What European writers call the Hugo Awards “hack” is getting international coverage. Today’s roundup features quotes from Polish and German articles… or as close as Google Translate can get.
There are geniuses who are mad, writers who are mad, and fans who are mad. No wonder there’s also a psychologist trying to analyze the Sad Puppies phenomenon. And if that doesn’t work, someone else has done a statistical analysis.
One writer thinks so many are alarmed by the controversy she needs to volunteer as a bodyguard —
Vonda McIntyre on Book View Cafe
“I will walk with you” – April 15
I’m distressed to see that some folks who were planning to come to Sasquan are thinking of skipping Worldcon this year.
Because they’re frightened.
I understand why people are frightened, given the racist, misogynistic, and dishonest screeds they’ve been subjected to. It isn’t — alas — unusual for verbal abuse to escalate into physical abuse; and anyway verbal abuse is no fun to begin with.
But I was thinking about what might help counterbalance the situation….
I will walk with you at Worldcon.
I’m not very fond of confrontation. I’m a courtesy 5’1? and my 67th birthday (how did that happen?!) is just after the convention and I’m walking with a hiking pole while recovering from a hiking fall, an injury that’s taking way longer to heal than when I was a pup.
On the other hand I’m a shodan in Aikido.
On the third hand, which I can have because I’m an SF writer, shodan — first degree black belt — is when you realize how much you still have to learn.
But I’m thinking that maybe it would make folks who feel threatened feel a little safer to have someone at their side, maybe even someone with a bunch o’ fancy ribbons fluttering from her name badge, even if that person is shorter, smaller, and older than they are, white-haired and not physically prepossessing. It’s another person’s presence.
Lou Antonelli on This Way to Texas
Two more scalps – April 16
Yesterday two people who previously didn’t mind having their names on the list and who are Hugo nominated decided withdraw the names. They are both young and probably afraid theircareers will be hurt. Quite frankly, I think it’s a futile gesture. Their flirtation with deviancy will never be forgiven by the SF establishment.
Jason V Brock on Facebook – April 15
I feel sympathy for those trapped in the scenario who did nothing wrong, yet are suffering the consequences, when they should be able to enjoy themselves.
Additionally, people who take a side against someone should reconsider from the perspective of the folks that have been honored justly, and who do good work. In other words, there are people who have toiled for years building a reputation and then have the misfortune of an angry person/group trying to exact revenge, or tarnish everything (out of jealousy, I’d say, and a warped sense of reality). It’s not fair to block or unfriend people that genuinely did nothing but stand up and say “But I didn’t do anything bad.” These are the actions of cowards. People need to have cooler heads and try to understand things better.
Alastair Reynolds on Approaching Pavonis Mons by balloon
“On the present Hugo mess and while I still want one” – April 15
The odd thing is – or perhaps it isn’t odd at all – is that the ongoing trouble with the Puppies only makes me feel more warmly disposed to the Hugos. I certainly should have voted. It would have taken a lot more of us to outweigh the block voting effect of the slate ballot, but that’s no argument not to have tried. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I’ve been striving to read a lot more short fiction this year, and I already feel a lot better informed about the state of the field in 2015 than in recent years. And yes, while the Hugo award has been damaged – it’s hard to see a way around that, irrespective of what happens later in the summer – I would still like to win one eventually. I hope the award can weather this storm, and continue on as it should be – a prized part of SF’s collective heritage.
Marcin Zwierzchowski on Geek Blog (Polish)
“Nagrody fantastyczne jest problem” – April 8
[Google Translate from Polish to English] The latter is the nail in the coffin of awards plebiscite. This year, it hit a huge force in Hugo, where most nominations seized authors connected with the movement Sad Puppies. The initiators of action rightly pointed out that in recent years, this prestigious award has become a mouthpiece through which the environment was manifest on the strength of its tolerance and diversity. Instead, the text of the loudest discussed whether the nominees and the winners are more women or men, whether it is enough ethnic minorities, whether they are homosexual, etc., Etc.
Der Standard
“Was George R.R. Martin zum rechten ‘Hack’ der Hugo Awards sagt” – April 16
[Google Translate from German to English] In the past, it managed to get individual groups to influence the nomination lists on their behalf: Be it the followers of Scientology -Gründers and (often forgotten) SF-author L. Ron Hubbard. Be it the well-organized fandom of “Doctor Who”, which manages year after year in the short film category, to give the impression that there is nothing price worthier throughout the film, television and web video world as the British endless series. But such initiatives were always based on individual works – there has never been such a comprehensive campaign, moreover, an ideological background.
George R. R. Martin on Not A Blog
“On the Darkling Plain” – April 15
My friend Janice Gelb, long time worldcon volunteer and SMOF, has suggested that the only thing we can do at this point is abolish the Hugo Awards altogether. When I first heard that notion, I dismissed it out of hand. Some good will, some civility, a mutual exchange of ideas, and surely we could find a way to salvage the situation.
I am no longer convinced of that. The Sad Puppies are digging in and doubling down, and so is worldcon fandom. Meanwhile, off in the cesspools, the Rabid Puppies grow ever more rabid. Nuclear options are being seriously considered, and Vox Day has apparently threatened that if NO AWARD wins in any category, he will see to it that no award is ever given in that category again.
My first inclination was to dismiss that threat as so much toxic wind. But I am not so sure. According to FILE 770 https://file770.com/?p=21877 there have been 1352 new Supporting Memberships purchased this month, an unprecedented number. Very few of these purchases, I fear, were motivated by a sincere desire to support WorldCon. No, all these new supporting members are plonking down their money for a vote on the Hugos.
Ah, but which side do they represent? Are these members of traditional fandom, signing up to take back their awards? Are these Sad Puppy supporters, anxious to vote their slate to victory? Are these all NO AWARDers? Or maybe these are the Vox Day fans. Beale seems to have much more control over his followers than Correia and Torgensen do over theirs… the ballot actually has more Rabid Puppies than Sad ones. Could it be that Vox Day has successfully roused the GamerGate bogeyman that he was been threatening us with? No one knows. Unless…
I think it is All of the Above.
And as for me… I don’t know right now. On odd numbered days, I lean toward opting out of SasQuan entirely. Stay home, work on the book, I don’t need this grief. On even numbered days, I am determined to go… and to go BIG. Take the Hugo Losers Party back. I started it, after all. And this year, so far as the Hugos are concerned, we are all going to be losers.
George R. R. Martin on Not A Blog
“Joining Sasquan” – April 16
I have been going to Worldcons for a long time. My icon is a picture of me at Torcon II, the 1973 Worldcon in Toronto, where I lost the very first John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. Wasn’t I cute? It was my second Worldcon, following on Noreascon I in Boston in 1971. (I missed LA in 1972).
Brandon Morse on EveryJoe
“Exclusive Interview With Sad Puppies’ Brad Torgersen” – April 16
EJ: In a blog post, Doctor Who critical historian Philip Sandifer recently said that “the moral duty of progressive voices to form a blocking majority, and to loudly admit that fandom as it stands is broken, and that any work proclaimed to be the best of the year by a fandom this broken is demeaned by the association.” Do you think the outrage against Sad Puppies is ultimately because you broke the “blocking majority” that Progressives feel is their moral duty to maintain?
Torgersen: I feel like this is very much about totems. I wrote a long article today, talking about tribalism, and how Worldcon Fandom has reacted to having outside tribe(s) coming to “take away” the totem that is the Hugo Award. We’re committing near-sacrilege when we do that. But the chief problem is that the Hugos self-label as being the award for everybody while Worldcon wants to keep the total deciding process internal to itself; no out-tribe people allowed. An award for all, decided by the few. That’s the core of the problem. So, if the progressives feel a duty to keep out-tribe people from participating, I feel a duty to put a hand to their faces and say, “No, you don’t get to decide who is and is not a fan, or who is and is not worthy.”
Maureen O’Danu on Am I The Only One Dancing
“The Psychology of Hugo Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies” – April 16
Larry Correia’s public attitude makes it pretty clear that he felt that he deserved to win and that the Hugo he was nominated for was stolen from him, rather than simply won by another contender. (Larry denies this verbally, but one of the first rules of psychology is that when there is a conflict between words and actions, believe the actions.) The subjective nature of literary awards makes this a not uncommon problem. In any award where winning is at least partially a matter of opinion instead of mathematics, the language of robbery holds sway. “He was robbed” “She stole that award” “How on earth did he take that away from her.” From ice dancing to dressage to debate to writing, any ranked creative competition is going to generate these sorts of claims.
Correia took this further, speculating on the basis of negative comments he had received from either fans or writers (he has never specified) that he was specifically denied his award because of his political views. He has said that he believes has been specifically denied because he owns a gun store, is Mormon, is conservative, or all or some combination of the above.
It is common for people who feel entitled to look for unjust reasons for exclusion from something they feel they are owed. Afraid to look within, they will search for any confirmations they can find that someone, somewhere has unjust views of them, and then work long and hard to build a case that these views somehow formed the basis of discrimination. The logical leaps and sifting for scant evidence that make up this process are the roots of paranoid beliefs and are pretty common among lots of people, not just people who have diagnoses.
Nathaniel Givens on Difficult Run
“Some Sad Puppy Data Analysis” – April 14
If the last chart depicted clearly the reasons why social justice warriors are so opposed to SP / RP, this chart depicts clearly the reasons why SP came into being in the first place. What it shows is the average Goodreads review for the Hugo best novel winners (in red) and nominees (in blue) for every year going back to the first Hugo awards awarded in 1953.8 The most interesting aspect of the chart, from the standpoint of understanding where SP is coming from, is the fairly extreme gap between the scores of the nominees and the winners in the last few years, with the nominees showing much higher scores than the winners. Here it is again, with the data points in question circled:
Let me be clear about what I think this shows. It does not show that the last few Hugo awards are flawed or that recent Hugo winners have been undeserving. There is no law written anywhere that says that average Goodreads score is the objective measure of quality. That is not my point. All those data points show is that there has been a significant difference of opinion between the Hugo voters who picked the winners and the popular opinion. What’s more, they shows that this gap is a relatively recent phenomenon. Go back 10 or 20 years and the winners tend to cluster near the top of the nominees, showing that the Hugo voting process and the Goodreads audience were more or less in tune. But starting a few years ago, a chasm suddenly opens up….
Closing Thoughts
I still think that Sad Puppies have a legitimate point. Their goal was to get a few new faces out there who otherwise wouldn’t have been considered. I think that’s an admirable goal, and I think that there are some folks on the ballot today who (1) deserve to be there and (2) wouldn’t ever have gotten there without Sad Puppies. And I know that even some of the critics of SP3 agree with that assessment (because they told me so).
Everything I read by Kevin Standlee anywhere on the internet on the subject of Worldcons/Hugos awes me. What a fine upstanding human being.
— Amal El-Mohtar (@tithenai) April 16, 2015
Eric Flint
“Some comments on the Hugos and other SF awards” – April 16
[A very long and multifaceted post – this is just the first paragraph.]
I’ve been doing my best to stay away from the current ruckus over the Hugo Awards, but it’s now spread widely enough that it’s spilled onto my Facebook page, and it’s bound to splatter on me elsewhere as well. It’s also been brought to my attention that Breitbart’s very well-trafficked web site—never famous for the accuracy of its so-called “reporting”—has me listed as one of the supposedly downtrodden conservative and/or libertarian authors oppressed by the SF establishment. Given my lifelong advocacy of socialism—and I was no armchair Marxist either, but committed twenty-five years of my life to being an activist in the industrial trade unions—I find that quite amusing.
Ian Randal Strock
“Foolishly jumping into the Hugo mishegas” – April 16
So, to bring this back to the Hugo Awards: we have something which a significant number of people value. And it’s something that has a set of operating instructions, which can be followed and gamed. Now, after sixty years of giving out Hugo Awards, some of the voters have realized that acting in concert gives them power within the system, and the Puppies Party has been born and instantly proven its viability.
Many people who are not part of the Puppies Party are decrying their actions, rending their garb, declaiming their love for the Hugos, and announcing their hatred for those people who would dare to “hijack” the award with concerted effort. The Puppies Party appears to have issued an ultimatum that they will keep doing what they’ve done in the future; I don’t doubt they can (I do doubt the value of doing it, but not the ability to do it).
So, to those opposed to the Puppies Party, I can only say: welcome to party politics. If you don’t like what they’ve done, you have a few choices:
1. You can do away with the Hugo Awards, simply retire them as a concept.
2. You can change the rules to make party politics impossible (though off the top of my head, I can’t see an easy way to do so).
3. You can embrace the not-so-modern paradigm and form your own political party.
You can hate the concept of politics within the “purity” of the Hugo Awards, but now that a party has been formed and started operation, complaining about its existence will be a futile exercise. The Puppies Party has the power of unity that those who oppose it don’t yet have. So, who among you is going to step up and start the conversation to form your party?
And for our European viewers, none of this thinking is to deny the validity of the parliamentary system. Perhaps the Hugo Awards may evolve into a multi-party system. Although the awards, as winner-take-all prizes, do tend to lend themselves more to a two-party system.
Larry Correia on Monster Hunter Nation
“I’m not Vox Day” – April 16
I cannot disown what I do not own.
I neither condone nor defend any of his public statements. I did not make them.
Of course I do not like some of the things he has said.
Do you think the existence of Rabid Puppies has somehow made my life easier?
I’m not going to burn anyone in effigy. Stop asking.
I’m not going to condemn anyone by association. Stop asking.
Brad R. Torgersen
“Sad Puppies: We are not Rabid Puppies” – April 16
I’ll state it again for emphasis: we are not Rabid. None of us wants to burn the Hugos down. We want the Hugos to live up their reputation as the preeminent award in the combined field of Science Fiction & Fantasy. We want Worldcon to be an actually diverse thing with authors and fans participating from across the spectrum, without having to worry about litmus tests or being in the correct groups. We don’t want people to have to be chameleons who hide who they are — or what they like or what they create — because it’s not what the “cool kids” agree with.
The objectives of Sad Puppies 3 have been simple and consistent:
- Use the democratic selection system of the Hugo awards.
- No “quiet” logrolling. Make it transparent.
- Boost authors, editors, and works — regardless of political persuasion.
- Bring recognition to people who’ve been long overlooked.
- Get some good promotion for new folks coming up in the field.
- Have fun!
Kate Paulk on Mad Genius Club
“There Hugo Again” – April 6
Claiming that being nominated because people who agree with Vox Day or Larry Correia or Brad Torgerson, or any other person you care to mention voted for their works is some kind of horrible taint is beyond the pale. The more of that kind of totalitarian secret police tactic that’s used, the more I want to stand up and shout, “I am Vox Day.” Or “I am Larry Correia.” Or… you get the point.
Because we are all Vox Day. Or Larry Correia. Or Brad Torgerson. Or anyone else who dares to disagree with the opinions of the would-be power-brokers. If we are not, then Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, Freedom is Slavery, and two plus two equals five.
Sanford Begley on Otherwhere Gazette
“I’m sick and tired of the Hugos”
I’m a 57 year old politically disgusted heterosexual male. I can more or less claim white. Family stories say there are a few other things in there, but none particularly show so, who cares? Now that you know I have privilege you can dismiss me and move on to a more diverse writer. Or stay if you aren’t a bigot. I’m good either way.
Sorry, but if you aren't a straight, white, conservative male who hasn't won a Hugo Award, you don't know what real oppression is like, man!
— Joe Hill (@joe_hill) April 11, 2015
Miguel on Gun Free Zone
“The Hugo Awards, Social Justice Warriors and Sad Puppies” – April 16
Oh dear gods of the pantheon! You would have thought the Barbarians broke into the Vestal Temple and proceeded to rape the curtains and burn the Virgins. First came the accusations of ballot stuffing which went down in flames when it was pointed out that the rules for nominations were followed to a fault. Then it came the generalized accusations of “gaming the rules” to introduce a “Conservative, all-male heterosexual, redneck, icky” slate which died under quick examination of the slate as it was actually more varied in every concept than previous Hugo nominations. Then it came to be that the works were not true SciFi/Fantasy or did not conform to what SciFi should be, but somebody just pointed out that previously nominated works like If You Were A Dinosaur My Love and the whole cookie went down in crumbs.
But something was puzzling the SJW clique: After all the attacks, the Sad Puppies not only were not cowed, they had the balls of actually laugh at them! How dare they! So they went even stupider attacking individual authors. Larry Correia is an official White Anglo-Saxon Supremacist (I reckon that you will find the Portuguese last name in the Mayflower list), death threats were issued which is funny as hell when Larry is the size of a shoggoth, knocked down cows for fun a-lo-Mongo in his youth and is a firearms instructor with possibly more guns and ammo in his basement than many police forces in rural America…and some urban areas too.
Alan Davis on LewRockwell.com
“Science Fiction – The Culture War’s Line in the Sand” – April 16
Why is science fiction–as a book genre–dying, while simultaneously conquering Hollywood, television, and video games?
Over the last twenty or thirty years, the science fiction publishing industry has changed. Now, all of the major publishers, save one, take the political viewpoints of writers into account before publishing their works. And if that writer happens to be libertarian, or conservative, or holds any views that don’t mesh neatly with the left-wing attitudes of the editors and publishers, then the only publisher willing to read their material is Baen. Political correctness has become the key to science fiction, so excellent writers who don’t fit the mold are almost completely excluded from publishing and awards.
Ty Burr on Boston Globe
“Trouble brews in the world of sci-fi writing” – April 16
What’s at the bottom of the Sad Puppy complaint? Exclusion, it turns out. Responding to Martin’s comments, Correia blogged of his own memories of being a youthful sci-fi outcast at the Worldcon party: “The cool kids told their cool stories to the other cool kids, and lorded it over those who weren’t part of the In Joke. Honestly, it reminded me of high school, and I was the poor fat kid who had inadvertently pissed off the mean girls.” To which Martin responded, “Surely you have been around fandom long enough to realize that there are no cool kids. We’re all the fat kids, the nerds, the computer geeks, the guys who always had their nose in a book, who loved comics and played chess and couldn’t get a date for a prom.”
This isn’t really about right versus left, in other words, but feeling like you belong. And while there’s a productive conversation to be had when the volume is kept low, the voices on the sidelines, anonymous and otherwise, just pour gasoline on the flames.
More and more, I’m convinced that the Internet is toxic.
The only thing to do, I think — and I’m talking about more than just the Sad Puppies and Gamergate — is to marginalize the crazies on both sides. Which means, in practice, marginalizing the crazies on your side. We have to start making a stand for a big, sane middle and allowing everyone on the spectrum of that middle to express emotions without going on the attack. Anyone who calls names, responds from anger, hate, or fear — block them. Ignore them. Do not feed the trolls.
Jason Sanford
On screaming “We’re not VD!” while ignoring your relationship with VD – April 16
I don’t need Larry and Brad or anyone else to say they’re not Vox Day. I know that. Everyone knows VD is responsible for his own actions and statements.
But what many people suspect is that Larry and Brad worked with VD on all this. And based on the evidence, it’s difficult to draw any other conclusion.
For example, Brad ran this year’s Sad Puppies campaign and posted their voting slate on February 1. I can’t tell you the exact time he posted the slate, but the first comment on the post appeared at 8:40 pm, followed quickly by many more.
Vox Day posted his Rabid Puppies ballot on February 2nd. Again, I don’t know the exact time but the comments began coming in a little after 1 am. Depending on the time zone settings of these two sites, that means as little as a few hours separated the posting of the Sad and Rabid Puppies slates.
But hey, let’s be generous and say an entire day separated the launch of their “separate” campaigns. If there was no coordination between the two campaigns that means in less than a day VD read all the stories on the Sad Puppies slate, decided which to discard and which to add to his own slate, and launched his campaign.
Oh, and he also found time to contact the artist who created the Sad Puppies logo and have that artist create a similar but different logo for the Rabid Puppies. (The artist is Lee Madison, who uses the name Artracoon on his art. He even set up a site to sell shirts with both Sad and Rabid Puppies logos.)
If it’s possible to do all that in such a short time frame without coordinating the two campaigns, I’d love to hear how it was done.
I want Tim Powers (conservative) to write the Secret History of the 2015 Hugo Awards as a novel
— cat ??? (@charlesatan) April 17, 2015
Jim C. Hines on Facebook
Another Hugo Proposal:
Three Hugos for the Mil-SF and their space marines,
Seven for the grimdark-lords in their halls of blood,
Nine for Mortal Fans doomed to blog,…
One for Neil Gaiman on his dark throne
In the Land of Worldcon where the Shadows lie.
#HugoProposal: If you win five Hugo awards, your trophies can combine into a giant robot to battle evil.
— Jim C. Hines (@jimchines) April 16, 2015
Unpaid ad from Fandom Prime:
Hugo Justice Warriors If some Puppy has been calling you an SJW lately, maybe you’d rather identify yourself as a Hugo Justice Warrior. Click through to see our noble shield on a variety of products.
Proudly stand up to the enemies of fair play and quality SF&F by flaunting our shield. The Latin motto means “I will fear no puppies.” either sad or rabid. I’m sure Heinlein, a man of principle, would have approved.
Considering the merchandise is being marketed to fans, one of the funniest parts is that T-shirts only go up to 3X….
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great overview of what everybody is saying Mike. Jason Sanford – who I don’t care for in the slightest and whose politics I don’t care for – makes some good points. How can you separate Sad Puppies from Rabid Puppies? You can’t. Plus Torgersen and Correia just dodging, evading, avoiding Vox Day’s KKK bigotry like it either doesn’t exist or it’s a non-issue, is just pathetic and only gives ammunition to their liberal critics.
And I don’t care for the liberal progressives who have had complete political control of these Hugos for years. Maybe best thing is to walk away from it all, a pox on both their houses.
Haha, great to see international coverage.
Scientology-Gründers do sound quite sinister!
Mike, I want to say that — even though you haven’t made any effort to hide where your sympathies lie — you are doing a great job lately of linking to what both sides have to say, and letting them speak for themselves.
If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. As someone once wrote.
Mike clearly has an opinion and yet still is obviously actively trying to be fair. That’s highly laudable.
I have to congratulate our host for this compilation. Possibly the best so far.
There were several truly funny moments, and kudos goes to Mr. Hines for being the only one who was actually trying to be funny. I’m saying this without any irony, Mr. Hines, no matter how different our ways of thinking may be I appreciate your sense of humor, and although I haven’t read any of your books I need to at least try one, because I think I might enjoy them.
Unfortunately, the competence today was fierce and he was surpassed. There were several worthy candidates, but the award today has to go to Vonda McIntyre, who thinks convention goers might be in danger and offers her services as bodyguard. We saw that tactic in all its glory last year, when people apparently did not feel safe around Jonathan Ross. If they were scared then it’s not wonder people are also scared now. After all Ross hadn’t done absolutely anything, but I hear these puppies are violent, racist and misogynistic. The Guardian said so. I almost feel frightened myself, until I remember I’m one of them.
Oh, wait, we’re not actually violent, racist and misogynistic? Well, OK, but we still did more than Jonathan Ross. He did nothing. We actually dared to become members and vote in a way Ms. McIntyre did not approve of. And worst of all, when the usual smear campaign began and the newspapers were calling us a racist and homophobic group out to make sure women, LGBT people and POC get out of science fiction, we were not intimidated in the slightest. On the contrary, we chuckled at the insults. We are already familiar with these tactics, having seen them at work for several years now, and they no longer have power over us.
So yes, people claiming that they feel unsafe because of us was an unavoidable step. It’s good of Vonda McIntyre to be there and protect them, but do not worry. No one is going to attack you or anyone else. You can enjoy the convention in peace.
To be fair, she also offers her bodyguarding services to the evil ones. In her own words: “But if you are a Puppy, and you’re frightened, the offer holds for you, too. I may choose not to converse with you (you know why; I don’t like verbal abuse any more than anybody else), but I will walk with you.”
Reassuring as it may be for frightened puppies to have her grim and silent presence besides them, I also think it is not necessary. No one is going to attack anybody, in spite of all the hate speech.
And all of this for voting… Really, people, get a grip. The SPs voted for the kind of things they like and feel are getting ignored. You do not agree, and are upset that the concentration of the vote exposed the problems of the nomination system more than usually. OK, fix it, disallow supporting members from voting, whatever. But saying that you fear for your integrity? Come on, you know better than believing your own propaganda.
Another conclusion today is that those who said that the requests to dissociate ourselves with VD were not done in good faith were right, and I was wrong.
Still, these character assassination campaigns only convince the already convinced. Anyone who was not already convinced can see how people on both sides are behaving.
I thought the Jason Sandford piece was a little weak.
“If it’s possible to do all that in such a short time frame without coordinating the two campaigns, I’d love to hear how it was done.”
The most damning thing is the logo, but even that could have been done on a longer timeframe than Sandford implies. The logo was posted on Torgersen’s site on the 21st of January, almost two weeks before VD posted his slate. VD would have had time to approach the artist or vice versa independently of Torgersen. And then, how do we know if the logo was on VD’s site when he posted his slate or something he added later? His site does not appear to show times and dates when posts are modified. According to blogspot, VD made that initial post at 1 AM on Feb. 2nd, but if you look at the link to Jeffro Johnson, that link is to a blog post that was made on Feb. 3rd, so either I am braindead when it comes to timezones, VD has a time machine, or that post has been edited after Feb. 2nd and we don’t know when or how often.
As for the slates, it’s a copy and paste job. Remove Gannon’s novel, put Torgersen’s on, and replace a bunch of stuff with Castalia House. We aren’t talking about hours of work here. And even then, we only know the post originally went up on the 2nd. We don’t know what the post looked like on the 2nd.
As for…
‘If there was no coordination between the two campaigns that means in less than a day VD read all the stories on the Sad Puppies slate, decided which to discard and which to add to his own slate, and launched his campaign.’
That’s funny. VD is this horrible, horrible person that everyone should distance themselves from, but Sandford’s argument is going to be based partly on him reading the stories he is nominating and carefully considering what to replace things with, ignoring that what he is adding to the slate was stuff he is publishing with his own company.
People are trying to pin what VD is doing as an ideological alliance between Torgersen and VD. I am sure VD is motivated by ideology. However, another thing to look at is self interest. I am surprised this isn’t getting more attention. Castalia House is less than a year old and now has seven+ Hugo nominations. That is a good deal of marketing cheaply bought for a young company. But maybe people don’t want to bring up self promotion, because other authors have been doing the same thing for years.
Perhaps VD’s marketing strategy for himself and Castalia House is that it doesn’t matter what people say about you, as long as they are talking about you. And damn, people are sure doing a lot of marketing for him.
At least Beale is both racist and misogynistic, so I guess that goes for some of his rabid followers. And read the comments from Tom Kratman from the rabies slate:
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vox-plays-chicken-with-worldcon/
That is not a person I would feel safe around, and if he comes to a convention, I would like extra guards.
I grew up reading SF/F, back in the 70’s and 80’s. I’ve been to a few worldcons, and and more local cons, and have volunteered at a low level for both. I’ve voted for the Hugos, and was present in 1981 when GRRM won two Hugos. That was my first con, and my first worldcon, where I was no one and knew no one, but I still had fun. I’ve been away from fandom for quite a while, and am just getting back into it. I was a supporter last year, and will be attending Sasquan this year, and that will be my first con in many many years.
So, some thoughts on the puppies, in no particular order.
1) Yes, the Hugos are voted on by a small group. (If you didn’t know that, Mr. Correia, you weren’t paying attention. I’m sorry that caught you by surprise.) They are, to some degree, a popularity contest, but the small group is people who are involved in worldcons – aka, people in fandom. People who care enough to buy memberships to cons they won’t be able to go to (because the worldcon moves every single year, and is run by volunteers), and care enough to nominate and vote. The Hugos might not be perfect, but the works are usually between very good and excellent, because most of the people who nominate “do their homework” and read what they nominate (IMHO). And because the voters (IMHO) read the nominees before they vote on them (at least that’s what I do).
1a) Getting some “unconventional” (pun intended) nominees on the ballot, as was done in 2014, is fair and reasonable. I’m fine with that.
1b) Getting new people involved to nominate and vote is fine, too. I’m all for new blood.
1c) Taking over the ballot, as was done for many categories in 2015, is, IMHO, NOT okay. It’s not “being a jerk” or “making a point”, it’s “being an asshole”, and “being a bully”. It’s not “standing up for the little guy”, it’s “invading with an army”. In my book, “being a jerk” is tolerable, but “being an asshole” is not.
2) I won’t judge people *only* by their affiliations (or their words, or works, or the color of their hair), but I will factor that into any judgments I make. So if you act like an asshole, you’ve lost a lot of points in my book, and have affected my opinion of anyone and anything associated with you. Everything counts, actions speak louder than words, etc, etc. In the 2015 Hugo situation, that means that anything associated with the “Sad Puppies” slate has marks against it for bad behavior, and anything associated with the “Rabid Puppies” slate gets marked down more. I think that’s perfectly fair, because of the way things were presented *by those groups*. It wasn’t “Hey, check this stuff out”, it was “DO NOT LOOK at anything else.” IMHO, that’s what is pissing people off the most.
2a) It’s sad that the “Sad Puppies” don’t seem to get that. Speaks to me of a lack of empathy, which makes it hard to feel sorry for them for they way they think they’ve been treated.
2b) I’ve only read some commentary by “SP” supporters, but it’s pretty clear to me that I don’t see the world the way they do. Same facts, but different interpretation of those facts.
3) Rabies is a *disease*. An ugly, nasty disease that affects the brain and is almost always fatal, so who in their right mind would call themselves “Rabid Puppies”, and/or would expect that sane, rational people would despise, pity, and/or fear them. If you’re a “Rabid Puppy”, you should probably be in quarantine so you don’t infect anyone else. No, it’s not “funny” or “sarcastic” or whatever, not based their actions.
A lot of the 2015 Hugo situation for me comes down to “don’t be an asshole”. I see “GamerGate” the same way. On one side (SP, RP, GG, etc) I see a bunch of people being assholes. On the other, I don’t see much of that at all, and I don’t think it’s about where I’m looking.
Answering my own question….
“And then, how do we know if the logo was on VD’s site when he posted his slate or something he added later?”
The first comment on VD’s rabid puppy slate refers to the logo, so obviously rabid puppy logo was on that post when it was made on Feb. 2nd.
> We don’t know what the post looked like on the 2nd.
Actually, I’d say we have a pretty good idea about that: https://web.archive.org/web/20150202122454/http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/rabid-puppies-2015.html
@Hampus
Either he needs a psychiatrist, urgently, or I need to never visit a country where he is considered sane.
I am convinced that larry just needs a big hug. He is sensitive. His feelings have been hurt. I think people should send gim feelings of affection to show him how we all feel about him. This all comes down to people calling him names. Show him the love people.
Oh, you would be perfectly safe, Hampus, provided you were civil, yourself, and didn’t give me any reason to doubt your integrity and worth as a human being by insulting mine. I have zero sense of humor about it. Insulting my integrity over the net only means that you really should avoid me in person if there’s any chance I know who you are. Of course, most people who do that are cowardly filth, QED, who would lack the guts to do anything like that in person, or let me know in person.
Since I do get around, sometimes, I think it’s important to everyone who might meet me that they know that insulting my integrity in person means someone is in deep, deep, serious doubleplusungood levels of trouble. It’s the one thing a person really owns, you see. Your life, your wife, your health and your wealth; those can all be lost or taken from you without recourse. Integrity is uniquely yours, hence uniquely precious.
I feel sorry for people who don’t understand that. I can only presume that they don’t understand it because they’re lacking any integrity themselves.
@AG –
I am very sorry have the opportunity to say “We told you so” – but, we told you. Being satisfied wasn’t going to be an option. The very best outcome would have been that they then switched to calling for disavowing the next one on the list.
Regarding the safety/comfort of people at cons – a simple example of how majority vs minority is done here: http://rowyn.livejournal.com/531199.html. Resting simply on the basic principle that people are more likely to make rude comments when they are in the majority of a group, it showed that members of the minority group was more than four times as likely to hear negative comments than members of the majority group, even though neither group was more likely to make negative comments.
Additionally – the idea of “mobile safe spacers” is actually pretty interesting. I wonder if WisCon could have made use of this back in 2010 when so many young and vocal members said that the presence of Elizabeth Moon (then two years younger than VMI is now) as GoH would have made them feel unsafe. OTOH, we are in the business of holding that the pen is mightier than the sword, yes?
“Beale is both racist and misogynistic”
What standard are we using here for race-hatred and sex-hatred? Is it a standard all can benefit by? Or is this standard itself based on race and sex, which would then itself indicate race and sex hatred?
Is the standard people who have a habit of obsessively separating out groups of humans according to their race and sex and then letting them have it with both barrels? if that’s the standard, why is Beale being singled out while 50 others walk clean away?
Do we hate the KKK because they are white supremacists or racial supremacists? If it’s the former, that’s not going to work cuz everyone else skates away clean.
Jason Sanford once wrote “So many falsely believe the #HugoAwards have never been political. I’d love that to be the case but it’s simply not true.” 10 minutes earlier he’d written: “And I still don’t understand how recommending Interzone for #HugoAward is political.” Can you detect a standard there, because I can’t.
What shared language are we using here? Has any Sad Puppies ever declared they won’t review black women as has Lightspeed Magazine declared they won’t review white men? Where were all these now concerned voices when a multiple Hugo nominee Tweeted stuff about ending a black dude parade, or was it a “white dude parade?”
Here’s a trick question: How many Lightspeed Magazines does it take to create a Sad Puppy? Apparently the reviewer in question will never review Alistair Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds might want to think about that train run wild in his desire to win a Hugo, since Lightspeed’s attitude generally reflects the “diversity” train run amuk at the Hugos.
Nick, if you’re referring to me and you do live in the US, I would be happy to kick in a few bucks to help you emigrate. If you live elsewhere, then you’re on your own as far as funding your staying at home goes.
Indeed, James, I cannot recall Vox ever saying that we shouldn’t read women or minorities,* while Tempest in a B Cup seems to have called for folks to stop reading white men. If there’s a standard there, Tempest would seem to meet the it for racism and sexism and Vox…not so much.
*Indeed, he can be quite enthusiastic in his recommendation of Lady Murasaki.
May: To say that there are biological reasons for difference in intelligence between races is racist. That’s just about the definition of racism. Just as to say that it would be best for society if women weren’t allowed to vote is just about the definition of misogyni.
Is it also racist to say that there are biological reasons for difference in skin tone, hair texture, and shape of nose? If not, is it racist to make the claims with regard to intelligence because we don’t like the implications of it or because it isn’t true? Is it less racist if we add the words, “on average”?
Me, personally, I am highly skeptical of standardized testing. I can write that from a position of considerable strength.
And here’s the problem in a nutshell. Science Fiction has gone from talking about Dangerous Visions… to bloody ‘mobile safe spaces’.
Pathetic.
Not sci fi, Al, so much as a small, ueber-sensitive, but inherently sexist and racist subset of sci fi. There’s still plenty of it out there concerned with really novel approaches and analyses of future problems, even as there is some – of the award-gathering kind – that is merely masquerading as novel and edgy, but is as orthodox as the Ascension of Mary to a Catholic.
“Additionally – the idea of “mobile safe spacers” is actually pretty interesting. ”
You mean like Rosa Parks, on the back of that (highly mobile) bus?
There’s actually a lot of fun to be had with this.
Legio XIII Gemina: Mobile Safe Spacers
King’s German Legion: Mobile Safe Spacers
US Rangers: Mobile Safe Spacers.
Sir, we have made this place safe. Roll out!
The German news item has it exactly right. What is going on now is only the latest (and highest-profile) campaign to influence the outcome of the Hugo Awards. As the article pointed out, the Dr. Who fans in the past have been extremely successful in front-loading the final ballot with multiple episodes. And back in the earliest years of the Awards, pre-1959 when there was no nominating ballot, there have been credible reports that Worldcon committees voted in unison to swing the results toward authors they favored.
That’s one kind of fun, Al. There’s another kind that is a) not so fun but b) an indicator of just how unbefuckinglievably stupid the safe spacers are. Keranih, above, mentioned that the likelihood of hearing a negative comment is four times higher for minorities, I gather simply because they are minorities. So send half of those off to safe spaces and the commentary rises to what, 8 times more likely? Then 16 times more likely? And then what? They will have created a Klan Konvention where NO consideration must be paid to minorities whatsoever, and where all we white racist matrifornicatores can indulge our racism – because we are all, to a straight,white man, unutterbly racist, of course – and can hatch our nefarious plots to continue to be The Man, unfettered by those thar othah crittahs.
Fortunately, there are blacks and hispanics and asians who are having none of this safe space bullshit, who may save us from our inherent racism. Sadly, they cannot save the SJWs from theirs.
TK: ‘Insulting my integrity over the net only means that you really should avoid me in person if there’s any chance I know who you are.’
I guess we’ll need Vonda McIntyre after all.
JM: ‘Do we hate the KKK because they are white supremacists or racial supremacists?’
I think it was the lynchings. Don’t you? I mean, it’s the lynchings that do it for me every time.
TK: ‘while Tempest in a B Cup seems to have called for folks to stop reading white men.’
‘Seems’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
‘If not, is it racist to make the claims with regard to intelligence’
If your understanding of the mechanisms and origins of intelligence are that complete, you should skip the Hugo and go straight to the Nobel.
A: ‘And here’s the problem in a nutshell. Science Fiction has gone from talking about Dangerous Visions… to bloody ‘mobile safe spaces’.’
O waily waily, gone are the golden days when you could abuse and harass to your heart’s content.
TK: ‘You mean like Rosa Parks, on the back of that (highly mobile) bus?’
No, that’s you, forced to sit at the back of the Hugo bus! Well you stand up and muscle your way forward right to that front seat! Do it for Rosa, Sad and/or Rabid puppies! She’d be proud!
Asking seriously, what is the context of safe spaces at these conventions? On our college campus, a safe space is someplace that someone LGBTetc. goes to avoid judge-y people (as I understand it).
@Tom Kratman
In what may seem to be an off-topic question, what is your opinion of PTSD (in general)?
So you are planning on insulting my integrity in my presence, Nigel? Oh, well. However, win or lose, I have no interest in going to Sasquan, so you’re safe enough there. Which is important, because if you were planning on insulting my integrity to my face it would be…most unwise.
No, seems is merely a stand in for “did.” Or were you unaware that she DID?
You are having trouble in distinguishing between asking a question and making a claim? Change “unwise,” above, to “stupid.”
PTSD. I don’t understand it, but can accept that it may exist. I don’t understand giving into it, but can accept that there are likely aspects I simply can’t relate to. A Psychiatrist friend of mine in pretty sure I am immune to it. Another pshrink is pretty sure I have it. Me, how would I know?
Well I for one am unimpressed by Nigel’s moral compass. Personally, I don’t have to wait until someone is hanging from a rope to get a feel for the perpetrator’s character.
For instance, I have already determined that Nigel is an asshole, who sees in a lament that science fiction has become obsessed with not trampling on feelings when it’s raison d’etre was to challenge the orthodox, as secretly really wanting to ‘abuse and harass to your heart’s content’. No murder required!
Would make for an interested study, AL, the correlation between demonstrated lack of intellectual acumen and ability to reason or distinguish and lack of a moral compass, no?
Tom,
I’m pretty sure “he insulted my integrity” isn’t accepted in any court of law as a viable legal defense. Why the heck is your integrity so fragile, that you’d feel the need to defend it physically against someone you don’t know impugning it?
It is not fragile, Alex; it is important. These are different things. Because of it’s uniquely precious character, as the only thing any of us can truly call our own. This, of course, is enhanced by both its key importance to military success at the tactical level, and the almost complete lack of it among the general officer corps.
Moreover, it is not only personally important; it is civilizationally important. Look at our problems; look at the problems around the world. They are almost entirely due to lack of integrity. Last I checked, about 10 years ago, 54 billion in aid flowed into sub-Saharan Africa, annually, and 52 billion was sent to foreign bank accounts by the rulers of the various kleptocracies of sub-Saharan African, also annually. Chinese kids poisoned by tainted milk? The nasty and ultimately ruinous state of our domestic politics? All of it – ALL OF IT – stems from a lack of integrity which, itself, stems from failure to understand its importance or to downplay that importance.
I wish everyone would stop doing these gish gallops. It becomes unreadable when someone tries to cover 20 different subjects and questions in one comment.
Regarding Beale, this comment is enough for me (even if there are a lot of the same ilk). Both misogyny and racism in one:
“White American men simply don’t rape these days. At this point, unless a womann claims it was committed by a black or Hispanic man she didn’t previously know, all claims of rape, especially by a college woman, have to be considered intrinsically suspect.”
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.se/2014/12/rape-is-new-black.html
And if some one disagrees with me on that one, then lets just agree on disagreeing.
By the way, Alex, where was your law degree from? Mine is from Washington and Lee. Pretty fair school. “He insulted my integrity” is not actually the defense used.
Lou Antonelli didn’t read Marko Kloos’s withdrawal statement, did he? Kloos said clearly he didn’t want a nomination that was tainted with block voting.
I’m also getting tired of all the disingenuous claims that this is all about candidates on the ballots that some people didn’t like. There are such candidates on the ballot every year. This is about an entire slate of block voting to get them there. It’s like a hostile corporate takeover bid: it’s perfectly legal to buy stock, but stop pretending it’s anything but hostile, or that the hostility is what has inevitably generated counter-hostility.
@ Kratman
“Keranih, above, mentioned that the likelihood of hearing a negative comment is four times higher for minorities, I gather simply because they are minorities. So send half of those off to safe spaces and the commentary rises to what, 8 times more likely?”
There is more info at the link – and the program set up there is actually off a professional presentation on male-female interactions in tech work places – but yes, that’s the key point: if your group is in smaller numbers, each person in that group is going to be exposed to more negative comments than each person in the larger group, even when each group has exactly the same portion of assholes/people who speak without thinking. (And yes, it gets worse as the numbers get more unbalanced.)
I don’t think it follows from this that we need to start restricting expression of negative comments – but I’m also not crazy about a situation where life always sucks more for members of smaller groups. (IE, let’s not fall into the trap of “something must be done/this is something/this must be done!)
Another thought on what to do about it – there is a “sweet spot” where in a two-group society the smaller group makes up between 12-17% to 35% of the total that things are VERY rough. Below that number, the smaller group integrates into the larger and divisions are largely along internal divisions of the larger group, not large vs small. Above that upper bound, the smaller group can ally with subdivisions of the larger group and effect change. Inbetween, the smaller group clings together instead of integrating and is too small to bend the majority to its pov in much of anything. Hence: conflict and strife. (It’s making me crazy that I can’t find the link for this.)
‘Or were you unaware that she DID?’
I know what she did, but I don’t want to go insulting your integrity without Vonda McIntyre here to protect me.
‘Personally, I don’t have to wait until someone is hanging from a rope to get a feel for the perpetrator’s character.’
But it’s convenient with people like the KKK where you don’t have to wait. I mean, when it comes to the KKK the lynchings do stand out as a defining characteristic. You don’t really have to go looking for their ironic jibes, just to be sure.
‘No murder required!’
Oh thank goodness! Next after the ironic jibe comes the murder and I can never get the stains out. Clearly my work here is done. Thank you for reaching a conclusion about my personality before I had to resort to homicide, it saves a lot of trouble. Though it is instructive that you think an ironic jibe and murder are equivalent, in terms of judging character. Says a lot about your plaintive cries for ‘comparisons!’
Hampus,
Mr. Beale is not the topic of conversation. Furthermore, your post is nothing more than a driveby hit, with an explicit statement that you are not even offering a chance of debate.
Out of respect to our host’s comments yesterday regarding this blog not being a place for character attacks, and certainly not on individuals not posting in the thread, I would ask you to refrain from doing so.
@Hampus Eckerman “I wish everyone would stop doing these gish gallops. It becomes unreadable when someone tries to cover 20 different subjects and questions in one comment.”
Sticking to single topic declarations of opinion presented as if they were fact isn’t actually an improvement.
Nigel,
So would it be fair to say that you are undecided regarding the KKK for any activity since 1981? I would hope not, but if you intend to double-down on lynching as your threshold, then I am going to do the honorable thing and simply take you for your word.
“Asking seriously, what is the context of safe spaces at these conventions?”
I think broadly it just describes pro-active efforts to prevent sexual harassment, personal violence and discrimination (most prominently against LGBT people).
That actually has some interesting implications for an infantry company, say, Keranih. I’ve seen it both ways, among grunt units, and I’ve seen support organizations where, in retrospect, percentages foretold, or would have foretold, the problem.
(It’s largely a myth about minority overrepresentation among the combat arms. There, it tends to be about proportional, while the difficult and miserable lifestyle, plus the excitement, tends to push ethnicity into the background. REMFs are much worse for racial and ethnic issues, for the last 20-30 years. However, when I first joined the Army, 1974, this was not the case and, for example, the company I was a private in had organized, dues paying, membership drive holding chapters of the Klan, the Panthers, and the American Nazi Party.)
Yes, Tom. We’re aware that you were in the military and that you have a law degree.
Which makes your threats of violence that much sadder. Military members should hold themselves to a higher standard. You apparently don’t believe that.
Alexander, are you some kind of moderator on this forum? It would be nice to know. And if so, could you please specify what the topic of the conversation is here? For me it was an answer to previous comments from James May, but it might be had allready went off topic. If so I apologize for answering his comment, without checking that he shouldn’t have written it in first place.
Keranih, yes, it is a fact that for *me*, that comment is an example of racism and misogyny. Now, there might be something else for other people here, but that is for them then. Not for me.
‘So would it be fair to say that you are undecided regarding the KKK for any activity since 1981?’
The KKK: It’s been YEARS since we lynched anybody!
‘ I would hope not, but if you intend to double-down on lynching as your threshold’
Geez, why are people so hung up on lynching? (As it were.) It’s like you lynch a few people here and there and suddenly nobody cares about all that other stuff you do, like the raping and the terrorising and the disenfranchising! Try to see past the lynching, people! Actually, it’s really about racism in black people! They see a buncha white people walking towards them with guns and blazing torches and white hoods and suddenly they’re all whoa, looks like a bad neighbourhood! Totally racist. How do they even know we’re white under them hoods? That’s racial profiling, that is! You have to make comparisons to truly get how they’re cynically using intersetcionality to get their preferred people on the ballot. Etc etc.
He does. He holds himself to a standard where integrity means something.
Why don’t you quote something silly like “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” too, Alex? The problem there, of course, is that it is not self evidently wrong to inflict damage on someone who insults your integrity.