629 thoughts on “Measuring The Rabid Puppies Slate’s Impact on the Final Hugo Ballot”

1. Was Hoyt actually saying that violence against LGBT people was a media creation? Seriously? Fucking hell. I KNOW people who have been attacked and hurt for being gay.

   Sorry, after that bullishit I have no interest in her rant about made up reality.

2. rcade on April 27, 2016 at 8:52 am said: Tingle’s titles make me laugh, but having Space Raptor Butt Invasion as a Hugo nominee seriously damages the credibility of the awards.

   Sure. Or, the credibility of the awards has been damaged by thirty years of ever increasing log rolling, publisher manipulation and SJW-compliant nominations.

   “The longer we let Beale make a joke of the nomination ballot, the less anyone will care about the Hugos.”

   What are you going to do, have a political vetting committee to weed out all the Wrongfans? That’s where this thing is going, you know. And it ain’t the Sad or even the Rabid Puppies in the driver’s seat.

3. Ann Leckie 2015 on slates

   First off, I deplore slates. In the context of the Hugos, they are an asshole move. Just don’t slate.
   Second off, I am saying unequivocally that I do not agree to be on anyone’s slate, do not approve of my inclusion in any slate, and anyone who slates a work of mine is thereby demonstrating their extra-strong motivation to be seen as an asshole.
   Now, there’s some concern that assholes making up a slate for next year would deliberately include the work of people they hate, in order to force those people to withdraw any nominations they might get. This might be a genuine concern for some writers. It is not one of mine. …

   …I’ll add that I, personally, would find it hilarious to see certain parties suddenly declare they love my books. I would laugh and laugh and laugh.

   Did she ask to be removed and I missed it? Or given that non-puppies put her on the SP4 slate do you think she went with the laugh?

4. @marc aramini:
   “certainly given the obscurity of my work it would never have appeared on a ballot without him”

   That is rather the point. NOTHING appeared on the ballot in that category without him.
   And so what if it hadn’t? Believe it or not, you are not actually entitled to a Hugo just for showing up. As it is, your book has not got onto the ballot on its own merits anyway, and thus doesn’t deserve our consideration.

5. @Rachel Swirsky: OK, author talking about their own story follows. Feel free to skip.

   Thank you so much for sharing that. Now I need to reread your story.

6. Brandon Sanderson gives his response on his nomination, as well as interesting bits about some behind the scenes stuff last year.

   that seems to be a pretty even handed take on the whole situation. I wonder what the response was to his emails to the sad puppy leaders who he shares his state with … I’m guessing not very positive.

   I don’t know if it’s still the case, but once upon a time, Brandon Sanderson and Larry Correia were part of the same “Writer-Nerd Game Group” that met on a weekly basis. “Writing Excuses,” Sanderson’s podcast, has interviewed Correia (and, if I’m not mistaken, I think more than once). They are at least acquaintances in real life, although they differ greatly with regards to political persuasion.

7. Sean on April 27, 2016 at 10:14 am said: “Well, the main conclusion I draw from the shortlist is that the Rabid Puppies have successfully trolled the Hugo Awards and shown that a small group with similar tastes and interests can determine what is considered “The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy” for the year within the current nomination system and voting body.”

   Really? Because that has been the contention all along, “that a small group with similar tastes and interests can determine what is considered “The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy” for the year.”

   The difference you are noticing is it’s a NEW GROUP doing it. The old group is mad their private peeing tree is getting whittled on by a new batch of puppies, that’s all that changed here.

   What you are suggesting, along with many others here, is that There Ought’a Be A Law to keep these interlopers out. You know, other fans with different tastes. Those People. Ew. [delicate shudder]

   I think the best part for me today is that you can’t even complain Its A SLAAAAAATE!!! because SP4 wasn’t a slate. It was wide fricking open.

   Bring on the No Awards! Maybe we can get more than five this year, eh?

8. @Dann666 While it might not always reflect in the words I choose, it is something that I do keep in mind before setting fingers to the keyboard.

   Keep working at it. 😉

   I’m really more libertarian leaning than conservative. I’m pretty blatantly anti-socialist/anti-communist and favor a constitutionally limited government, FWIW.

   It’s gotten really hard to keep you all straight. Too many talking points sound the same. Or maybe it’s the way you insinuate things instead of clearly stating them which is confusing.

9. Brandon Sanderson’s post is really good. Well reasoned. I’m sorry he was unable to do more over the last few years.

10. certainly given the obscurity of my work it would never have appeared on a ballot without him

    And Aramini unintentionally explains why “No Awarding” his book is the correct choice.

11. Cat on April 27, 2016 at 8:54 am said:Dann665 quoting Sarah Hoyt: We must — must — stop seeing each other without the blinders of the ideas pushed on us by those who would be our masters. Because if there is anything Hoyt is good at it is seeing us without the blinders of her ideas….
    Wait.
    Yeah.
    Never mind.

    It is really appalling to read this coming from you, madam, given the reception any non-consensus opinion on virtually anything at all receives from you and others at this site. Not to mention the witch burning…

12. @Phantom

    Really? Because that has been the contention all along, “that a small group with similar tastes and interests can determine what is considered “The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy” for the year.”

    The difference you are noticing is it’s a NEW GROUP doing it. The old group is mad their private peeing tree is getting whittled on by a new batch of puppies, that’s all that changed here.

    What you are suggesting, along with many others here, is that There Ought’a Be A Law to keep these interlopers out. You know, other fans with different tastes. Those People. Ew. [delicate shudder]

    I think you misunderstood because I wrote that first paragraph with the expressed purpose of leading any logic-driven reader to the same conclusions you spell out more explicitly. At no point did I go off about “There Aughta Be a Law . . .” but rather posited that the only legitimate way to fix it was to widen the voter base.

13. And I suppose we should never have heard of Melville, since he wasn’t popular in his lifetime, eh? I do believe my work belongs there or I wouldn’t have accepted the nomination. I also believe Melville should have been better known in his lifetime, but his audience simply wasn’t ready. I suppose even sinners love those who love them. All the best to you guys.

14. The Phantom said: “I think the best part for me today is that you can’t even complain Its A SLAAAAAATE!!! because SP4 wasn’t a slate. It was wide fricking open.”

    It was also magnificently irrelevant, because it was the Rabid Puppies that determined the ballot choices. With their SLAAAAAATE. 🙂 Unless you’re going to try to claim that you’re taking Vox Day at his “I’m certainly not going to tell everyone to vote for these choices exactly” word?

    The SP4 effort was primarily notable for…um…the logo was kind of nice?

15. First I must shake my fist sarcastically at Kevin for always being one step ahead of me on everything. I don’t know how he does it, but he does me a great service by being a great ambassador for WSFS and answering questions I never knew existed.

    Now to the responses:

    @Tasha Turner: Yep, first time, long time. I first stood up in the Business Meeting when I was but a teenager to correct a motion that, through poor editing, had lost a bit of the guts of the original text. I believe that motion was to split Best Editor. Oh the irony. I have been on the Head Table multiple times including last year and have run meetings for other groups, but I do ask that people remember it’s still my first time.

    @Steve Davidson and @Kevin Standlee
    Yep. I’d rule it out of order. Broader motions I’d consider, but not that.

16. @Tasha–I went with the laugh. My opinion of slates and slaters was plainly stated, in public, on my blog. And honestly, it was hilarious to see SP4 put AM on their slate recommended reading list after all the transparently foolish blathering about snow and taverns and bad writing and political correctness and whatever other silliness. I didn’t have to ask to be taken off–nobody would ever believe in a million years I was voluntary associated with them, not to mention it would have done no good anyway, and behold my lack of surprise at how they reacted to people who did ask. But just the fact the novel was on their list left them wiping a thousand eggs off their faces.

17. @Rachel Swirsky:

    Thank you for your comment on “Dinosaur”. I always read it as an anti-revenge story in the “violence begetting violence” sense. It was interesting (if heartbreaking) to read the context.

18. @marc aramini: apologies; it’s not for you (or Ted or his little troop of idiots) to decide who belongs where and for what reason. That’s for Hugo voters to decide, without the political bullshit of slating to get you there.

    Do you honestly believe that if your work had been published by anyone other than Castalia House that Teddy would even have looked twice at it, let alone put it on his slate?

    Don’t be a dupe like his Elk and Vaguely Farcical Munchkins.

    To Sean and Phantom: I’d really love some evidence of this small group of voters deciding what goes on the Hugo shortlists pre-puppy. As far as I’ve seen from all the data that’s been offered up, there is absolutely no evidence. And in the last 30 years, not one of the Shadowy Cabal has broken their silence on it either? I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe. Plus they must be really shitty at this whole gaming-the-nominations thing if they can be outdone twice in a row; if I was them I’d have upped my game this year.

19. @Lydy Puppy-related sadness has been cured!

20. Unless more nominees have the decency to withdraw as Thomas Mays has, my ballot is going to be full of Noah Ward. I especially look forward to permanent stain upon the career of Aramini, who couldn’t be published unless it was by a criminal crypto-fascist on the run from the law. But to sound less than completely negative, it’s wonderful to see at least two writers I greatly respect commenting here.

21. @Aaron: In effect, I think a person’s reaction to the story tells us far more about that person than it does about the story.

    Especially true, perhaps, for Swirsky’s story, but I think for everything (of course this could be the legacy of teaching English for some time).

22. The Phantom on April 27, 2016 at 10:37 am said:

    I think the best part for me today is that you can’t even complain Its A SLAAAAAATE!!! because SP4 wasn’t a slate. It was wide fricking open.

    I’ve no gripe with Sad Puppies 4 looking at the results. I can see some impact from Sad Puppy voters but only in so far as them voting for things and people that they would like regardless of any kind of organized list (Butcher’s novel, Weiskopff, Minz for editors). That is just Hugo voters voting for stuff they liked – good on ’em. No more a ‘slate’ than Dr Who fans etc.

    The issue isn’t the sad’s but the Rabids and I’m going to avoid the general term ‘Puppies’ this year. The problem isn’t ‘Puppies’ but Vox Day/Rabids/Castalia and the issue is clear. Vox Day has openly declared he wishes to destroy the Hugo Awards because John Scalzi was mean to him in a blog forum once.

23. @Ann Leckie

    Also, correct me if I am wrong, wasn’t Ancillary Sword the single work, before various withdrawals, that had enough support to burn through the Puppy’s slating last year?

    ETA: I had meant Sword, and have now corrected.

24. Sean wrote: (the part in italics)
    Well, the main conclusion I draw from the shortlist is that the Rabid Puppies have successfully trolled the Hugo Awards and shown that a small group with similar tastes and interests who are willing to artificially converge on a set of mutually acceptable second bests to increase their political power over the nomination process at the cost of every other work, including works they would have liked better had they only known about them can determine what is considered “The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy” for the year within the current nomination system and voting body.

    That said, yep.

25. marc aramini: certainly given the obscurity of my work it would never have appeared on a ballot without [VD]… I used to say, well, since Wolfe didn’t win, what do Hugos matter? And as the universe has a way of teaching us harsh lessons, suddenly I find that they matter a great deal to me now. I do hope that my essays can be examined on their own merit, because this is clearly my life’s work. 13 more essays left to finish the second and last volume, so it is over 90 percent done. Do the ends justify the means? Maybe sometimes – I guess it depends how many people get hurt.

    In other words, you don’t have a problem with the fact that your work appears on the ballot only because of bad-faith gaming by malign actors, because being a Hugo Finalist is more important to you than that the Hugo Award nominations are done honestly.

    Well, at least you’re honest about that.

    Your work did not make it onto the ballot on its own merits — and you openly admit that on its own merits it would not have done so — yet you now expect it to be evaluated on its own merits.

    Um, no. I don’t reward people who are happy to benefit from cheating. You’ve already taken the lifetime label “Hugo Award Finalist” from someone who had genuinely earned it with natural, popular acclaim. I won’t be giving you any additional unearned rewards.

26. Also, correct me if I am wrong, wasn’t Ancillary Sword the single work, before various withdrawals, that had enough support to burn through the Puppy’s slating last year?

    As you are not wrong, no correction will be forthcoming.

27. Kendall on April 27, 2016 at 8:41 am said:

    @Camestros Felapton: 13 nominated works/people from Castalia? My research bites; I don’t get that.

    Count it differently and you can get 9. There are 3 ambiguous cases:
    1. “If You Were an Award, My Love” is from Vox Day’s blog rather than the Castalia label. So a different Beale orifice but same thing really.
    2. “The First Draft of My Appendix N Book” is credited to Jeffro Johnson’s own blog rather than the Castalia House blog version of his collected posts. I’d say that also suggest a set up for later double-dipping shenanigans (Castalia publishes it again with ‘substantial revisions’ for a second go)
    3. Jerry Pournelle – obviously a notable figure in his own right but there for this year on the basis of There Will Be War X(?), a Castalia House book
    4. I’m assuming ‘Morgan Holmes’ is the Morgan of Castalia house blog (apologies to them if I’m wrong)

28. Camestros Felapton: “The First Draft of My Appendix N Book” is credited to Jeffro Johnson’s own blog rather than the Castalia House blog version of his collected posts. I’d say that also suggest a set up for later double-dipping shenanigans (Castalia publishes it again with ‘substantial revisions’ for a second go)

    Or perhaps that was intended to give Johnson plausible deniability that VD is the puppeteer controlling his strings. If so, it didn’t work.

29. Unless Mr. Aramini’s work is truly outstanding he should be content to have had it published. There is a lot of very good “related work” out there.

30. @Ann Leckie: As far as I can tell, the Sad Puppies this year literally followed the number of recommendations made by the commenters in their recommendation list threads. The most detailed comment about Ancillary Mercy was by someone who identified themself as Snowcrash and wrote:

    Ancillary Mercy, by Ann Leckie

    The third, and final of Leckie’s spectacular Imperial Radch space trilogy not only sticks the landing, but outdoes it’s predecessors. It’s a stunningly well balanced book, with Big Ideas on freedom and identity, well paced action set pieces and (something that many people leave out) some really nicely done and properly placed moments of levity.

    It doesn’t do the mistake of trying to tie up everything, nor does it take the deus ex machina way out (especially since there was at *least* one right there at the end). The ending, and the questions raised are a natural progression to the world building Leckie has done, and she does it in such a way that you just find yourself asking “How did I not see that coming?”….

    This was followed by some people responding “Seconded”, “Thirded”, “Fourthed”, and a few other people in the same thread had separate, brief mentions also recommending your novel.

31. To somewhat restate my disappeared comment from yesterday:

    It could have been worse. Three novels beat the slate, and even before Thomas Mays’ withdrawal, there was at least one creditable nominee in each of the fiction categories. On the other hand, Space Raptor Butt Invasion, the cesspit that is Related Work, and the high probability that Beale kept Ursula Vernon and Rose Lemberg off the ballot. So the hell with him.

    Last year, I voted (what I believed to be) straight merit. This year, I think I’ll modify that and vote straight merit except for Castalia House. Yes, I know that means slighting “What Price Humanity,” which is a pretty good story, but fortunately, there were two nominees in the novelette category that I’d have voted for ahead of it anyway. None of the other Castalia publications on the short list give me even that much pause. I abjure Castalia and all its works.

32. It seems like the inclusion of the Sad Puppies list items here is confusing some people elsewhere–e.g., they are viewing Ancillary Mercy as having been on a slate, despite it being 11th on the Sad Puppies’ list, and then exempting The Fifth Season, though it is just behind Ancillary Mercy on the Sad list. It doesn’t seem plausible that the Sad list had anything to do with the nominations in the novel category or elsewhere, and even anti-slate purists like myself should feel free to consider all the non-Rabid works.

33. I’ve read good explanations about why that particular episode of “My Little Pony” was slated, but why that particular ep of “Supernatural”? Does anyone know what made the Rabids think it was particularly slate-worthy?

34. @Ann Leckie

    Thats that is (one of many) excellent arguments for puppy-related irrelevancy, and for still voting for one of my favorite authors of the last few years.

35. @The Phantom

    Sure. Or, the credibility of the awards has been damaged by thirty years of ever increasing log rolling, publisher manipulation and SJW-compliant nominations.

    Ugh. One. Please name even one winner from the last decade that you think typifies this. Surely if problems are as wide-spread as you claim you can name one good example that won’t get you laughed at.

36. marc aramini on April 27, 2016 at 10:58 am said:

    And I suppose we should never have heard of Melville, since he wasn’t popular in his lifetime, eh? I do believe my work belongs there or I wouldn’t have accepted the nomination.

    I’ve been a fan of Gene Wolfe for a long time. I love the idea of the work you are doing and from what I have seen the scale of work and scholarship you have put into is impressive. However, I can’t vote for your work when your publisher is promoting it by attempting to exploit issues like child-sexual abuse. There isn’t some neat way of separating ‘Castalia House’ from the actions and strategies of Theodore Beale/Vox Day and there is a qualitative difference between authors who have been unwillingly nominated by the Rabid slate and authors who have willingly chosen to work with Castalia House. I understand that for you it was a matter of getting your work published and promoted and I understand why any author would want that for their work – but in the case of Castalia “promoted” necessarily includes stunts like slating the Hugo awards and attempts to trash whole categories, and it includes slurs and defamation of *other authors* people who, like you, have poured sweat & scholarship and long days/nights into their work. However, I also get that Vox Day perceives criticism as betrayal and that he has a tendency to ‘punish’ what he perceives as betrayal. So I am certainly not asking you denounce Day or withdraw from the awards or any other kind of symbolic action, but I am saying I can’t vote for your work and I can’t see it as a legitimate nomination because there is no way of seperating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works.

    I am sad for your work and I hope that future volumes make the ballot by more legitimate means.

37. @Camestros: Vox Day slated the Jeffro Johnson related work as “Appendix N” from the Castalia House blog, so I would guess that it received votes both under that title and as “The First Draft of My Appendix N Book” from Jeffro’s own blog. If so, the Hugo administrators had to determine what the canonical version of it was that would be listed on the final ballot, and they chose the latter title.

38. JJ on April 27, 2016 at 11:47 am said:
    Or perhaps that was intended to give Johnson plausible deniability that VD is the puppeteer controlling his strings. If so, it didn’t work.

    Poor Jeffro is this year’s John C Wright.

39. @Oneiros

    To Sean and Phantom: I’d really love some evidence of this small group of voters deciding what goes on the Hugo shortlists pre-puppy. As far as I’ve seen from all the data that’s been offered up, there is absolutely no evidence. And in the last 30 years, not one of the Shadowy Cabal has broken their silence on it either? I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe. Plus they must be really shitty at this whole gaming-the-nominations thing if they can be outdone twice in a row; if I was them I’d have upped my game this year.

    Where did I mention “shadowy cabal”? I do not think one exists and never have said so. What I *have* said is that “a small group with similar tastes and interests can determine what is considered.” Do you dispute that this is true? If so, how else do you explain Dr. Who dominating the shortlist nearly every year? Or Mr. Glyer, for that matter?

    Furthermore, with regards to the analysis being performed on last year’s voting results for e Pluribus Hugo, Mr. Jameson Quinn noted what he described as a “weak correlations” among non-puppy voters. See here. Does this establish a “secret cabal”?

    Of course not. Not even close.

    Does it indicate that there is a group within the WSFS who have similar tastes and vote for similar works in sufficient numbers so that their taste in books is over-represented in the Hugo Awards?

    Quite possibly. However, as far as I can tell, Mr. Quinn was prohibited from elaborating further. See Mr. Quinn’s comments here (three comments down from the top).

40. Has @The Phantom been introduced to the Mamatas Challenge yet?

41. @The Phantom

    “You can’t even complain it’s a slaaaate…”

    Are you sure? Happy Puppy thought SP4 was a slate. Maybe you just didn’t get the memo.

    To those people celebrating that only 2 of the novels on the ballot were Rabid Picks, Ancillary Mercy was on the Sad Slate. Now I fully believe Ancillary Mercy didn’t need their help; would have made the ballot purely on its own merits, especially after two excellent prequels ensured it would get a lot of attention, but still.

    It’s possible the Sads made zero difference, but right now all we know is that the Sads made less difference than the Rabids. When the long list comes out we’ll know more. Until then I am not inclined to pretend that the Sads are now just another bunch of enthusiasts recommending their favorites to each other.

42. @Aramini Melville is no longer a comparison you can ever hope to have made — he is no longer part of the same reference class as your work. By your own choice, freely, with full knowledge of the consequences, you have chosen to have your work be regarded for ever more as comparable to “Safe Space as Rape Room”, “Space Raptor Butt Invasion”, and “Wisdom From My Internets”.
    That’s the company you’ve chosen to place your work in. That’s your peer group. That’s how you’ve chosen to have posterity regard you. Once you’ve made that choice, you can’t then choose to be in Melville’s group instead. It really is an either/or thing.

43. @Rachel Swirsky: OK, author talking about their own story follows. Feel free to skip.

    Thank you for commenting. I got that it was ultimately an anti-revenge story which was beautifully & powerfully written. (I had tried to comment on your other blog that I didn’t read “soaked in gin” as a class marker, and didn’t think it needed changing to a different “soaked in [ ALCOHOL]” phrasing but was defeated by the site’s anti-spam protocols.)

44. If so, how else do you explain Dr. Who dominating the shortlist nearly every year?

    Are you seriously asking how what was at the time the most popular science fiction television show in the world was able to dominate the shortlist?

45. Meanwhile, in non-slated awards news, the Arthur C. Clarke Award nominees are out:

    Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky
    Way Down Dark by JP Smythe
    The Long Way to a Small Angry Planet by Becky Chambers
    The Book of Phoenix by Nnedi Okorafor
    Arcadia by Iain Pears
    Europe at Midnight by Dave Hutchinson

46. @Sean: Pull your head out of your ass. Dr Who is one of the most popular sci-fi shows of all fucking time. It has fewer episodes than US series’ so it concentrates its votes between a very few episodes voted on by a lot of fans.

    Would you like to elaborate on why you think a weak correlation that would happen in any popularly voted award is anything like at all the same as an overt slating campaign to force dreck onto an award shortlist? Thanks!

47. @Joshua K–yes, I suspect that most of its nominators on the SP4 site were actually Filers. Though I don’t rule out one or two actual pups–I know there are at least a few self-identified pups who also liked AJ, if not Sword (which disappointed some folks who would have preferred I go/stay actiony and who were not up for the direction I did take. Which, fair enough. I wrote the book I wanted to write, no one is obligated to read it or like it).

    And I know some folks went over and nominated things partially to see if they would keep to their word and be actually open and democratic. Which, I mean, all credit to them for doing what they said they would. The actual execution of it, you know, had some features that they clearly hadn’t thought through, but credit where credit is due.

    But that just makes it funnier. First off, it kind of gives the lie to the whole “but SP3 was just about the things readers REALLY like!” I mean, that lie had been given over and over, but the actual results of the nominating just kind of hammered that bad boy right through the wood. And as a bonus, the outcome was they stood there and recommended my book. You know, the one that was the conclusion to the trilogy the first book of which was the go-to example of politically correct, dull, not-really-science-fiction that has been sullying the genre for (pick your number) decades. That nobody actually really liked, they were just saying so for the SJ cred. That book.

    Excuse me, I’m going to go laugh some more.

48. @ Cat:

    To those people celebrating that only 2 of the novels on the ballot were Rabid Picks, Ancillary Mercy was on the Sad Slate.

    Speaking purely for myself, since I’m one of the people who celebrated, I have no problem with what the Sads did this year. Their list was ranked by popularity, but given that the SFWA released its own ranked list, that train had already left the station. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of either restrictions on making recommendations to the Sad list or manipulation of the results. I don’t particularly like the Sad leaders’ anti-SJW polemics or their consuming sense of grievance, but I’m not opposed to them soliciting and collating recommendations.

    The Rabids, on the other hand, need to be nuked from orbit.

49. Or, the credibility of the awards has been damaged by thirty years of ever increasing log rolling, publisher manipulation and SJW-compliant nominations.

    That’s quite a conspiracy theory you’ve got there. Too bad you don’t have any actual evidence supporting it.

    And thirty years? That’s half of the entire existence of the award. Somehow the award managed to get all the way into the 2010’s while still being regarded as the most prestigious award in science fiction. It is almost as if these imaginary problems you’ve conjured out of thin air didn’t actually impact the credibility of the award at all.

    Thirty years takes us back to 1986. That means that in this terrible era, somehow Card got two Best Novel Hugos and Vinge got three plus two Best Novella Hugos. Resnick won multiple Hugos in this era, as did Allen Steele. Ellison, Asimov, and Silverberg all won Hugos in this era you’ve marked out as problematic. And that’s without even getting to those who were merely nominated during this period. Are you saying all of these wins were somehow corrupt?

50. Joshua K. on April 27, 2016 at 12:02 pm said:

    @Camestros: Vox Day slated the Jeffro Johnson related work as “Appendix N” from the Castalia House blog, so I would guess that it received votes both under that title and as “The First Draft of My Appendix N Book” from Jeffro’s own blog. If so, the Hugo administrators had to determine what the canonical version of it was that would be listed on the final ballot, and they chose the latter title.

    You are correct. I’d assumed that it was change from the initial draft list he did category by category and then final list – but the final list has it as Castalia.

    Either way, it counts as a Castalia House creature 🙂

Comments are closed.