests, their politics, and their pet points they want to make with the award.
Brad R. Torgersen
“Ringing the bell” – April 20
Picking up where I left off with my post on tribalism. Because I wanted to talk specifically about a recurrent kind of “broken” I am seeing in arguments all over the place — beyond the tiny halls of the Peoples Republic of Science Fiction. This “broken” is most commonly manifested among well-meaning straight Caucasian folk, but is often fostered and preached about by non-straight and/or non-Caucasians of a particularly aggressive “progressive” persuasion.
Adam-Troy Castro on Facebook
The irrepressible ensign, whose blonde hair and pale complexion had put him on the fast track to command from the very first medical determination that he was not gay, reported, “It’s a SJW vessel, Captain. They’re demanding our surrender!”
Captain Christian White grimaced, heterosexually. He remembered the last time a Federation vessel had allowed an SJW cruiser its way, sashaying across the universe at multiple times the speed of light. The Federation’s resolve had weakened, the rockets had sagged a little on their pads, and one of the medals for valor that year had actually gone to somebody with a slightly ethnic last name. Only the keen perception of Captain White and his fellow cabal had recognized that this was the sign of a vile conspiracy, and allowed the institution of safeguards to make sure that this would never happen again.
Kevin Standlee
“Combatting Hugo Despair” – April 20
If you don’t clean up graffiti, it typically spreads.
- Cleaning up graffiti is hard work.
- It is easier, when you see graffiti defacing something nice, to say, “Oh, what a shame. I loved that once, but now it’s defaced, so I guess we’d better abandon it” than to break out the scrub brushes and solvent and to organize the community to help clean it up.
- Initially, when you clean up graffiti, it’s not unusual for the vandals to consider it a nice clean slate for their next attack.
- If you consistently clean up graffiti attacks, after a while the vandals discover that almost nobody ever sees their works of destruction, and eventually they will give up and go away because they stop getting any egoboo out of defacing things.
My position with the Hugo Awards, the World Science Fiction Convention, and the World Science Fiction Society? Well, I’m putting on my coveralls, buying some heavy duty scrub brushes, picking up the box of old rags, and rummaging around in the garage for that industrial-sized can of solvent I know we had in there somewhere.
David Gerrold on Facebook – April 18
Some draconian measures have been suggested. Those cures would be worse than the disease and would pretty much hand a victory to the self-appointed super-villain. He would have succeeded in destroying the award.
I think there’s a simpler solution. I’m tossing it out here for discussion. What if we gave the Worldcon committee the discretion to create a committee of qualified individuals who would review the nominating ballots and set aside any that show strong evidence of ballot stuffing? So if a hundred ballots come in and they are all identical — and if they all contain nominations for works or individuals that are not represented or significantly under-represented on any other ballots, then that can be seen as evidence of a ballot-stuffing effort and those ballots can be set aside.
This would not disqualify recommended reading lists. Those would still be encouraged.
Notice the separate components. The Worldcon committee themselves will not have the responsibility for adjudicating — instead, they have the option of creating an independent committee of qualified individuals, preferably past Worldcon committee members. Second, they cannot set aside ballots willy-nilly, only those that show evidence of a slate. If the slate-mongering has been a public effort, it’s an easier job. But if a hundred ballots come in all voting for the same stories and there are no other ballots that also include any of those stories, then that’s evidence of a ballot-stuffing campaign and the ballots should be set aside.
Had such a rule been in place this year, the entire rabid slate could have been nullified, while still allowing the majority of voters their rightful opportunities to be heard.
Rogers Cadenhead on Workbench
“Brad Torgersen’s ‘Science Fiction Civil War’” – April 20
There’s a lot about this situation that gets me all het up, but I’m beginning to savor the insane grandiosity of Torgersen (pictured above), a previously obscure SF/F author who led the bloc-voting campaign this year and dubbed it “Sad Puppies 3.”
On April 8, Torgersen wrote a blog post on his personal site called “The Science Fiction Civil War” that he later deleted.
Here’s the text of that post, which offers a fantastic glimpse into the preening self-regard that inspired him to lead a culture war against a much-loved SF/F award that fans of all political beliefs have nurtured since 1953….
John C. Wright
NPR Upholds Morlock Journalistic Ethics – April 20
Well, well. The NPR weekend show ON THE MEDIA has joined the lynch mob, and done their level best to add hysteria and contumely and smother any trace of rational dialog in the little sortie of the Culture Wars known as Sad Puppies.
They were paid for by my tax money, my dear readers, and yours.
And before you ask, no, no journalist, no editor, no one contacted me or interviewed me or made any attempt known to me to hear from the counsel for the defense. At a real witch trial held by the real Inquisition, even the devil gets an advocate and someone speaks up for defendant being accused of witchcraft.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“Puppies on NPR” – April 20
KW listened in and heard NPR doing their usual bang-up job on Sad Puppies. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the media coverage has been the near-complete lack of interest in actually talking to anyone involved in the actual news-making activity. I mean, I am about as cynical a media skeptic as it is possible to be, and yet somehow, these journalistic incompetents haven’t even managed to rise to my very, very low level of expectations.
Larry Correia on Monster Hunter International
“Catching up, then back to work” – April 20
Apparently there were a bunch more stupid articles and news reports this weekend, still running with the angry straight white men, anti-diversity slate angle. I don’t even bother reading them anymore. It is all the same script. I didn’t even know Popular Science was still around.
In the interest of full disclosure, none of the hit pieces tried to talk to us, but NPR’s On The Media did try to reach out. They sent me an email, they wanted to speak on the phone to gather info, but it was on a day when I was running around the wilds of Yard Moose Mountain and I missed their call. I sent them an apology the next morning.
I haven’t listened, but I heard they brought in professional outrage monger Arthur Chu to explain everything. Ha! But to be fair, they at least tried.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“Black Gate withdraws” – April 20
Or rather, they have asked to not be considered for the Hugo award for which they will be on the ballot. While I disagree with John’s decision, I respect his right to make it. I find it ironic, however, that people are responding to a large group of people dictating the ballot by unilaterally dictating to people for whom they will not vote.
I also find it telling that a threat to support No Award next year is supposedly worse than a vow to do it this year. I am curious. Would they consider it better if I accepted what passes for their reasoning and announced that Rabid Puppies will join the No Award movement this year? Because that is certainly an option. (Settle down, you bloodthirsty bastards, I said no more than the obvious. It is an option.)
The goal is to improve the Awards, not destroy them. But if the SJWs would rather destroy them than relinquish their control, well, that will tell the world exactly what sort of totalitarians they are. That’s two birds for the price of one. We’ve already got them on the record stating that our views are invalid and should be suppressed by force; seeing them demolish the awards without our assistance will communicate that more effectively than we can do ourselves.
Joe Sherry on Adventures in Reading
Hugo News: Black Gate Edition – April 20
What I am most curious about here is that because the ballots are already at the printer, Sasquan is unable to remove Black Gate from the ballot (apparently some people still use paper ballots – because science fiction is a genre of the future…) – but will Black Gate’s request be honored? Will votes for Black Gate just not be counted? This might be the easiest solution.
Lou Antonelli on Facebook – April 20
Got my annual Mensa membership card in the mail today. I’m not showing this out of vanity, it’s just I’ve found it’s a good idea to keep it handy because the first slur the Anti-Puppy snobs usually toss out when disrespecting you is “stupid”.
Amanda S. Green on Nocturnal Lives
“No winners?” – April 20
And that is the problem. They are making Vox the issue and are, in all too many instances, refusing to even consider a nominee he might have liked or recommended. That is, as I have said before, a disservice to all those authors and artists who have done good work, worthy work.
Look, here’s the truth of the matter. Vox is but one man. Yes, he might say things that make us uncomfortable. He might believe things that seem further out than left field. But, as writers and artists, we have no control over who reads/sees or likes our work. If you don’t like Vox and can’t bring yourself to read his work, that’s fine. But don’t condemn others who have no relationship to him except for the fact he nominated them. (Full disclosure here, I was one both SP3 and Rabid Puppies. I didn’t realize I was on Rabid Puppies until well after the nominees were announced.)
Doctor Science on Obsidian Wings
“Vox Day is exploiting the Sad Puppies for personal gain” – April 20
I don’t know the details of the rules, but I figure this is probably enough evidence for Sasquan’s Hugo Awards Committee to decide that Castalia House engaged in illegal ballot-stuffing under the current rules, and to remove all Castalia House-associated nominees from the Hugo Ballot. If it’s an option, I’d suggest that Vox Day and Castalia House be considered ineligible for nomination for at least a few years going forward, too.
Rjurik Davidson on Overland
“The Mad Puppies revenge” – April 21
How do we best understand this culture war? The immediate cause, it seems, is the fact that in recent years, the Hugo Awards have been transformed. In other words, there has been a slow, molecular, and very incomplete growth of progressive values within science fiction and fantasy, along with the concomitant breaking down of established racist, homophobic and patriarchal barriers. The number of women nominees, for example, reached rough parity between 2011-2013. In this way, again, it parallels the Gamergate controversy: games having been once the protected turf of white males.
https://twitter.com/johnmarkley/status/590293279545110529
My reaction to the #HugoAwards controversy? I just paid to attend @SasquanSF in Spokane Aug 19-23. There's too much I love about the field.
— Frank Catalano (@FrankCatalano) April 21, 2015
Jon F. Zeigler on Sharrukin’s Palace
“My first (and last) word on the Hugos” – April 20
[Here is the most novel approach to the voting process I have read (no pun intended.) (Well, maybe a little intended.) The decision to use a concrete example as a reference point sets Zeigler apart from most in the “I know quality when I see it” camp. And it is also a solution that is not obviously driven by an agenda. Very interesting idea:]
In each category, in so far as I am able and with only one general exception, I plan to examine all the works on the ballot and give them fair consideration. I will rank them in order of their quality, using my own tastes and criteria. So far I doubt I’m planning to do anything unusual.
Where my strategy may be distinctive is that I plan to examine six items for each category – the five on the ballot, and the item that I consider to have been the best eligible work that did not reach the ballot.
So for example, in the Best Novel category this year, on the final ballot we have:
- Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie
- The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson
- The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison
- Skin Game by Jim Butcher
- The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu, translated by Ken Liu
I know some of those works got onto the ballot because of slate voting and some did not. At least one novel, in fact, was added to the ballot only after an author whose novel was on one of the slates withdrew it from consideration. I’m not going to take any of that into account. As much as I disapprove of organized slates, it’s still possible that a slate might have selected the best available work.
On the other hand, it’s also possible – even likely – that a slate will actually push some of the best available works out of consideration. In fact, the people organizing this year’s slates allege that this has already been happening for a long time – that other parties have (informally) manipulated the nominations process to exclude otherwise deserving work.
All right, so let me correct for that possibility. That’s where the sixth work under consideration in each category comes in. I’ll read and evaluate that work too, but it will hold the slot for No Award in its category. Thus, if I find that a work on the ballot is markedly inferior to the one that did not get nominated, I will have to assume that something went wrong. Either my tastes are really unusual, or some form of manipulation of the nominations process pushed the more deserving work off the ballot. In either case, I’ve identified a work that will rank below No Award in my selection.
To return to my example, the sixth work I’ll include in my decision-making process will probably be Echopraxia, by Peter Watts. I read that novel a couple of months ago, and it quite impressed me at the time. So any novel that I find is at least comparable in quality to Echopraxia will get ranked above No Award on my ballot. Any novel that I find is clearly not comparable will get ranked below No Award.
https://twitter.com/deirdresm/status/590345129199730689
Mark Ciocco on Kaedrin weblog
“The Three-Body Problem” – April 19
However, since this year’s Hugo awards are so weirdly contentious, one of the Best Novel nominees dropped out of the race. I’m not sure if this is unprecedented or not, but it’s highly unlikely nonetheless (authors often refuse their nomination, but are given a chance to do so before the finalists are announced – this situation where an author sees the lay of the year’s Hugo land and simply opts out was surprising) and many were expecting this to mean that the Best Novel category would only include 4 nominees. After all, adding the next most popular nominee would tell everyone who got the least nominating votes (info that is only published after the awards are handed out) and honestly, given the current situation, this precedent seems ripe for abuse. Nevertheless, the Hugo administrators opted to fill the open slot with The Three-Body Problem (a non-Puppy nominee, though from what I’ve seen, the Puppies seem to really enjoy this book). From left off the ballot to potential winner, quite a turn of events. Of the two nominees I’ve read, this is clearly ahead and could possibly take my number 1 vote. It is a bit of an odd duck, but I quite enjoyed it.
John C. Wright
“Not so much Dino-hate, Please!” – April 20
At the risk of alienated my beloved fans who voted either for Sad Puppies or Rabid and elevated my humble work to a world-record number of nominations, I would like to state something for the record.
A lot of us are ragging on Rachel Swirsky’s prose poem ‘If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love‘ which was Hugo nominated and won a Nebula for its category.
And, for the record, I for one do not think ‘If You Were a Dinosaur’ is bad. I do not think it is great, but tastes differ.
The author with admirable brevity of space establishes a gay and playful mood, using a stream of consciousness technique and adhere to a strict textual scheme (lifted from IF YOU GIVE A MOUSE A COOKIE) and then fishtailing into a surprise ending that is poignant and moving, all within less than 1000 words.
Stevie Carroll in Women & Words
“This Year’s Hugo Awards, Diversity in SF and Fantasy, and the Bechdel Test” – April 20
Diversity in SF and Fantasy has been a major discussion topic at both the conventions I’ve been to this year as well as on a lot of author blogs in the genre that I follow (most of which fall into a group of bloggers that the anti-feminist, anti-diversity complainers derisively refer to as Social Justice Warriors because they’re somehow offended by the idea that straight white men might actually support feminism and other forms of equality campaigning). I think two of my favourite comments came from a discussion panel on Dr Who – one from a white woman who described her feelings of alienation when she moved in the 1980s (IIRC) from a typical inner city in the UK to Cambridge where the population was far less diverse than she was used to, and the other from an audience member who asserted that these days if the Doctor is to be invisible (in the sense of generally ignored by those around him) in a lot of places then he could do worse than being either a young black man or a woman in her fifties or older.
William Reichard on Plaeroma
“RE: Update on sci-fi & the ‘Hugo Maneuver’” – April 20
Just a quick update to let everybody know our plan is working better than we could have anticipated. “Debate” on the subject of the Hugo Awards has become a self-perpetuating firestorm that shows no signs of lessening. Writers on all sides of the issue are fully engulfed, and the conflagration even shows promising signs of spreading to the larger culture.
Rest assured, any dangerous minds on all sides will be doing nothing else of significance for months if not years thanks to this coup, and thus we are safe to continue our diabolical work with impunity for now as the discussion descends into ever more atomic and arcane levels.
Wikipedia adds section to entry for “Theodore Beale” – April 20
2015 Hugo Awards
In 2015 Beale’s slate of candidates for the Hugo Awards, which placed most of its nominees on the ballot, led two authors to withdraw their own nominations, and for one presenter to withdraw from the event.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Mr. Moss,
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?
Kevin: WSFS Constitution Sect. 6.6.1 is confusing and difficult to parse. Care to flow diagram it for us?
Plausible deniability is a problem when it comes to a religious objection to homosexuality. However, SJWs grant that to Islam in it’s entirety. You will never – and I mean NEVER – see this intersectional ideology go after Islam in this regard. If they have, they’ve managed to keep it a secret from me. Considering their almost hysteric Twitter feeds in regard to transphobia in the West and particularly in America and how globally ranging their interests are, that is remarkable.
Keep in mind this fact: the N. African/M. Eastern cluster of Islamic nations have the most stringent set of anti-homosexuality laws in the world outside of non-Islamic sub-Saharan Africa. That includes the death penalty in a handful of nations. So if intersectionalists routinely describe America as homophobic, compared to what?
So you once again have a standard that is unsurprisingly so ridiculously askew I can’t detect what that standard is, although I do know what a memory-hole is.
Nick: here’s somebody accepting your challenge: Alright, I’m going to announce: I’m going to take Nick Mamatas’ challenge, to find a winner per year since 1995 where left messages foregrounded such that it affected story.
” You will never – and I mean NEVER – see this intersectional ideology go after Islam in this regard. If they have, they’ve managed to keep it a secret from me.”
Given that you are already inclined to disbelieve “them” when they say most anything, I suspect you haven’t noticed it when it shows up.
“Keep in mind this fact: the N. African/M. Eastern cluster of Islamic nations have the most stringent set of anti-homosexuality laws in the world outside of non-Islamic sub-Saharan Africa. That includes the death penalty in a handful of nations. So if intersectionalists routinely describe America as homophobic, compared to what?”
Ah, the “It’s worse over there” argument of the concern troll. I wondered when this would show up.
Let me give you a clue: My time, and the time of most everyone, is limited. We have to chose the battles we fight. My ability to influence sub-Saharan Africa is rather limited; the best I can do is to set up the U.S. as a beacon of hope, right now; to fight the bigots at home instead of abroad.
(And lest you say that they’re not here, I refer you to the recently introduced ballot initiative in California legalizing killing homosexuals. Or the people who are arguing in favor of laws that permit doctors not to treat homosexuals.)
So, yes, Uganda is worse. And I support organizations that are fighting that fight. I also support the trial of Scott Lively for crimes against humanity. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t spot a lesser case of it here, and fight against it here, where I can do more good.
Giving Christian homophobic bigots a pass here because in a distant country, Islamic homophobic bigots (or Christian ones – see Uganda) have gained governmental power seems rather foolish to me.
Sweet!
If James May is so outraged about whatever whataboutery he’s come up with, why the feck is he commenting on the bleeding Hugos, something so trivial in comparison?
Rich Lynch, this one?
“Section 6.6: Amendment. The WSFS Constitution may be amended by a motion passed by a simple majority at any Business Meeting but only to the extent that such motion is ratified by a simple majority at the Business Meeting of the subsequent Worldcon.”
It means that any change to the Constitution passed at one WorldCon (by a simple majority) must be ratified at the next WorldCon (by a simple majority). It then takes effect at the end of the second WorldCon and governs the WorldCon after that.
Changes passed at Sasquan must be ratified at MidAmericon II and affect the 2017 WorldCon.
Note that the proposal may be debated on and amended at the second WorldCon, sometimes quite a bit.
Ultragotha: There will be more to it than that if the Popular Ratification amendment received a second vote of approval at this year’s business meeting. Rich may have that question in mind.
Mr. Schartz, this has nothing to do with an inclination but with reading. I know what I read and what I don’t read. As for intersectionalists and their daffy defense of Islam, start with Googling “The Hounding of Adele Wilde-Blavatsky.” Then visit her Twitter feed to see who it was who was piling on her as a racist. Surprise, some of our very own SJW “anti-racists.”
I too wonder when equal protection will turn up. No one’s talking about your time. I’m accurately pointing out that people who find the time to routinely range their opinions on a global basis memory-hole this stuff.
Let us know when those initiatives become law. Until that time limit it to the actual persons doing that sort of thing rather than smearing America and unsmearing other approved locales where it actually is law. I didn’t say anything about Christians. I’m talking about standards whereby one talks about religion as a whole.
I’m glad you consider the cultural custom and practice which resides behind all law as concern trolling. I consider your views to predate The Code of Hammurabi. You’ll take note it has never been called “The Concern Trolling of Hammurabi.”
Someone revive Mr. Wisse.
Rich Lynch:
There is no section 6.6.1 in the current WSFS Constitution. Can you clarify what you want explained?
Kevin: The proposed new wording that would create that section. It’s in the business that was passed on to Sasquan.
Ah, the pending constitutional amendment, not the existing constitution. Sorry, I misunderstood. The proposed new section reads:
(Let’s see if I correctly closed the blockquote this time. Oh, for a “preview” button!)
Under the proposed new procedure, a constitutional amendment must go through three stages, not two.
Year 1: Passage: “passed by a simple majority at any Business Meeting” means being adopted as a new constitutional amendment by majority vote of the WSFS Business Meeting, as per the current process.
Year 2: Initial Ratification: “initially ratified by a simple majority at the Business Meeting of the subsequent Worldcon” means “ratified by a majority vote of the WSFS Business Meeting of the second year, as per the current process. Currently, at this point, the constitutional amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Under the revised process, it does not yet become part of the Constitution, because it has not been finally ratified by the members of WSFS.
Year 3: Final Ratification: “finally ratified by a vote of the members of the Worldcon following the initial ratification” means that the members of the Year 3 Worldcon vote to give the final approval to the proposal that was initially ratified by the Year 2 Business Meeting. If more members vote yes than vote no in a ballot vote of all voting members (including Supporting members), then the constitutional amendment has reached the goal and becomes part of the Constitution at the conclusion of the Year 3 Worldcon.
Summary:
Year 1: Passage (Business Meeting)
Year 2: Initial Ratification (Business Meeting)
Year 3: Final Ratification (Ballot of Voting Members)
Sorry to go on at such length. I hope this clarifies the process.
Incidentally, because of when constitutional changes take effect, if Popular Ratification is ratified by the 2015 WSFS Business Meeting, it will first apply to anything that gets initially approved at the 2016 WSFS BM and will not apply to anything initially approved this year.
Anything initially approved this year is subject to final ratification by the 2016 WSFS Business Meeting. Anything ratified by the 2016 WSFS BM takes effect at the end of the 2016 Worldcon and does not need to be submitted to the 2017 Worldcon’s members for a vote.
Kevin: Thanks for pointing out when it would take effect.
I recommend to everyone: http://www.philipsandifer.com/2015/04/guided-by-beauty-of-their-weapons.html
@rcade,
“If you belonged to a club for years and an influx of 5-10% new members were led by someone who threatens to burn it down, it would be sensible for you to regard that as a problem.”
You don’t say…
@Nick,
“I was so excited to be quoted in the round-up and I was just so sure that the 83 comments were going to full of responses to the Puppy Challenge….but no.”
Or its a straw man. That’s a possibility too. The idea is not that EVERY story has some sort of “upfront” leftist message but that entry to the club requires SJW pieties. So, what you formulated is a mischaracterization. I’m sure someone can put together a rather compelling list but I find the exercise an example of you not listening.
“But it never won the Hugo. It lost.”
It got nominated. I know this is hard for some to fathom but that means it _should be_ amongst the best stories of the whole year. Otherwise _why complain about puppies at all_! After all they didn’t win.
The lack of logic on display here is staggering.
I’m just catching up by the way. I have read through now several more “ballot stuffing” posts. You folks may not know what that phrase means. We all paid for our ballots and voted once. Viva democracy and all of that. Unless of course we aren’t really people voting…which seems to be what ya’ll are insisting.
Oh, GK, at this late date there is no need for me to point out the number of Puppy Partisans who have suggested that in Hugo winners (and SF generally), the message trumps story and that is proof of SJW corruption. It’s been said here, it was a major theme of Brad’s cereal box blogpost, etc. You may move the goalposts, I’ll put them right back where Brad and Larry set them every time. If you personally have some other idea in your head that informs your participation, that has little to do with me.
Nor was I asking about EVERY story, I was asking for one a year. There are four applicable categories per year (novel, novella, novelette, short story) so I am really only asking for 25% of the winning stories.
As far as the nomination process, the Puppy slates have proven that a small number of people can get something on the ballot. Awards don’t generally give out five big trophies for the reason that it is widely understood that some nominees are not up to par.
As far as complaining about the puppies—my complaint is that they’ve made up a phony conspiracy theory about SJWs to motivate people to vote for subpar work. If the conspiracy theory were real, my complaints would cease. So I am asking them to show their work.
To sum up: you are wrong in every detail.
“The big guys, Nielsen Hayden, Stross, GRRM, Scalzi – you know wealthy, powerful white men”
I always wondered how Charlie could afford to fly to Novacon aboard his private helicopter and live inside the hollowed-out volcano beneath Edinburgh Castle.
I think it’s funny to imagine that anyone with a day job in science fiction publishing is wealthy.
Nick: Judging by a post I saw float by on Facebook, there’s Stephen King and J.K.Rowling, then everyone else in the industry is eligible for food stamps.
Kevin Standlee, re: the proposed change in the WSFS ratification process. So . . . here’s the process:
Year 1: Passage.
Year 2: Ratification.
Year 3: Final Ratification by a Ballot of Voting Members? By both supporting and attending members during the third-year WorldCon? Or–when? How on earth is WSFS going to accomplish that?
Not a criticism–and not really on topic, I know. I just keep scratching my head over it and wondering if I’m missing something.
Steve Green — “I always wondered how Charlie could afford to fly to Novacon aboard his private helicopter and live inside the hollowed-out volcano beneath Edinburgh Castle.”
Simple. Kickstarter.
Also, I was surprised to learn that Teresa Neilsen Hayden was a man.
Mike: occasionally an author will strike it rich, but someone with a day job in science fiction publishing…nah.
Back in 2008, St. Martin’s declared that in response to the global economic crisis, it would be freezing raises for anyone making over $50,000. One of the famous litnews blogs of the time posted the story with the headline along the lines of: ‘Newsflash: Publisher Pays Some Employees More Than $50K A Year!;
“Mr. Schartz, this has nothing to do with an inclination but with reading. I know what I read and what I don’t read.”
1) That’s Schwartz. I’ll presume it was a typo the first time. 🙂
2) http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/02/liberal-veneer/ — from one of the people who was first critiqued for putting “social justice” ahead of what was important to a specific group. That took me all of 5 minutes of search. *That* is why, in part, I said it had to do with inclination. My guess is you don’t recognize it when you see it, and get pointed at places where you can throw a fit. (As, for example, your example.)
Oh, and your NEVER in all caps now looks rather silly.
“I too wonder when equal protection will turn up.”
This appears to be a dispatch from your brain, lacking in context.
“ I’m accurately pointing out that people who find the time to routinely range their opinions on a global basis memory-hole this stuff.”
Let me give you a clue: because people are not talking about things all the time does not mean they are memory-holed. And talking about things — takes time, as mentioned before.
“Let us know when those initiatives become law. Until that time limit it to the actual persons doing that sort of thing rather than smearing America and unsmearing other approved locales where it actually is law.”
No; I’ll let you know right now, because if people ignore it, it might become law. Or at the very least influence the people who will later be making laws.
“Until that time limit it to the actual persons doing that sort of thing rather than smearing America and unsmearing other approved locales where it actually is law.”
So, in other words, only the *worst* of any particular problem deserves to be called out for it. In which case, as Martin Wisse pointed out, why are you bothering with SF awards, since I’m sure the evil SJW conspiracy in your head are doing much worse — why are you smearing SJWs in SF when you could be talking about places where it actually is law?
“I’m glad you consider the cultural custom and practice which resides behind all law as concern trolling.”
What I referred to as “concern trolling” was the notion that “It’s worse over there, so we don’t need to talk about it/shouldn’t be working on it here”. How you find *that* to be “the cultural custom and practice which resides behind all law” is…baffling, to put it mildly. Perhaps you should work on your Markov chain for generating responses.?
“Also, I was surprised to learn that Teresa Neilsen Hayden was a man.”
Anyone know what Patrick’s reaction was?
“You may move the goalposts, I’ll put them right back where Brad and Larry set them every time”
No sir. You are moving the goal posts. The idea was that your politics barred entry to the clique. Please review Larry’s comments on the same going all the way back to SP1. And yes, we have ALSO talked about message fiction and how that has an overall negative impact on the genre as a whole.
Right from the “How to get Correia nominated for a Hugo :)” post, 1/8/13, located in what journalists would call the “nut graf”:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/08/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo/
“Monster Hunter Legion is eligible… I’m just pointing that out. The fact that I write unabashed pulp action that isn’t heavy handed message fic annoys the literati to no end. When I got nominated for the Campbell, the literati message-fic crowd had a conniption fit.”
However, there is zero in the body of that post about needing to be a political liberal or SJW etc to play. Why would there be, and indeed, how could there be, when he mentions already having been nominated for a Campbell Award in a prior year?
Part 2, there the “Sad Puppies” meme is born:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/16/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-2-a-very-special-message/
Still no notion of the idea that one needs to be liberal to be in a clique, or nominated. (Correia’s main interest in this post is the idea of the “literati.”)
How about Part 3? http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/23/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-3-wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children/
Nope. There is a brief sentence about the “establishment”, but most of the text deals with the idea of pulp versus literati/good/Profound etc.
Now there’s Part 4:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/30/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-4-ten-ways-im-different-than-stephen-king-and-thus-deserve-a-hugo-nomination/
Hey, finally a mention of liberal politics! But it has nothing to do with the Hugos or cliques, but rather Stephen King’s views on gun control. (For the record, King has received all of one Hugo nomination and award, and that was for non-fiction in 1982).
So, there we go—I looked right back to the beginning and the first thing I saw was about “message fic” and I didn’t see anything at all about politics barring entry to the clique, which would have been rather inane of him to talk about since the goal of his posts (not the goalposts) is to get people to become supporting members and vote for his book and for his other recommendations.
As I said before, you are wrong in every detail.
Mr. Schwartz, you are so hopeless uneducated about what’s going on in SFF I really don’t know what to say. My reading hundreds of thousands of words by the main players in core SFF in this stupid drama has nothing to do with inclination and everything to do with the words of those people. There is no evil SJW conspiracy in my head or in secret. They are quite above board in saying they will not review white men, that white men should come with trigger warnings for arrogance and that white men have generally been out to hamstring them in SFF from WW I to the present day. Multiples of quotes reflecting that attitude exist in their thousands. I have read them. All you have to do is follow suit.
@James May: “Mr. Schwartz, you are so hopeless uneducated about what’s going on in SFF I really don’t know what to say.”
I am impressed with your skills. Now I just need to figure out if they’re Goalpost Moving, or Incoherent Rambling; because either you weren’t talking about the same thing when I first responded to you that you are now (GM) or you *are*, in some odd way comprehensible only to someone inside your head. (IR)
In either case, it’s not worth my time and effort to chase your goalposts or try and get inside your head. Have fun in there, I guess…
“There is no evil SJW conspiracy in my head or in secret.”
How did they fix the Hugos in recent years if it wasn’t in secret? You’re straying out of the Puppies pound with this remark.
I have never said the Hugos were fixed or forbid Mr. Schwartz from discovering this thing called Twitter and blogs and then reading each.
@James May–It would be helpful if you attached names to the charges. It’s always useful to specify “SJW X said. . . ” and “On their Blog “I Hate Everyone” so and so said.
Steven Schwartz- If you claim that John C. Wright does a good job of maintaining plausible deniability, doesn’t that mean that you are conceding, as far as fair minded people might go, that maybe he’s telling the truth and his views are more nuanced than others would like to admit?
David W- Yes, I am the poster who wrote that passage at Vox Day’s site. I have also read and/or posted here, at Larry Corriea’s site, GRRM’s site, Jim Butcher’s site, Moen’s site, Scalzi’s site and twitter (he needs to mature a bit), Making Light (THN has control issues, IMO), Will Shetterly’s (despite being a socialist, I like his analysis), and others I’m doubtless forgetting.
And what I posted is true. I am a fan of Wright’s Golden Age and Everness novels. They are remarkable works, in my opinion. I am a huge fan of Jim Butcher. The man single handily raised up an entire sub-genre. He then trumped that by writing an entire series on a bet that he couldn’t tell a serviceable story that merged the themes of Pokemon and a Lost Roman Legion. The fact they’ve been neglected all of these years when it comes to award nominations is an injustice, also in my opinion. It’s to the credit of the SP that they took action to correct it for them and others. That gives them both the inside track, so far as I my voting is concerned. Please note, however, I have stated that I will read everything and intend to do so.
I also expressed a thought that it would be amusing to vote for Vox Day to hear the hysterical screams of outrage. Some people act as if the Hugos belong to them when in actuality they belong to the fans who bestir themselves to join and support Sasquan. The more I hear indignation that the “wrong” people have been nominated, the more I think maybe there is something to this SJW theory.
After all of that, I signed up for Sasquan (you can look it up- I post under my own name [though I think at GRRM’s site it came up as the Moss Family, for whatever reason]). That means I’m every bit as much a member, and my vote every bit as legitimate, as any other.
I signed up well after the SP/RP and had nothing to do with the slate creation as I was unaware of the controversy at the time. I signed up after coming across the scandal on the web and after reading many sites from many different viewpoints as I like to go to the source material (as I did with Wright’s alleged horrific views on homosexuals- which isn’t so horrific when you read all of his comments). I came to the conclusion that nobody has any business telling me who I should vote for, based on how “bad” a person allegedly is. I will vote for whomever I think produced the best material (though I admit a bias in favor of Butcher and Wright based upon my knowledge of their work to date). The more they do so, the more they claim someone is beyond the pale and should never be considered no matter the material, the more likely I am to go the opposite direction just to irritate them. Hence my comment, re: Vox Day (or Theodore Beale, I’m not sure which is legally correct). I also think he deserves some credit for getting Butcher on the ballot- if I knew how easy it was to vote I might have lobbied my dozen closest friends and neighbors a decade ago.
And I think I’m on record (maybe on this site) stating that I’m a good way through Riding the Red Horse. I would never have discovered it without this most recent controversy. There is some good stuff in there, such as the Hot Equations (a short non-fiction analysis of the physics of space travel) and Turncoat, about an battleship AI that grows a conscience in the midst of war.
So yes, I’m seriously considering voting for Day, if only to observe the reactions of the allegedly self-righteous. I suspect Weisskopf is the better choice, but sometimes I’m a contrarian. So go ahead and tell me that I’m a bad person, with bad motives, making a bad decision, and Day should never be considered despite being on the ballot and despite the quality of his work (which I’m not that familiar with and have not formed an opinion on, yet, though Riding the Red Horse is good- however there are some editing errors on the Kindle edition that I’ve spotted). Go ahead and try to disqualify my current opinions and my eventual vote formed after reading the material. I think you’ll find that while I’m not alone in disagreeing with Day for many reasons (though not as many as you would prefer, I’m sure), many might wind up supporting him to stick a finger in the eye of those who try to tell us what to think.
I think I’m also on record opining that VD has the “traditional” Hugo voters between a rock and a hard place. He’s obviously thinking tactically and has set up a win-win situation (and probably other scenarios I haven’t gleaned yet). If people vote their conscience after reading the material, he or his authors have a decent chance of collecting a Hugo award or two. Alternatively, if they reflexively vote No Award for the SP/RP candidates, then he also wins. Remember, he took 6th on a 5 person field last year, losing to No Award. If a host of respectable authors are also No Awarded, then he’s in good company. Either way, the slight paid to him last year is rendered meaningless and, possibly, he torpedoes the Hugos.
If I were thinking tactically for the benefit of those traditional Hugo voters, the best advice that they could be given would be to keep calm and carry on. Running around in a fit of self-righteous fury, threatening retaliation and consequences, only benefits Day.
Rek- No, I’ve never been a Communist. I confess to toying with the idea while a young Marine to irritate my sergeants (see my comments regarding Vox Day). I decided against it, for a variety of reasons not the least of which was an instinct for self-preservation. I also confess to voting for the occasional Democrat (Jerry Brown, when he was an advocate of blue collar workers) and Independent (Ross Perot, the first time around) as a younger man. Nowadays I vote Republican or, very occasionally if I feel the need to protest, Libertarian.
He’s more worried about anyone who has said anything that might be construed as anti-white male than sci-fi. It’s a good thing because if he doesn’t protect them, who will?
Mary Frances:
The same way it elects a future Worldcon site every single year: by holding an election. That’s why the definition of who is eligible to vote is the same. The only difference is that you don’t have to pay the Advance Supporting Membership (“voting fee”) to vote on Ratification because it’s not necessary to become a member of the two-years-hence Worldcon to vote.
The Ratifying Worldcon would distribute a ballot to all of its members in advance of the convention, just like they distribute Hugo Award and Site Selection ballots. Eligible members can vote using that ballot. I expect, but cannot require, Worldcons will offer electronic voting in advance. At the convention, there will be a polling station where members who haven’t yet voted can cast their ballots on any pending constitutional amendments.
When Site Selection closes, Ratification Voting also closes. Tellers take charge of the ballots and count them. It’s pretty straightforward, given that you don’t have to do IRV. Count the yes and no votes on each question. Report the results to the Site Selection Business Meeting. Anything that gets more yes votes that no votes is ratified; otherwise, it fails.
This doesn’t seem particularly complicated. Yes, it obliges Worldcon to spend another people point and a financial point to run the ratification election, but the logistics should be pretty straightforward compared to Site Selection, and we already run Site Selection every year.
Rose Fox is the co-editor of the anthology Long Hidden and the reviews editor for Publisher’s Weekly. I’ve cited this Tweet of hers many times: “I’d say most white men should come with TWs for unthinking privileged arrogance, but that’s like saying books need TWs for ‘contains words’.”
Sunil Patel is a reviewer at Lightspeed Magazine. I’ve also quoted him as writing this several times: “It is no coincidence that my book review column features no white male authors. They can have EVERYWHERE ELSE.”
There are literally hundreds of quotes like that out there from Nebula and Hugo nominees, editors and many more well-placed in SFF’s institutions. If you guys are so well informed, why do you not know of them? Do your own homework and save the oddball playground insults. Matt is just plain creepy since he’s pulling stuff out of his head. I don’t even know what he means by that other than it’s some kiddy jibe from 5th grade. Maybe when I was 10 it would’ve made sense. Maybe some quote marks would help Matt find whatever he was implying, or the mirror.
Thanks, Kevin–I’d forgotten about how site selection is handled. (Told you I thought I might be missing something!) Still seems awfully complicated to me, but then, so does site selection, and it (obviously) works just fine. I am in awe of the people who administer these processes . . .
Mary Frances: It’s not really any more difficult than voting in your local “mundane” election: you go to the polling place, they check your name off the list, and hand you a ballot. You fill out the ballot and put it in the box. Done.
The Administrators have to do the work, but then, your local Registrar of Voters office has to do the work for a real-world election, and you don’t really need to care that much about the details about how it gets done. Conrunners have to worry about the details, and when you ask, they’ll tell you.
‘Maybe some quote marks would help Matt find whatever he was implying, or the mirror.’
I’m not implying anything. Instead of talking about the Hugos, or what people have addressed, you’ve constantly shifted to what some some nebulous people might’ve said about white guys despite not being relevant to the discussion. Then again your ‘word salads’ as someone put it appear more to be rooted in some strange conversation that you’re having with yourself. It’s either brilliant satire or, well, something, but I’ve been enjoying them. Keep up the good fight soldier.
Nes, nit’s nilliant natire.
I posted a response yesterday, but I think it was too long and the internet ate it. So I’ll try for brevity this go around.
David W- Yes. And I meant every word. I have a vote. While I intend to read every nominee, based on their past work I have a very favorable opinion of the writing of Jim Butcher and John C. Wright. They have the inside track.
And I also confess the more people tell me that Vox Day (or Theodore Beale, I’m not sure which is legal) is a bad person thinking bad thoughts and he doesn’t deserve a Hugo no matter how good his writing may theoretically be, the more I’m inclined to throw a vote his way just to see the reactions of the self proclaimed righteous.
Rek- That’s funny. My thanks for the laugh.
@James May: If I own a grocery store, and I express my pride in the range of apples available for sale– For example, the Ginger Gold, a fine apple with a distinctive flavor– It doesn’t mean that I hate everything else in the store. If Sunil Patel is proud that his review column contains no white male authors, consider the possibility that he doesn’t hate white people. Instead, he’s aware of literature as a business, that white men are well-represented in it, and that he’s done his part to open the door for people who are not white men.
You know, Ginger Golds ripen early in the season and shops don’t stock them for very long. Some consider them a filler for Golden Deliciouses. If you squint a little, they look similar, but they taste completely different. They have a flavor that’s piney, spicy, in a way that’s unique to them.
I don’t eat apples because they’re rare– They have to be good– But, I do like variety.
If you look, you’ll find lots of people who don’t like Red Deliciouses and aren’t shy about saying so. But, the Hawkeye, from which it was derived, is a good apple and you can eat them, still. And, even its industrial progeny– still for sale everywhere– are durable and attractive. These are useful traits– if not always tasty ones– and we should take care not to lose them.
Steve M., well, you’re welcome to your own tastes in SF&F when it comes to Butcher and Wright. To each their own. Of course, there are other voters who may not share your tastes and they can vote too. But to back Beale (that’s his legal name) just to piss people off is just sad.
“John C. Wright is very good, much of the time, at retaining plausible deniability, especially when he is speaking to people outside his expected audience.”
Who does he think he’s fooling?
He never came back to answer my questions, so I think it’s fair to conclude that when he wrote that “Men abhor homosexuals on a visceral level” and have an “instinctive reaction” to beat them to death with tire irons, he was expressing his extremely noxious opinion of what the average man thinks about gays.
If he no longer believes that five months after making the comment, great. But either repudiate the comment or stand behind it. Don’t claim it was some kind of so-subtle-as-to-be-completely-undetectable parody.
‘Vox Day (or Theodore Beale, I’m not sure which is legal) is a bad person thinking bad thoughts’
Y’know, it’s not actually all that difficult to find the actual reasons people think these things and make up your own mind rather than assume his detractors are being unfairly self-righteous, then read his work, then decide how to vote. Doing something reflexively just to piss off the self-righteous is always tricky because there’s always a chance they’re right.
Nigel- Whether they’re right or not is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of the work.
Plenty of scum bags have won Hugos, etc. Assuming everything said about Day is true (and from what I’ve read directly from the source, at least some of it is exaggerated), he should still be judged on the quality of his work.
Let’s consider, for the moment, whether it is good policy to downgrade an author because of his politics, viewpoints, etc. Day may be a right wing extremist whose views belong in the 18th century (which I think, in part, is mistaken). But if it is acceptable to judge him on his views, it is acceptable for the other side to judge the views of leftist authors as being sufficient reason to downgrade their works. After all, communism has killed more people in the 20th century than just about anything else, so a case could be made using the guilt by association theory, that China Mieville’s belief in Marxism is immoral (which is ridiculous).
That sword cuts both ways. It’s best to keep that sword in its scabbard.
‘Day may be a right wing extremist whose views belong in the 18th century (which I think, in part, is mistaken).’
You’re right. The 18th century wouldn’t have him.
‘But if it is acceptable to judge him on his views’
I assume you mean judge his work by his personal views, because I am sure as hell going to judge the SHIT out of those views, thank you.
‘it is acceptable for the other side to judge the views of leftist authors as being sufficient reason to downgrade their works.’
They already think it sufficiently acceptable to dismiss anything that has been nominated for the Hugos in the last twenty years as contaminated by SJWs and therefore worthless and not real proper SF. I mean, that’s the whole motivation behind SP/RPs. Maybe you should go preach this message to them.
Last I checked, SP3 nominated many people with alternative views. It is not a conservative white Christian male paradise. It appears to be an effort to nominate worthy works regardless of politics, race, orientations, etc.
Good for them.
Mike- I applaud the effort you are making each day to show us the views and hyperbole being flung around each on this Hugo controversy. I glance at most of what you show us, and wonder how often you must have to shower to get the stink and the testosterone off. Better you then me, my friend!