Today there were major responses to a pair of Hugo nominees withdrawing their work from the ballot, Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet, which raised the temperature of the discussion even higher.
John Scalzi comments on comparisons drawn between the eligibility of his 2006 novel and a 2013 John C. Wright story. Sarah Hoyt turns an argument on its head. John Ringo forsees an enjoyable moment at the Hugo ceremony.
And Brad R. Torgersen posted a highly interesting, self-revelatory essay.
Bryan Thomas Schmidt on Facebook
When I hear one of my favorite writers, one of the most deserving of nominees, has dropped out of the Hugos because of the pressure, insults, and more she was subjected to by assholes who are angry and can’t blame those responsible but instead generalize and attack everyone, it makes me really disgusted. It also makes me more determined to keep my nomination and say this: the only thing tainting the awards this year is bad behavior by people who should have more maturity and class. Not bloc voting accusations or politics. But people unable to behave respectfully toward others. THAT stains our genre. It tars all of us. And I am soooooooo sick of it.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
Annie Bellet withdraws – April 14
As to anyone feeling betrayed by this, don’t be. Leave them alone and respect their decision; do not criticize them for it. Regardless of why they chose to withdraw, that is their right and their choice, and it is neither a problem nor a concern of ours.
UPDATE: Marko Kloos wasn’t quite so judicious on Facebook, apparently. …
What is with these SF writers and their absolute preoccupation with all things excremental anyhow?
Larry Correia on Monster Hunter Nation
Well, this sucks. – April 14
Personally, I think this sucks. We were trying to get talented quality writers on the ballot who would normally be ignored. Neither of these share my politics. There are some amazing authors nominated for the first time, and I wish that people would just read the fucking books, but hell, who am I kidding? I’m tired of repeating myself. Some of the stuff I’ve seen go down over the last two weeks is so infuriating it would blow your mind.
For the 100th damned time, Vox wasn’t on SP3. He did his own thing. Now authors are being tried for guilt by association with somebody they never chose to associate with, and their nominations are somehow meaningless because the wrong person plugged their work.
That’s unfair bullshit and you all know it.
https://twitter.com/anniebellet/status/588454737659367425
Sarah Hoyt on Mad Genius Club
“The Dogs You Lie Down With” – April 15
It occurred to me that no one, that I know (and he’d probably tell me, at least for the novelty) has gone to John C. Wright and said “You’re supported by Sarah A. Hoyt, a public and avowed supporter of same sex marriage, who has many gay characters in her books. Therefore, you too must be a public and avowed supporter of same sex marriage, you horrible man.”
Mind you, there are people who consider this position of mine more than they can swallow and who have told me so and told me they’d never read me again. That’s fine by me. I arrived at that decision on my own and by thought. (And I’m not in favor of activist stunts like taking down pizza parlors or forcing religions you don’t even belong to to marry you or to perform ceremonies forbidden by their beliefs. No, supporting SSM doesn’t mean supporting that. I reject guilt by association in all forms.) I’m a big girl and I can wear big girl pants. (As for the gay characters they just happen. It’s like I have a ton of stories by the sea, and no, that’s not where I grew up. Or why I’m infected with dragons. Not everything in art is under your strict control.)
Nerdvana Podcast
Show #146: Episode 38: “HugoGate 2015”, Part 1. The title pretty much says it all. We’re not here to discuss the nominees, we are here to talk about the controversy surrounding this years Hugo awards. Join hosts JC Arkham and Two-Buck Chuck as we welcome back guests Hugo awards winners Christopher J Garcia and Mo “The Thrill” Starkey along with special guest Hugo expert Kevin Standlee.
John Ringo on Facebook – April 15
Talking with Cedar Sanderson reminded me of something.
There are multiple nominees for every Hugo and Nebula which are publicly posted. A few years back, both the Hugo and Nebula committee started to give out small trinkets to all the nominees who didn’t win. Runner up awards if you will. ‘You’re such nice people and you really deserve SOMETHING.’
Lois Bujold has collected so many over the years that she has a whole necklace of the things.
I just realized that the Hugo committee is going to have to pass those out to Tom Kratman, Toni Weisskopf, Brad Torgersen, etcetera, EVEN IF THEY DON’T WIN A HUGO.
Or I suppose they can eliminate the practice.
But I really want to see their faces when they’re forced to give one to Tom Kratman.
Fortunately, the whole ceremony is generally live cast to DragonCon. So I don’t actually have to attend WorldCon thank God.
Here's Connie Willis on why she won't be a Hugo awards presenter this year: http://t.co/gKuwWASXtx
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) April 15, 2015
https://twitter.com/clundoff/status/588423398205820928
David Gerrold on Facebook – April 15
Fans don’t quit. Fans don’t give up. Fans are the kind of people who — if you give them lemons — come back with key lime pie and you’re left scratching your head, wondering how they did it.
So we will have a Hugo ceremony. It will be a celebration of our deserving nominees. It will be a celebration of excellence in the genre. It will be a celebration of our history and our traditions. It will be a celebration of us.
There will be some jokes. There will be some surprises. Some of the best people in the genre have stepped up to the plate — and we’re planning a celebration that will be joyous and fun. I intend that we will end up feeling proud that we haven’t lost our ability to be the greatest fans on Earth — and in space as well.
When we step back and take a larger look at our history, at our traditions, at ourselves and the scale of our dreams and the scale of our accomplishments — this year’s little kerfuffle is merely a momentary hiccup in a much bigger history.
John Brown
“What Vox Day Believes” – April 15
I asked Day if he’d mind answering a few questions.
He agreed.
What you will read below is our conversation, arranged for easy reading.
Why am I doing this?
Well, who doesn’t want to scoop the devil? But beyond that, I agree with George R. R. Martin: internet conversations that are not moderated to maintain a tone of respectful disagreement are a bane upon us all. Actually, Martin said they were part of the devil’s alimentary canal, but I didn’t want to confuse the topic.
Dave Gonzales on Geek.com
“Winter isn’t coming: Hugo Awards’ own GamerGate is delaying A Song of Ice and Fire” – April 15
George RR Martin has taken to his blog to talk about a scandal at the Hugo Awards this year, and if he’s blogging, he’s not finishing Winds of Winter, the next installment in his A Song of Ice and Fire series of novels that inspired HBO runaway hit Game of Thrones.
Martin is an avid blogger and a seemingly avid procrastinator that loves hanging out at comic book and sci-fi conventions. He was in the news this March when he announced he wasn’t going to San Diego Comic-Con this year so he could continue work on his next book. Sad news for fans attending the Con and devastating news for those waiting for the new book: this July marks four years since A Dance With Dragons, and he’s still going to be working?
Brad R. Torgersen
“Tribalism is as tribalism does” – April 14
I told George R. R. Martin I’d be writing this post — as a result of some of the polite dialogue we had at his LiveJournal page. His basic question to me was, “How can you, as a guy in an interracial marriage, put up with some of the racist and sexist stuff (a certain person) writes on his blog?” I thought this a valid question. How indeed? I didn’t have the space on LiveJournal to unpack all of my thoughts and feelings on the dread ism topic, so I thought I would do it here.
Rhiannon on Feminist Fiction
“Responding to the Hugos” – April 15
The key thing, in the end, is voting. If we want diverse creators and titles to be included in the Hugos, then we need to show up and have our voices heard. And not just as an act of protest, but as an act of engagement. Read the nominees, make a genuine evaluation of which ones we like the best, and vote for them because we truly believe they deserve to win. Sure, it’s not as dramatic as nuking the votes, and it makes a less headline-worthy point of “we matter too,” but it’s the way that “untraditional” sci-fi/fantasy fans should be able to engage with the Hugos, and the Sad Puppies don’t prevent us from doing that. If enough people who don’t fit the Sad Puppies idea of “real sci-fi/fantasy” feel inspired to vote, then diverse works will be included naturally. The Sad Puppies slate only worked because very few people actually contribute to the Hugo nominations. The best way to stop them, therefore, is to contribute. And no matter how much some people believe that must be a conspiracy, anyone with sense can easily see that it’s just honest diversity in action.
John Scalzi on Whatever
“The Latest Hugo Conspiracy Nonsense Involving Me” – April 15
In the wake of one of John C. Wright’s Hugo-nominated stories being disqualified for the ballot because it was previously published on his Web site, howls of bitter indignancy have arisen from the Puppy quarters, on the basis that Old Man’s War, a book I serialized here on Whatever in 2002, qualified for the Hugo ballot in 2006 (it did not win). The gist of the whining is that if my work can be thought of as previously unpublished, why not Mr. Wright’s? Also, this is further evidence that the Hugos are one big conspiracy apparently designed to promote the socially acceptable, i.e., me specifically, whilst putting down the true and pure sons of science fiction (i.e., the Puppies)…..
- Aside from my notification of the nomination, I had no contact with the Hugo Award committee of that year prior to the actual Worldcon, nor could I tell you off the top of my head who was on the committee. It doesn’t appear that anyone at the time was concerned about whether OMW being serialized here constituted publication. Simply put, it didn’t seem to be an issue, or at the very least, no one told me if it were. Again, if this was a conspiracy to get me on the ballot, it lacked one very important conspirator: Me.
- So why would OMW’s appearance on a Web site in 2002 not constitute publication, but Mr. Wright’s story’s appearance on a Web site in 2013 constitute publication? There could be many reasons, including conspiracy, but I think the more likely and rather pedestrian reason is that more than a decade separates 2002 and 2013. In that decade the publishing landscape has changed significantly. In 2002 there was no Kindle, no Nook, no tablet or smart phone; there was no significant and simple commerce channel for independent publication; and there was not, apparently, a widespread understanding that self-publishing, in whatever form, constituted formal publication for the purposes of the Hugo Awards. 2013 is not 2002; 2015, when Mr. Wright’s story was nominated, is not 2006, when OMW was nominated.
Frank Catalano on GeekWire
“As science fiction ascends its popular award — the Hugo — threatens to nosedive” – April 15
It’s not that campaigning is new to science-fiction and fantasy awards. I was the volunteer administrator of another prestigious science-fiction competition, the Nebula Awards, during its major controversy in the 1980s. When I called an author to congratulate her for taking best short story in the peer-voted honors, I was stunned to hear her say she wanted to withdraw the work – after winning.
Her reason was the campaigning by another finalist in the same category. I had the awkward task of notifying the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America of the winner’s desire to decline, establishing my unenviable role as the Miles Standish of the Nebulas in the process. (The writer was Lisa Tuttle, the work was “The Bone Flute,” and both remain worth reading.)
But the big difference between the Nebulas then, and the Hugos now, is that the Nebula campaigning didn’t affect the outcome of the vote. For the Hugos, bloc campaigning verging on manipulation dominates the ballot today. And if protest “No Award” votes overwhelm slate-propelled finalists, the Hugos also fail in 2015 because certainly something, somewhere was worthy of a Hugo this year.
That could be a sad thing for science fiction, as geek culture has become mainstream popular culture. The irony of this Hugo ballot is that, simultaneous to science fiction’s ascendance, we’ve seen a reduced reliance on “quality” gatekeepers such as awards. Fans can find recommendations of what’s worth reading, even more tightly tied to their tastes, with an online tap or click. Maybe, as once was said about academia, the battles are so fierce because the stakes are so small.
Daniel on Castalia House
“Hugo Awards: A History of Recommendation Lists” – April 15
Frank Wu’s analysis of the awards from 2001-2005 suggests otherwise: that not only was there tremendous overlap in the “competing” lists, but that the appearance of diversity was, in fact, an important element of bloc-list unity. Some of the discrepancy between Wu and Martin is in interpretation: where [George R.R.] Martin sees an issue of an individual body exerting “control” over the process, and the evidence of “independent” bodies diffusing that control, Wu boils it down to the practicalities: a clear harmony of recommendations by influencers effectively guides the Hugos.
In other words, with the exception of a single book out of 28, if your novel wasn’t on a campaign list…you simply weren’t nominated, and sure as shooting were not going to win. The recommendation blocs didn’t guarantee individuals made it to the final ballot, they guaranteed that outsiders were left off.
Steve Davidson on Amazing Stories
“Happy Fans” – April 15
Now, it’s time for some real speculation.
Why would someone knowingly allow an ineligible work to be nominated for an award?
Well, if I were a schemer who liked to play head games with people and I was also trying to make a political point about the organization that was responsible for administering that award, I might find it extremely funny to try and set them up in a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation, especially if I was trying to devalue the entire award process.
Here’s how that might work.
I get my pals together and create a voting slate (knowing that since such a thing had never been done before, or at the very least never been done on such a monumentally annoying scale before, that it stands a good chance of succeeding) and when the list of recommendations that my minions will slavishly vote for is finalized, I’d salt it with a couple of ineligible works.
Heads I Win: for one reason or another, the ineligible works make it all the way through to the final ballot, the awards are handed out and: “See! We TOLD you the awards were poorly managed. How long has this been going on? This brings the validity of every single award given out for the past 60 years into question! What a crock. They’re totally valueless.”
Tails You Lose: the ineligible works are identified and removed from the ballot. “See! We TOLD you the fix was in. The ONLY reason that this work was ruled ineligible is because of the author’s politics! How long has this been going on? This brings the validity of every single award given out for the past 60 years into question! What a crock. They’re totally valueless.”
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Alexander: Two points before I head out for a while.
It doesn’t take very many people not reading but nominating to skew the results under the current system. That’s certainly a bug in the system, it should be patched.
Secondly, you *read* them and still nominated some of them? I’ve been going back and reading some myself, and all I can say is that our tastes and what we think of as ‘good’ are pretty f’ing divergent.
“You’re just trolling.”
There’s a lot of that going on here. It’s pointless to debate this with anyone who supports Rabid Puppies.
“Maybe Vinge and Hamilton are declining to share their political opinions with the Internet, not because they fear the wrath of an online mob, but because they feel have better things to do with their time, e.g., write novels. Stranger things have happened.”
Yep, if those were isolated cases. The correlation is so high that it is mind-blowing, however. You still can not see it, I now. Even if it’s in front of your eyes your mind is not prepared to accept it.
I will also add that having a real web presence for a SF writer is not “wasting time”. Many editors and agents put a lot of pressure on authors to have that, because it’s important for promotion.
AG, an “official line of thought” in fandom? Please, do cite the relevant WSFS constitutional documents in support that claim. There are plenty of unofficial lines of thought in fandom, but that’s par for the course.
A little exercise in explaining what’s heard — if it’s not what’s meant, perhaps the original writer had best clarify/
“I’ll repeat what I said at my place: don’t dig the hole deeper.”
In other words, “Let us win.” — Or, more precisely, “Let us declare when the time for planning and working together is over, and we should revert to the spirit rather than the letter of the law.”
“Don’t scream at us, don’t insult us, don’t “send a message”
Or: “Do as we say, not as we do” — *we* can insult the previous Hugo winners by declaring them unworthy to win and picked by a conspiracy — indeed, as one of our slate said, written to *deliberately* devalue the awards — but if you say that our works are that, you’re insulting us.”
“just settle down and do what you’ve always done and vote for whatever works you find to be the best, or the least offensive.”
Of course, people have been voting “No Award” probably for as long as it’s been available — it’s even won. It is, indeed, the “least offensive” choice on occasion. What, then, is your complaint? I would rather see No Award than, for example, a piece of overblown and hackneyed tripe like “The Parliament of Birds and Beasts” win a Hugo — so I will do as I’ve always done.
“Smile and politely do your jazz hands if a few of ours happen to claim the totem this year. We have no intention of camping the Hugos unless you give us a reason to do so.”
In other words, give us what we want, or we’ll keep coming back until we get what we want. “Pretty award there — shame if it got….broken”, to paraphrase Monty Python’s gangster spoof.
Not playing by your rules is, apparently, “a reason to do so”; you have appointed yourself over the Hugo committee and, indeed, Worldcon, as “What is OK in the Hugos.”
To which I respond, go jump in a lake — I’m told Finland has plenty of them. Preferably a very cold one.
“but annoy me enough and I promise you that I will end up with more than David Hartwell and Mike Glyer combined.”
The tantrums don’t make you, or your alleged “cause”, look any better.
Daveon,
The divergence is fine with me. Good day.
@David W: “””AG, an “official line of thought” in fandom? Please, do cite the relevant WSFS constitutional documents in support that claim. There are plenty of unofficial lines of thought in fandom, but that’s par for the course.”””
David, authors with a certain political line have no problem and can be as outspoken as they wish. Authors with a different and equally legitimate political line (I’m not talking VD here) need to take much care about what kind of social or political opinions they express.
When you are totally honest with yourself and are not in the heat of an argument, if you really believe that what I’m not saying has no merit whatsoever, then there is no hope that you and I can understand each other on this issue. If on the other hand you believe that there is some truth in what I say, then do you think that state of affairs is normal or acceptable for free people?
typo: “if you really believe that what I’m saying”, of course, not ” if you really believe that what I’m not saying”
AG-
You seem to have missed the relevant portion of their quotes in your rush to make them into talking points.
“ I am not doing it because I was pressured by anyone either way or on
any “side,” though many friends have made cogent arguments for both keeping my nomination and sticking it out, as well as for retracting it and letting things proceed without me in the middle. – Annie Bellet
This is my choice alone, and I am making it without pressure from any side in the current Hugo debate. Please respect it as such. – Marko Kloos
Neither author was harassed, by their own words. For you to believe they were is for you to believe they were lying. 🙂
I always love it when Teddy starts speaking of himself in the third person. Fits well with the mustache twirling.
“David, authors with a certain political line have no problem and can be as outspoken as they wish.”
Well, no. Being as “outspoken as she wished” got N.K. Jemisin a lot of flak, for example. It got her called a savage, and held up as example of all sorts of bad things.
And she had supporters, who said she did the right thing.
Now, T. Beale and John C. Wright, to pick examples, have said things that got them a lot of flak — it got them called bigots, etc., and held up as an example of all sorts of bad things.
And they have supporters, who say they did the right thing.
What I’m seeing here is something summed up beautifully (and my apologies if I’ve already quoted him here on file770) by Bertrand Russell:
“I am firm, You are obstinate, He is a pig-headed fool.”
The Puppy-war equivalents, some coming from one side, some from both:
“We are doing the best thing for the Hugos, you are bending the rules, they are cheating”
“I like good stories, you get politics into your fiction, they write message-fic”
“We are an oppressed minority, you are dividing fandom, they want to silence everyone who disagrees with them.”
Do you think you and I can understand each other, AG?
Anybody looking for another coincidence-proves-causality argument should not overlook that the same artist created the logos used for Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies. See artraccoon.
Well, Nigel and Seth, go over to N. K. Jemisin’s site right now and read her latest post about the Hugos. If you can squeeze “politics” out of attaching Brad to Jim Crow then you’re more canny then I am. To say it is disturbing is an understatement. And you want to complain about Vox Day? Using what standard – a weather vane?
Keep in mind Jemisin is a multiple Nebula nominee who has widespread support in the SJW community that amounts to hero worship. Not only that, she is a compassionate intersectionalist, and that doctrine did indeed suffuse the Hugos last year. That is not even in dispute. Saying I have maintained it is some academic conference in support of intersectionalism is a straw man. What I have maintained is the winners of both last year’s Hugos and Nebulas are completely devoted to queer theory and intersectionalism; either the fiction or the authors support race-gender dialogues within SFF to a degree unprecedented in the genre’s history. It is the default orthodoxy of the SFWA. That is an easily proven fact. Is the fact the most award winning novel in SF history is devoted to Judith Butler gender theory too subtle for you to grasp? Coincidence?
Both Damien Walter and John Scalzi have publicly urged us to look into intersectionality using that exact word. Please don’t tell me it is not an issue when facts point in the opposite direction, and in a massive flood.
It is another straw man to say I have compared the Hugos to woman’s suffrage in terms of importance or severity, so why bring it up? That is not my issue but one you have created for me to argue dishonestly.
#DitchYourRacists
>Do you think you and I can understand each other, AG?
Perhaps. Let me ask you a question: Do you think N.K. Jemisin is racist? If so, why isn’t she expelled from the community like VD? If not, no you and I can not understand each other about this issue. Perhaps we can about other things.
Well, I’m out for the moment. I’m tired. Have a good day.
@Hines,
“instead of trying to use them as pawns to score points in this whole mess?”
You don’t say.
@Nigel,
“Probably because of the way his public writings show him to be the other kind of horrible man.”
I have never seen such a complete whiff and a miss.
“And perfectly reasonable to accept that it isn’t when you have it pointed out to you.”
And another. You do realize that Cat framed this as essentially us being ignorant right? But no, you had to reframe for your straw man.
“That your overall tastes have become quite niche and relatively small broad popular appeal”
Except when we win…in which case the other side must hound authors and force them out of the award. SP did, after all, start this by having to warn people. Again SHoyt’s article on this is illuminating for those who actually wish to be.
@Guess,
“Most of the puppies say they are being maligned by saying people are tying them to Day.”
Nope. We are saying you are missing the point. That you want to make us un-people by concentrating on Day to make your attack on our votes hurt your psyche less. I have no problem with Day, who is about as racist in the sense of hating people as a tulip is. He’s Indian. My nuclear family spans multiple continents. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your moment of hate.
@Karenh,
“That people are *openly* calling on people to withdraw their nominated works *because some people don’t like who nominated those works and will “like” the author better if they withdrew* is behavior I find extremely distasteful.”
I know. How is this so hard. It stinks of every purge ever and they don’t see it. They have strapped on their boots and their brown shirts and have declared who counts and who doesn’t. Again, it is absolutely horrifying.
@Davidh,
“If a writer values the publicity a bogus Hugo nomination gets them over the objections that many, many fans have about the SP/RP slates”
So, my votes bogus is it? Again with the discounting. I imagine it makes it easier to claim the other side isn’t people.
@rcade,
“The Puppies have as much power as any other Worldcon member to enact voting system changes. To my knowledge, though, none of them are participating in any discussions about how to deter bloc voting while remaining a fair democratic process. ”
I know this is a shock to you but, “free association,” is generally considered “fair and democratic”.
Oh and:
“Members should not vote for nominations by copying any slate of nominees suggested by others, but instead should make their own individual choices for what they believe are the best works”
We did. Just keep saying otherwise if you think it makes it so.
“Do you think N.K. Jemisin is racist?”
I have never seen quotes from her that would make me think it. You can feel free to provide them.
“If so, why isn’t she expelled from the community like VD?”
But that’s the point; VD hasn’t been “expelled from the community”. He was, from what I understand, de facto expelled from SFWA (I do not want to get into the whole “Massachusetts/CA/Federal law/is he/isn’t he” — but that’s the closest you’ll get to him being “expelled from the community.” A lot of people think he’s an extremist blowhard, and have no problem telling him that — but a lot of people have no problem telling people on the left that they’re scum (e.g. John C. Wright), and yet you do not call them “excluded from the community.”
That was, indeed, my entire point; we do not perceive things happening to us the same way we perceive them happening to others. And, until we start seeing some of that, we will continue to see the divisions that some Puppies claim to decry, but, indeed, only incite.
“In other words, “Let us win.” — Or, more precisely, “Let us declare when the time for planning and working together is over, and we should revert to the spirit rather than the letter of the law.””
We already won this year. What part of “I don’t care about the awards” do you find so difficult to understand? Smoking hole or plastic distribution, it’s all the same to me. But if you’re going to up the ante again, I’m going to call you again. Seriously, how is this hard to grasp? Are you that pleased with how well upping the ante worked last time?
“Do as we say, not as we do””
No, do as we DID. For years. We sat quietly while you told us mediocrities were the best the field had to offer and made no attempt to No Award them. So we know you can do it. Because we did it.
“In other words, give us what we want, or we’ll keep coming back until we get what we want.”
Not at all. Again, you don’t understand what we want.
“The tantrums don’t make you, or your alleged “cause”, look any better.”
I find it mystifying that you would appear to think I am at all concerned how me or my cause might look to you. I’m simply being polite. People I respect on both sides have asked me to tone it down and give peace a chance. So I am. The choice is pretty simple. Either eat a little crow now, or roll the dice and run the risk of eating considerably more in the future. It’s totally up to you all.
@rcade
“There’s a lot of that going on here. It’s pointless to debate this with anyone who supports Rabid Puppies.”
No one should have apologized for you not being insulting. This is an insult. This is calling them un-people.
@Steven,
“In other words, “Let us win.” — Or, more precisely, “Let us declare when the time for planning and working together is over, and we should revert to the spirit rather than the letter of the law.””
Nope. It means don’t shoot us down and burn down the building and chase authors away because you don’t like them. Don’t buy books simply because people associate with the right folks. Yes, we will remember you burning down the house to keep us out. We will remember our choices being forced to publicly recant. What you are starting is a straight war.
“Of course, people have been voting “No Award” probably for as long as it’s been available — it’s even won. It is, indeed, the “least offensive” choice on occasion. What, then, is your complaint? I would rather see No Award than, for example, a piece of overblown and hackneyed tripe like “The Parliament of Birds and Beasts” win a Hugo — so I will do as I’ve always done.”
And there you go. It isn’t hackneyed tripe. That is what tells us you don’t give a damn and just want to keep us out. To which I say, with all energy, screw you. We will get in. We will vote for who we like. We will win. And the more you try to stop it the harder we will push.
@AG,
“Authors with a different and equally legitimate political line (I’m not talking VD here) need to take much care about what kind of social or political opinions they express”
I am. Asking him to be banned from here when he hasn’t done anything but answer direct attacks or questions is an example of it.
@Steven,
“Well, no. Being as “outspoken as she wished” got N.K. Jemisin a lot of flak, for example. It got her called a savage, and held up as example of all sorts of bad things.”
At which point for her racist comments she was brought before the SFWA governing board…oh wait…no…
And fans boycotted any suggestion she made…no…
And she was voted down as no award in the hugs…no…
…wait a sec…
“Perhaps. Let me ask you a question: Do you think N.K. Jemisin is racist?”
No, although I do think her call for a “reconciliation commission” for SF&F like the one that was done in South Africa to deal with apartheid-era wrongs was a wee bit over the top. Well, maybe…
Moderation warning: I do not intend to host a “debate” about the character of N. K. Jemisin. For me, these comments cross the line into abuse, and since she is not participating cannot be regarded as having raised the question herself.
Mr. Gyler, am I misunderstanding you? There will be no further comments about the character of Vox Day in the future unless he himself is participating?
“We already won this year. What part of “I don’t care about the awards” do you find so difficult to understand?”
The part where, if you and people around you don’t care about the awards, you make such a big deal about how people are voting for them or not. You arbitrarily declared an endpoint, as I said, and now want everyone to accept “You won.”
If you’re done, and you don’t care, then shut up about it and let other people do what they want. If you’ve won, and you don’t care, your money is away from the table, so why do you care about the ante?
“We sat quietly while you told us mediocrities were the best the field had to offer and made no attempt to No Award them”
I know you may believe in the bifurcation of SF, but many people do not; your continued efforts to push it in that direction are not appreciated.
“Again, you don’t understand what we want. ”
Apparently, what you want is for us to let you do what you want, not counter-organize against an organization, and sit down and shut up. You’re not going to get it.
“Either eat a little crow now, or roll the dice and run the risk of eating considerably more in the future. It’s totally up to you all.”
No, it’s not.
You see, you’re acting as if you’re some kind of natural force — unchangeable, inevitable, etc.
You do not get to say ‘Here’s what I’m going to do; if you don’t do what I want, the consequences are entirely on you.”
*You* are the one who’s doing things. *You* can choose to do them or not.
For someone I’m told believes in individualism, free will, and all that, you really do seem to be having a hard time with this.
You are behaving *exactly* like an extortionist; “Do what I say, and no one gets hurt; give me what I want, and I won’t do it again.” Just because you feel like you’re doing it politely doesn’t mean that’s not what it is.
“No one should have apologized for you not being insulting. This is an insult. This is calling them un-people.”
I don’t owe you or anybody else my attention. The people who actually care about the Hugo Awards are the ones whose opinions interest me.
” I do not intend to host a “debate” about the character of N. K. Jemisin.”
My apologies; I introduced her as an example, and shall refer to her no further.
Once again, my apologies, and thank you for providing this space.
Mike, thanks for providing the space as well as the moderation. I appreciate it and the considerable effort you put into making File770 a decent place for such intense discussions.
James May: Did you mean to be cute or acute? You succeeded at the latter.
James May,
I think you do minunderstand. Vox Day’s character will not be brought up unless Vox Day himself brings it up. Not being in the conversation at all is simply proof positive that the condition did not occur.
‘What I have maintained is the winners of both last year’s Hugos and Nebulas are completely devoted to queer theory and intersectionalism’
I suppose that sort of thing is just popular now. Good thing it didn’t get in the way of great stories, why I barely even noticed! They were great, weren’t they? I thought so. Lots and lots and lots of people who weren’t you thought so. Sucks to be you, I suppose, if it bothers you that much.
“In other words, “Let us win.” — Or, more precisely, “Let us declare when the time for planning and working together is over, and we should revert to the spirit rather than the letter of the law.””
Nope. It means don’t shoot us down and burn down the building and chase authors away because you don’t like them.
So it’s “shooting you down” to…vote for someone/something we think is more deserving? It’s “burning down the building” to …decide that things got badly messed up this year, and vote our conscience?
(The whole “chasing authors away” has been adequately addressed elsewhere — I tend to take people saying they weren’t chased away to mean it.)
As I said: we’re supposed to let the Puppies (specifically, since I was responding to Mr. Beale, the Rabid ones) decide when the time for gaming the system is over and now everyone’s supposed to go back to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law. What you said changes nothing in that point.
“What you are starting is a straight war.”
“You are warmongers, misusing the rules to destroy the award. We are freedom fighters, following the letter of the law to free the award.” — Again, I refer you to the Russell Conjugation.
“ I would rather see No Award than, for example, a piece of overblown and hackneyed tripe like “The Parliament of Birds and Beasts” win a Hugo — so I will do as I’ve always done.”
“And there you go. It isn’t hackneyed tripe.”
I read it. It uses old, familiar tropes to carry a Christian message so heavy it could be made out of lead, has no tension, etc., etc., and so forth. That’s my opinion. *You* feel it is unjust — but it is as valid an opinion as Mr. Beale’s “mediocrities” claim.
I find it hackneyed tripe, and would rather vote for “No Award” than see it win. (Similarly for “Yes, Virginia….”, which has been withdrawn, to be replaced by a work in every way its superior.)
“That is what tells us you don’t give a damn and just want to keep us out.”
Because I have a different opinion of a work you nominated, I don’t give a damn and want to keep you out? That doesn’t follow at all. Indeed — and forgive me if I’m wrong — I thought you were one of the people complaining about “message-fic”, which, to me, “Parliament” and “Yes, Virginia” absolutely were. So, if “Story over message” is the condition, to my eyes, they were unworthy nominations. Not because John C. Wright wrote them, but because they were *bad*, in my opinion.
And in the end, opinion is all we have to go on, aside from the very basic “Is it grammatical” — and even there, writers can violate those rules with good reason.
“We will get in. We will vote for who we like. We will win. And the more you try to stop it the harder we will push.”
Then vote. But vote as yourself, not for a slate of people someone you agree with put up.
The part that angers me, out of all of this, is that the Puppies are making SF/F — or at least the part that cares about this stuff at all — *become* “us” and “them”. A bipartate system, where effort and some odd sort of purity — since I notice it’s not about “what” we like for you, but “who” we like — are what’s important.
That’s a sad vision of the future, to put it mildly.
Well no, lots and lots of people *didn’t*.
If lots and lots of people did, you wouldn’t be frantically trying to discredit 200 people who had similar tastes that were different from yours.
“What part of “I don’t care about the awards” do you find so difficult to understand? ”
The part where have dedicated tens of blog posts, hundreds of comments, and a slate of nominations to vote “as is”. The part where you vowed to burn them to the ground if people don’t bow to your desires. Little things like that.
Actions speak louder than words, Teddy.
Mike Glyer – Thanks for fixing my tag. Much appreciated.
“I think you do minunderstand. Vox Day’s character will not be brought up unless Vox Day himself brings it up. Not being in the conversation at all is simply proof positive that the condition did not occur.”
I think there’s an opening at MiniTru.
‘I have never seen such a complete whiff and a miss.’
Well, if you haven’t seen it, it’s because he deleted the blog posts. I think they’ve been copied and archived in various places if you go looking.
‘And another. You do realize that Cat framed this as essentially us being ignorant right? But no, you had to reframe for your straw man.’
Er, what does that have to do with my reply to the thing I replied to? Literally can’t make sense of this. Bit of a whiff and miss, eh? Eh? Eh?
‘Except when we win…in which case the other side must hound authors and force them out of the award’
Niche group games awards, taints nominations, sparks controversy, causes nominees to withdraw. Film at 11.
“And yet here you are arguing that there was no bloc voting this year?”
I said there is no *evidence* of bloc voting this year. I’m not going to state absolute certainty with regards to an issue for which I cannot provide an equal weight of evidence. You, OTOH, have stated repeatedly that bloc-voting occurred; yet you never provided even a scintilla of evidence for your absolute claim. This is why I state that you are a liar, or else in possession of information to which the rest of us are not privy.
“James May: Did you mean to be cute or acute? You succeeded at the latter”
I honestly have no idea what that means. You let people drag Wright, Day and pretty much anyone else not down with being an SJW into the mud and then delete my innocuous comment? I asked you a straight up question. Will or will you not forbid any further speculation into the character of either John C. Wright or Vox Day if they are not themselves commenting?
He said you hit the nail on the head, James, just with a bit of flair.
James May: Your comment was posted after I said I wouldn’t continue to host that line of discussion. That you did not include any abuse in the comment I deleted is true.
VD comments here frequently and engages with critics. I don’t really see how we can have a discussion of people’s reaction to Rabid Puppies without alluding to the fact that he has controversial views.
That hardly means there is no limit on what people can say about him. I even have a specific example in mind that if it ever shows up, I am spamming it.
As for John C. Wright, if you think I have missed some abuse of him that I should look at, please e-mail the link to me at mikeglyer (at) cs (dot) com and I will respond. However, I don’t see any point in derailing the comment thread to review it — besides, if it’s that bad, it shouldn’t be posted twice.
“…express an opinion not in line with the official line of thought…”
Is there, oh I dunno, a link or something to that? Hate to think I’m missing the official line.
Ed: “You’re looking at him.” (Hope I sounded like Dennis Quaid.)
Well, I don’t disagree with that Mr. Glyer, but VD does not exist in a vacuum. If someone wishes to maintain he is a racist you must put in him context. In other words, compared to what, to who?
There can be no legitimate discussion of Day or Wright without placing them in context in terms of cultural custom and practice not only in America but in the SFF community. Letting others skate away is what created SP.
If I tell someone Rod Carew’s lifetime batting avg. and never ever mention another avg. then that is an exercise in stupidity. Whether I say it’s .900 or .100 doesn’t then matter. So what’s the batting avg. of Day and Wright?
I have an idea for a WorldCon panel. I’d call it “Compared to What?”, because frankly, this opacity is killing this community.
James May: Not sure if you were speaking about any particular comment on John C. Wright, but I just reviewed some and did find one that deserved deletion.
@Anyone with Common Sense…
I am no SJW. However, this has to be the biggest WTF I have seen in the whole debate.
From: GK Chesterton
@Guess,
Nope. We are saying you are missing the point. That you want to make us un-people by concentrating on Day to make your attack on our votes hurt your psyche less. I have no problem with Day, who is about as racist in the sense of hating people as a tulip is. He’s Indian. My nuclear family spans multiple continents. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your moment of hate.
‘If someone wishes to maintain he is a racist you must put in him context.’
No you don’t. Good lord that is some craven and naked special pleading.
Compared to what, Nigel?
Hahahah.
‘Compared to what, Nigel?’
The naked and special pleading you’re engaged in with relation to Mr Beale’s racism can be compared to the naked and special pleading of the SP/RPs in relation to their gaming of the nominations. Similar weaselly rhetorical dodges being set up in both.
I was thinking about this whole conspiracy thing. Of course, I know there is no leftist conspiracy controlling the Hugos, and there has never been one. Then I realized what some of the problem was. Some of these people are mistaking a fashion for a conspiracy. The whole diversity and inclusiveness thing is a fashion. Fashions have a pervasive influence because that’s the nature of fashions. Many people choose not to go along with fashions and are usually lectured for their lapses.
At one time, it became fashionable for males to wear shoulder length hair. The fashion was not universally popular. Some believed it was the result of a Commie-prevert conspiracy. It wasn’t. Others thought Flower Power would last forever. It didn’t.
Fashions come and fashions go. Fandom was in dire straights when evangelical druggies tried to turn on the world with us included. We survived it. We’ll survive this too.
I am old enough to remember when conservative leaders, such as Jerry Falwell, would excoriate liberals for our alleged “moral relativism” and “situational ethics”.
It’s kind of easy. Larry Correia called in the troll squads of the gamergators. And as they are sexist by nature, they gravitated towards the ultimate sexist, Vox Day.
And now we have sexist trolls with no interest in Science Fiction, trolling the Hugos as they have trolled a lot of forums during the years. Making everything about demonizing, about setting up enemies, about SJW:s, cultural marxists or judeobolsjeviks. Only communicating in talking points they have copy-pasted from blogposts, not knowing anything of the background of the posts.
They will tire in one, two or three years, finding something else to troll. And an author that have sided with them will be permanently sidelined. Some of the nominees have understood that. Some other just want to be part of the troll squad.
OK, this is going a bit far:
“they gravitated towards the ultimate sexist, Vox Day.”
Trust me, Mr. Beale is by no means the ultimate sexist. There are people out there on the interwebs who make Mr. Beale look, well, merely sexist. 🙂
I don’t think it helps the discussion, honestly, to start blaming it on “outside agitators” or #gamergaters; we have not yet seen some of the tactics that became heavily used against #gamergate targets (since I suspect that saying ‘used by Gamergate’ will produce another huge wave of comment that is not really relevant to the point) — and hopefully, we won’t.
I have to agree, sadly, with Steven. VD is almost certainly not the most sexist person in the world. He’s also almost certainly not the most racist. The most sexist and racist person in fandom, quite possibly. Appallingly racist and sexist, no doubt of that. But this world has some pretty deep depths of foul opinion, too deep for me to be anywhere near certain that he is the worst of the worst.