George R.R. Martin, John Ringo, Vox Day, John Scalzi, Aaron Pound, Jeb Kinnison, Jamie Ford, Glenn Hauman and lots of other cool cats and hot dogs sound off in today’s roundup. (Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editor of the day Brian Z.)
George R.R. Martin on Not A Blog
“No On NO AWARD” – April 29
No, I am not saying don’t use NO AWARD at all when you vote for this year’s Hugo Awards.
NO AWARD has been, and remains, a viable and legitimate option for the Hugo voter. I’ve been voting on the Hugos since the 1970s, and I use NO AWARD every year, usually in about a third of the categories. However, I have seldom (not NEVER, just seldom) placed it first. I rank the finalists that I think worthy of the rocket above NO AWARD, and the ones I think unworthy below it. That’s the way I intend to use the option this year as well, in spite of the slatemaking campaigns that buggered the nomination process to the seven hells and back.
NO AWARD is a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Voting NO AWARD on everything down the line… or even (the lesser option) on everything that appeared on either Puppy slate… well, I don’t think it is smart, I don’t think it is fair, and I know damned well that a NO AWARD sweep will kill the Hugos.
I think I have made my disagreements with Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen and the rest of the Sad Puppies abundantly clear in the many blog posts that preceded this one, and in my debates with Correia both here and on his MONSTER HUNTER NATION. And I think I have made my disgust with Vox Day and his Rabid Puppies clear as well. No one should be in any doubt as to where I stand on all this.
As much as I am opposed to what the Puppies did, and what they are trying to do, I am also opposed to Guilt by Association. Like it or not, the ballot is the ballot, and it is before it now, for each of us to deal with as he or she thinks best. For my part, that means it is now about the stories, the books, the work itself. Reading, thinking, weighing my choices… voting.
https://twitter.com/FredKiesche/status/593422817619738624
John Ringo on Facebook – April 28
[Originally a public post, it is now restricted, but a screencap of “Understanding SJW Logic” is hosted at Solarbird.net.]
So let’s drill this down to Science Fiction. Science Fiction has, historically, been something that looked to the future of technology and societies and tried to glean what might be possible. It has also, often, been an avenue for proposing change. Many of the most ‘misogynistic’ and ‘racists’ authors of the early SF years were, in fact, far FAR ahead of their time in proposing racial and gender equity or near equity.
To the Social Justice Warriors (their term and not one of derogation in their eyes) of SF fandom, the TRUE PURPOSE of Science Fiction is solely and ONLY such promotion. Let me repeat that as an axiom:
To the Social Justice Warriors of Science Fiction publishing and fandom, the true and only purpose of science fiction is to promote increased equity in the arena of social justice.
The purpose of science fiction is not to tell a good story. Most of what people call ‘good stories’ are not stories that promote social justice. So ‘good story’ or not good story, (and there we get to matters of taste) they are not good science fiction. Good science fiction is only that science fiction which promotes social justice.
If there is a choice between two good social justice stories, the choice is not based on which is the better story or which is better written. At that point you look at which promotes social justice better. So if Author A is a person of color or a transgenderist and Author B is a cis-male, even if he is a social justice warrior, the BETTER STORY is that which is written by the person of color or transgenderist UNLESS such person writes a story which does NOT promote social justice in which case they are a traitor and shall be treated as such.
The sole an only point is to view every work in a lens of ‘how does this promote social justice?
Font Folly
“It bothers some people that we exist, part 2” – April 29
Being reminded that queer people exist at all drives some people to crazy lengths. For instance, as noted at the Crime and the Forces of Evil blog, the Sad Puppies are angry that books containing queer characters aren’t clearly marked. For those not in the know, the Sad Puppies (and an allied group, the Rabid Puppies) are a bunch of arch-conservative sci fi writers and fans who organized a bloc-voting scheme to game the selection process for the Hugo Awards and put a specific slate of anti-progressive authors, editors, and fans in every major category. Their rhetoric leading up to their success was full of blatant misogynist and homophobic language (and threats), and only slightly-less-blatant racist language. It’s worth noting that they’ve been trying this for a few years without success. It appears that their success this year is primarily due to the fact that they managed to enlist a bunch of GamerGate trolls into the process…
Since succeeding in hijacking most of the Hugo Ballot, the Sad Puppies (that’s their own name for their movement, by the way) have started deleting or heavily editing their existing blog posts and such to downplay the bigotry. Though most of their revisions have been to obscure the racist language, to try to pretend that the most blatant bigot wasn’t considered an ally, and to make some of their threatening language appear to be aimed at individuals rather than whole groups of people. They have removed some of the comments and paragraphs in which they appear to be calling for the extermination of gay people, for instance, though they remain absolutely clear that they object to homos and women being portrayed positively (or at all) in science fiction, fantasy, or any other cultural product.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“THEY are in retreat” – April 29
The main reason SJWs were successful in infiltrating the science fiction establishment and imposing their ideology on it was due to their Fabian strategy of denying any conflict was taking place. Their entryism depended entirely upon stealth and plausible deniability. That’s why the single most important aspect of both #GamerGate and #SadPuppies was the way in which it was made perfectly clear to everyone that there are, in fact, two sides.
There are those who want to be able to define what is permissible to read, write, design, develop, play, think, and say, (SJWs) and those who wish to read, write, design, develop, play, think, and say whatever the hell they happen to please. (Everybody else)
Jim Hines isn’t “so damn tired” of “an artificial Us vs. Them framework”. He is simply alarmed that their most effective tactic has been exposed and rendered impotent.
John Ringo on Facebook – April 29
Because as a conservative, that’s what you are to all the hardcore liberals. Purest evil. ISIS has nothing on being an American conservative. There is nothing worse than being a conservative white male. We are the ultimate super-villain and nothing can be anything like our equal. (Thus the humorously entitled ‘League of Evil Evil’ started by Sarah Hoyt of which I am a card-carrying member.)
Which is why there have arisen conventions that really avoid letting the CHORFs in at all. So the conservative SF fans can get together and let their hair down and talk about stuff they want to talk about (like books with actual plots and dialogue) and not be continuously insulted by the CHORFs. And even large cons that are ‘balanced’ tend to toss the SJW contingent the minute it starts to be a problem. Because nobody CARES about their issues. Not in the broad sense of what is marketable. (Just as at ‘balanced’ conventions conservatives who insist on being buttheads are tossed. I’ve seen both and I’m all for it. When it’s balanced.)
By the way, I prefer SJBs to CHORFs as a term. SJWs, social justice warriors, is not an insult as many articles have indicated. It’s the preferred term of the SJWs. And there are SJWs who are not SJBs. An SJB is a ‘Social Justice Bully.’ Because they are bullies. They are not even about social justice. They’re about being bullies.
So, yes, there are two different fandoms. And it’s very much a Political divide. And it’s not going away any time soon.
John Scalzi on Whatever
“Drinking Poison and Expecting the Other Person to Die” – April 29
This whole Puppy mess is because some of them weren’t happy, and were searching externally for that happiness, either by seeking a validation in outside rewards, or by punishing people they saw (erroneously and/or conspiratorially) blocking the path to that validation. Envy and revenge, basically. They’re drinking poison and hoping others die, or at the very least, suffer. It’s why they called themselves “Sad Puppies” in the first place: it was about what they thought their Hugo nominations would make people they decided they didn’t like feel.
Which is their karma. It doesn’t have to be mine (or yours).
So, no. I wish the Puppies success in their publishing endeavors, and I wish them happiness — genuine happiness, not contingent on comparison to, or the suffering of, others. I also wish for them the capacity to recognize success, and to be happy. It doesn’t seem they’re there yet. I hope they get there, and will cheer them if and when they do.
Jeb Kinnison on According To Hoyt
“’Selective Outrage’ – Jeb Kinnison” – April 29
Hatred and prejudice harm real people, but the harm echoes on through the generations as the original victims teach and promote an us-vs-them worldview that harms everyone. The people who are less wrong learn to understand where the hateful emotions come from, and start to cut off the sources of funds and fury that feed the continuing conflicts. Understanding the backgrounds of the partisans and arguing toward acceptance of others’ right to be wrong is the beginning of reconciliation and cooperation. I think we can get most reasonable people to agree that an award that supposedly recognizes the best SFF should be more broadly representative of the readers, including the vast majority who can’t take time out from busy lives or afford to go to conventions. Having a tiny in-group select award winners from their friends and people they know leaves out most of the writers, and almost all of the readers.
Aaron Pound on Dreaming About Other Worlds
“2015 Prometheus Award Nominees” – April 29
The interesting thing about the 2015 list of nominees for the Prometheus Award is not who is on it, but rather who is not. Even though the set of authors that make up the core proponents of the “Sad Puppies” very clearly view themselves as being on the libertarian side of the spectrum (and in some cases they have inserted segments into their books that are clearly pandering to Prometheus Award voters), and yet, there is zero overlap between the set of books they promoted for the 2015 Hugo Award and the set of books that were chosen as finalists for the 2015 Prometheus Award. In short, despite sharing an ideological bent with many of the authors promoted by the Puppies, the Libertarian Futurist Society didn’t see fit to even consider honoring any of the novels that were pushed for the Hugo ballot with a Prometheus Award nomination. If the Puppy slate is in fact about recognizing good books that the Hugo Awards have overlooked because they are supposedly ideologically biased, why is it that the works on the Puppy slates have been, with some rare exceptions, pretty much ignored by all of the other genre related awards? In fact, no one making decisions regarding other awards has seemed to think the stories promoted by any iteration of the Puppy slates have been worth nominating. It would be one thing if the works favored by the Puppies were getting nominated for many other awards while being snubbed solely by the Hugo voters. But they haven’t. They have been ignored by all the major awards because they simply aren’t good enough.
John C. Wright
“After Inaction Report from Ravencon” – April 29
A read[er] with the unexpectedly commonplace yet giant-killing name of Jack writes and asks:
Mr Wright: no word on Ravencon? maybe I missed it. Were you barbequed on sight, or just smugly ignored? Or, was it really civilized? At this point I would imagine many of the detractors on the left are wary of confrontation with those of the Puppy and Ilk fame. If so, good. They need a nice dose of apprehension to temper their attack dog tendencies of attack, attack, then worry about truth and accuracy.
I am pleased to report that there were no incidents of which I was aware at Ravencon. Everything went swimmingly.
No, that is not quite true: I heard from one of the organizers, a friend of mine, that Brianna Wu sat on a panel on Gamergate on Friday (before I arrived), and asked for there to be no photographs. As far as I know, this is a perfectly reasonable request, and, as a matter of professional courtesy, it is usually honored. One fellow — I did not catch his name — took photos nonetheless, Brianna Wu raised an objection (whether reasonable or hysterical I cannot say, hearing of this only third hand) and the photographer was asked to step out of the room. He was not kicked out of the Con. He left a snarky comment on his social media page.
That makes a grand total of one almost-rude incident and one perhaps-illtempered comment. And it was not related to Sad Puppies as far as I know, merely the psychodrama of a seriously disturbed person.
Aside from that, the topic came up only once, at the Trollhunter 101 panel, where the moderator merely described that the controversy existed, but his description of the controversy was fair and free from libel, so he was on our side (whether he knows it or not).
https://twitter.com/voxday/status/593517438894911488
Jamie Ford
“A bystander’s view of the Hugo Awards” – April 29
I joined the World Science Fiction Society so I could officially vote in the Hugo Awards. Not for myself (I don’t even pretend to that kind of greatness) but I had hoped to vote for The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin.
Much to my chagrin, this amazing book didn’t make the ballot because a disgruntled group of conservative writers who felt slighted by the Hugos decided to emotionally vomit all over the voting process.
It’s much more nuanced I’m sure, but to an outsider, that’s what it looks like.
*Tantrum. Barf. Point fingers of blame.*
And I get it. I love Orson Scott Card’s work and have always found him incredibly supportive of struggling writers. But I disagree with his political views, which have begun to obfuscate his stories. And I’ve participated in online writing communities where people were banned for unpopular opinions, which never sat well with me.
Doctor Science on Obsidian Wings
“The Varieties of Fictional Pleasure” – April 28
One much-discussed Puppy statement is by Brad Torgersen, from January:
In other words, while the big consumer world is at the theater gobbling up the latest Avengers movie, “fandom” is giving “science fiction’s most prestigious award” to stories and books that bore the crap out of the people at the theater: books and stories long on “literary” elements (for all definitions of “literary” that entail: what college hairshirts are fawning over this decade) while being entirely too short on the very elements that made Science Fiction and Fantasy exciting and fun in the first place!
Among the many problems with this statement is that Worldcon members (that Hugo-voting “fandom” of which Torgersen speaks so sneeringly) did in fact give a Hugo to The Avengers, in the same year they gave the Best Novel Hugo to John Scalzi’s Redshirts — a work which, Scalzi admits, can only be called “long on literary elements” if you’re making a joke.
Glenn Hauman on Comic Mix
“Hugo Awards, No Awards and Network Effects” – April 29
[The] question has come up about voting for “No Award” over various nominees, whether it should be done, and whether it would be an unprecedented event.
The answer to the last part is: No, it’s not unprecedented. “No Award” has won categories before, most recently in 1977 when no award was given for Best Dramatic Presentation.
And ironically, that’s really a shame. Because it turns out there was a really great science fiction movie that year that showed us where we were heading. I’m not talking about any of that year’s actual Hugo nominees– Carrie, Logan’s Run, The Man Who Fell to Earth, or Futureworld.
No, I’m talking about Network.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“They also serve” – April 29
It was suggested that they also serve, who inadvertently and unknowingly do the bidding of the Evil Legion of Evil through their ludicrously predictable reactions. And lo, a badge for this brigade of Unwitting Minions was created. Evil Legion of Evil minions are free to award it to those whose behavior is so egregiously stupid or shortsighted or self-destructive that they could not possibly serve your Supreme Dark Lord better if they were consciously doing His Evil Bidding. Given that they are, without exception, unique and special snowflakes, they naturally all bear the title “Minion #1”.
Stilicho in a comment on Vox Popoli – April 29
Shouldn’t there be some more formal methodology to award Unwitting Minion badges?
No. I am Vile Faceless Minion and so can you.
Fiona L. Woods on Cats and Crime
“Hugo Awards and Puppygate” – April 28
Puppygate is a term George R.R. Martin came up with. There are two groups, one called the Sad Puppies and the other the Rabid Puppies. Each group encouraged their followers to buy memberships for Worldcon so they could vote for stories and novels they wanted to get nominated for the Hugo Awards. Apparently, some of those nominated feel the two groups succeeded in loading the nominations with their picks. Hugo Award nominees Mark Kloos and Annie Bellet have withdrawn their work from the competition.
Panzer says, “What do you expect? They’re not the smartest potato on the truck. They’re puppies. You want smart? Get a kitten. No kitten would have anything to do with this kind of litter box game.”
William Reichard
“My God, it’s full of puppies” – April 29
Even the roundups of news about the Hugo Awards fracas are getting too long to read all of every day. One thing you have to admit: this topic is clearly a deep nerve.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@JohnLayton ” Many of the arguments I see either direction fail to pass the mirror test (is it still fair if we swap the players and sides).”
I will note that when a group of feminists decided that gender role-exploring fiction wasn’t getting enough attention, they went and founded their own award. The Tiptree is doing quite well, thank you.
@John Layton “@Mike Glyer – This site is one that seems to have the most civil discussion and the least reflex anger, and I have enjoyed reading your archives. Your blog will stay on my reading list after the awards are given away.”
I wanted simply to second this; file770 is now well-ensconced in my “read every day” bookmarks, and will remain.
Glenn, you called for Rabid Puppies to be put down. You were either calling for down-votes or murder. Based on the most straightforward reading and the burst of fake reviews that followed, I interpreted it as the former. You clearly and obviously (and effectively) made a call to your readers to post fake reviews and one-star on the nominated works.
Don’t try to spin out of this. Everyone – the insta-downvoters and the observers of the phenomenon read your words and interpreted them in the obvious way. It is actually something that everyone (but you) agrees on:
You called for Rabid Puppies to be put down. This was instantly followed by a large number of Rabid Puppies being put down. Your best avenue at this point is to either apologize and retract and cut your losses, or at worst stop trying to justify it, because you are likely to write your way into a deeper hole with Jeff Bezos and possibly the law.
It wasn’t cute then, and your handwaving isn’t going to make your mean-spirited and obvious anti-marketing campaign now disappear.
Even if it was a misinterpretation of your intentions, a normal person would notate the post and apologize for the total misunderstanding. You would be working with Amazon to clean up your unintentional mess, contacting the spammers and the affected authors, and making good.
The fact that you haven’t done that means that you are lying when you say you didn’t tell people to downvote sight unseen your enemies.
‘You clearly and obviously’
*Snert*
That’s like saying Vox’s claims of burning the Hugos to the ground are clearly and obviously arson threats.
@xdpaul: “You were either calling for down-votes or murder.”
Or, metaphorically, for their defeat.
After all, what do we do with rabid dogs? We put them down. Are the Puppies dogs? Only metaphorically.
So, if we hear about someone talking about “putting down” metaphorical dogs, perhaps we might want to consider a metaphor? 😉
Heck; if I heard that person X was “putting down” person Y, *my* mind would run towards insults — you have heard an insult referred to as a “putdown”, yes?
“You clearly and obviously (and effectively) made a call to your readers to post fake reviews and one-star on the nominated works.”
Because you can stretch an interpretation to include “downvote on Amazon” as part of “put down”, that’s “clear and obvious”? By that standard, you do realize that it’s “clear and obvious” that VD is guilty of most of the things he’s been accused of, since he has to rely upon hairsplitting to defend himself?
I cannot recall if you were one of the people trying to defend RPs, in particular, from charges of bloc voting. If you were, how you can find this “clear and obvious” and not that is explicable only by blindness; the question is whether willful or not.
“Everyone – the insta-downvoters and the observers of the phenomenon read your words and interpreted them in the obvious way.”
Nompe. Not everyone. Hate to break it to you, but you don’t speak for everyone.
“Even if it was a misinterpretation of your intentions, a normal person would notate the post and apologize for the total misunderstanding. You would be working with Amazon to clean up your unintentional mess, contacting the spammers and the affected authors, and making good.”
No; because a normal person wouldn’t be apologizing for their self-proclaimed enemies’ complete misunderstanding of their point.
“The fact that you haven’t done that means that you are lying when you say you didn’t tell people to downvote sight unseen your enemies.”
Failure to behave as *you* think appropriate is not evidence of dishonesty. It’s evidence of difference of opinion.
It’s something I’ve actually noticed quite a bit around Rabid Puppies in particular — differences of taste and opinion are ascribed to dishonesty rather than disagreement. I was accused, for example, of being “dishonest” because I expressed a preference for one story over another; and since that could not *possibly* have been a matter of taste, clearly, I was lying.
Combined with the TK/VD/JCW set’s fervent and repeated insistence on their complete honesty, it makes for an…interesting picture.
Work with Amazon? You think some random dude can just be like “Hey, Amazon! Let me get power over reviews on your site!”
http://www.comicmix.com/2015/04/13/what-do-you-do-to-rabid-puppies-answer-below/
“Oh, and to answer the title question: what do you do to rabid puppies?
You put them down.”
Lying liars who lie.
Oh, God, are we back to this again? I think it’s where I came in, and it’s still silly . . . look. I don’t like that particular “put down the Puppies” metaphor because I think it’s trite (sorry, Glenn Hauman). I also think it was obvious–if a group refers to themselves as canines, a metaphor for “put them to sleep” is going to come up. Would “let’s spay them all” have been better? I don’t think either one is particularly funny, but I also don’t think it has anything to do with Amazon ratings.
Here’s what Glenn Hauman’s original post said: Here’s a list of all of Mr. Beale’s nominees, complete with handy links to Amazon. It might be a good idea to take a look at the reviews and see which ones are helpful. If you’ve read the works, you should add your own review. [emphasis mine–well, if the tag worked]
How is asking someone to review a work he/she has READ asking for a fake review? Yes, Glenn Haumann points out that Amazon reviews can be gamed, in the context of pointing out that the reviews are, basically, worthless. He never says, “Hey, all! Go pretend you’ve read these works and post a fake review!” So can we maybe stop complaining that he did?
@Glen,
“https://twitter.com/voxday/status/588262749215531010
Again: I have called for neither.”
Ah yes I forgot about your wording. He’s right, you either called for fake reviews (which your co-worker promptly did) or you were making a threat. If firmly believe it was the former. And Vox isn’t saying you made a death threat, he’s pointing out that the only way it can be read is one way or the other.
“One more time: point out where I call for fake reviews.”
We have. So one more time is a…wait for it…lie…
Look we know what you did. It was scummy. Notice even in this rather anti-puppy crowd no one has been rushing to your defense. It was _that_ scummy.
@Kevin,
That presumes we think the tax is bad. We are merely mentioning we paid it. We own our entry. Depending on the tax I can see good reasons to charge to vote. Many of which you have presented.
@Katya,
“Likewise, there is nothing in the Amazon TOS that says you have to read a whole book to review it:”
They detail more in the FAQ but they specifically disallow misleading reviews. The review in question implied she desired to burn a book that was lent to her by a friend…that was only _ever_ an eBook. When challenged she dissembled. That is “misleading”. That being said, I noticed that one of my reviews needs an addition since I rated a book that I received a review copy of and they want that specifically called out, in fact they imply receiving it for free in anyway (a library copy?) would be enough that you have to mark it.
@rcade,
“Next year, Vox Day and Kate Paulk.”
I’m sorry, did we prevent you from voting? I was unaware that we had sent thugs about. Do feel free to rally your side. We would rather enjoy more than 40 people voting as has been the historical norm.
SPEAKING OF WHICH:
@Daveon,
You noted some things about “many” shorts being nominated. That appears to not be the case. At least this article says fewer shorts than novels get nominated on average:
http://www.nesfa.org/fanzines/votehist.html
I imaging @Kevin could comment further.
@Alex,
“Both A Throne of Bone and last year’s Hugo story have shown me that he’s far, far from knowing what good literature are”
I believe it is “A Throne of Bones”. Which I thought was a very good book with a slow opener. I’m eagerly looking forward to the sequel. And the short “Opera” was one of the single best shorts I have read in a very long time. I’d rank it very near to “Repent Harlequin”. But don’t let your prejudice get in the way.
If the quote was mirrored, hordes of SJBullies would be calling police stations and news media, claiming to have received a death threat.
Lie to me: tell it isn’t true.
(/sarcasm should be implicit.)
‘We would rather enjoy more than 40 people voting as has been the historical norm’
I’m assuming you mean 40 people voting for one work? Because there certainly was more than 40 voters in the past, but unfortunately all the voters in the past went around voting for what they liked and could rarely agree on one thing.
When VD calls himself a “rabid puppy”, he is obviously speaking metaphorically, because we are supposed to know that he not infected by a deadly mind-altering virus. When Glen says “you put them down” regarding metaphorical rabid puppies, he is obviously speaking literally, because, umm, because we are supposed to know that SJWs hate good conservative people with the fire of a thousand suns. Got it.
“I believe it is “A Throne of Bones”. Which I thought was a very good book with a slow opener. I’m eagerly looking forward to the sequel. And the short “Opera” was one of the single best shorts I have read in a very long time. I’d rank it very near to “Repent Harlequin”. But don’t let your prejudice get in the way.”
Shoot, it’s almost like different people have different opinions on things. Apparently you like hamfisted retreads of Thomas Aquinas. That’s your call. But for me, and my money, they were both boring and trite, and didn’t do anything that fantasy in the eighties hasn’t already done.
“I’m sorry, did we prevent you from voting?”
You prevented my nominations from having a chance of making the ballot, along with 80-85% of the other Hugo voters who were making individual choices in good faith.
I normally see around 2-6 of my choices there. This year, there were 0.
Is this your plan going forward for the Hugos — a minority led by Day and one of Correia’s pals vote for nominations in lockstep like sheep and the majority has no say on the ballot?
Because Mary within day of his call we had a VP from his company posting fake reviews. That’s why.
“But don’t let your prejudice get in the way.”
Not liking a short story by a Puppy is prejudice now?
By the way: one of the reasons why I wouldn’t call for fake reviews on Mr. Beale’s works is because he has a distressing tendency to publish on his blog the addresses of people he thinks have given him fake reviews.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-rabbit-bites-back.html
And as an aside: it’s tough to take accusations of lying seriously from people who don’t care to be truthful with their own name.
GK: Much as I hate suggesting people do their own research and all that, but I suspect you could have done a tad better than pulling up a 20 year old article?
The data on the actual nominations is published when the awards are. If we look at last year, I counted roughly equal nominations for Novel and shorts – between 16 and 20 items nominated but roughly half the number of people nominate for shorts as nominate for best novel. Whereas last year, the spread of top selected novels was 23% (Anciliary Justice) to 6.1% (Parasite), which sadly knocked the much superior, in my view, Shining Girls off.
In the Short Story category the range was much narrower, only 4 stores making it over 5% out of 865 ballots cast with The Water That Falls… edging in with exactly 5%, with Sarah Hoyt some distance behind on 4.4% – the top choice, Selkie Stories (which I’ll admit I thought was dreck) was at just 9.1%…
The next 11 stories ranged from 4.4% down to 3.1% or 38 to 27 votes in absolute terms – even 30 or 40 people voting for a set of stories without needing to read them is going to be enough to guarantee a slot in the ballot under the current system – the other short story categories all look very similar.
The 2012 numbers look remarkably similar at first glance in percentage terms, with about half the number of people voting for short stories.
As more people vote for Novel, the category is always going to be harder to game, on the whole – but as we’ve seen it isn’t actually impossible.
We won’t see the 2015 numbers until August, but I suspect we’ll see a solid bloc of votes for Rapid Puppy candidates and then a drop off to a distribution that looks similar to what we always see in the short categories.
The data isn’t hidden, people have always been free to go and examine it to look for ‘proof’ of secret manipulations or the effect of lists like NESFA and others – but apparently its much easier not to.
@rcade,
“You prevented my nominations from having a chance of making the ballot, along with 80-85% of the other Hugo voters who were making individual choices in good faith.
I normally see around 2-6 of my choices there. This year, there were 0.
Is this your plan going forward for the Hugos — a minority led by Day and one of Correia’s pals vote for nominations in lockstep like sheep and the majority has no say on the ballot?”
I want the neutrals to ponder this for a second. Rcade asserts that we prevented his choices, that he voted on, from making the ballot. By the logic here every election ever held with some limited set of winners is flawed. We did not mug @rcade. We did not sit by his email dressed in black waving a bat. We voted…and we “won the election”.
And that is “wrong” because of “truefen” “wrong fan” nonsense. Which of course is preposterous.
And yes, VD is on record saying that if you No Vote, we can effectively do the same. Something I for one was very careful with last year. @racade believes no voting is his right, AND IT IS. Just be aware that we are aware of the same. Thank God a few on the anti-puppies side aren’t being idiots about this. If a few more of you were like GRRM (lost of bluster with a smattering of statesmanship) this would likely blow over.
And can we quote the scoundrel a bit more in full? Again for the neutrals:
“We’d like to thank Mr. Beale for reminding us that Hugo Award nominations aren’t the only things that can be gamed…
You can game Amazon ratings as well.
Here’s a list of all of Mr. Beale’s nominees, complete with handy links to Amazon. It might be a good idea to take a look at the reviews and see which ones are helpful. If you’ve read the works, you should add your own review”
This is what an anti-puppy looks like.
‘Lie to me: tell it isn’t true’
Trouble with an open mind is that people come along and try to put things in it. Luckily some have the door shut, barred, locked, and booby-trapped.
Geez, just link to the article: http://www.comicmix.com/2015/04/13/what-do-you-do-to-rabid-puppies-answer-below/
So, GK, Guilt by Association? Besides, are you sure the reviewer in question hadn’ read the book? I always ignore Amazon reviews, so I’ve no idea how you evaluate them. However, I have read reviews elsewhere that I have disagreed with, without assuming that the reviewer was “faking” his/her dislike for the book.
In any case, I agree that posting fake reviews of books one has not read, anywhere, it not ethical behavior. I just get tired of people linking to that post by Glenn Hauman and saying, “See! He said people should post fake reviews!” when, in fact, he said nothing of the kind. I know you can read. You are obviously literate and intelligent. So why do you keep arguing that blog post says something that it doesn’t say? It just doesn’t make sense to me. If you wanted to comment on the specific fake reviews, and call out the actual reviewers, that would be one thing. You could even do it by answering the reviewer, right there on Amazon. (In fact, doesn’t Amazon have a policy about fake reviews? Again, I don’t read the Amazon reviews, so I don’t know–they should, at least.) That approach would seem to more logical to me . . .
I am sure Butcher is a capable writer, I have no question on that score, but that particular brand of Urban Fantasy/Real World Fantasy/Whatever we’re calling it doesn’t much appeal to me. I’m a fairly old school Science Fiction fan and have to take a good run up on any fantasy to actually enjoy it. I also have a problem with the idea that Book X of an ongoing series should be even in the running for a Hugo – there can be exceptions, shared universes perhaps? But generally speaking, I’d rather see original works myself that showcase something _new_.
Ironically, given Brad T’s pleas for old fashioned stories with Science Fiction led me to wonder where Neal Asher is on the puppy lists, Peter F Hamilton, Al Reynolds and many more who write exactly that who were apparently passed over for an Urban Fantasy and a very average to poor MilSF book that had as it’s McGuffin a 40 year old twist from a Niven short story. I’ve not read the Andersen so I can’t comment on that one.
Gee, Glenn, if you weren’t calling for fake reviews and down votes, I guess that leaves us with death threats, doesn’t it?
“By the way: one of the reasons why I wouldn’t call for fake reviews on Mr. Beale’s works is because he has a distressing tendency to publish on his blog the addresses of people he thinks have given him fake reviews.”
He didn’t think. He knew for an absolute fact. We hadn’t sent a single book to that state.
GK > That is not what he’s saying. He is saying that in past years, he nominates works and typically sees some of his nominations on the list – assuming that fan interests are fairly normally distributed, which looking at the nomination lists over the last few years they seem to be, that is _exactly_ what we’d expect to see.
This year that is not the case suggesting that something has gone very wrong with the nomination process. As we know what went wrong and when the full nomination lists are published in August we shall almost certainly see a disproportionate ‘bump’ for all the Rabid Puppy slate compared to what you’d expect to see in previous years.
Occams Razor suggests that that is simply because enough people took Mr Beale at his word and voted for his slate sight unseen, when only 800 or people vote for about 20 items, it doesn’t take many doing that to get an item over 5% and into probably contention for the ballot.
“We hadn’t sent a single book to that state.” So you publish his address so your minions can send him death threats? You’re all class, “Vox Day.”
“And yes, VD is on record saying that if you No Vote, we can effectively do the same.”
I suppose if you can convince enough puppies to pony up $50 to do that, sure, it could happen. It’ll just confirm that the real intent here isn’t to recognize good SF, but to settle petty scores. Which, as you know Bob, we already knew.
‘You were either calling for down-votes or murder.’
This is… stupid. What on earth must you make of all the war imagery being used by the RP/SPs?
“What on earth must you make of all the war imagery being used by the RP/SPs?”
Science fiction is serious bizness.
“He didn’t think. He knew for an absolute fact. We hadn’t sent a single book to that state.”
So now we have talking in the third person, ridiculous statements, and admission to publishing the address of someone and asking for people to harass her. All because of a single Amazon review he didn’t like.
Awesome. Beale gets more cartoonish all the time.
”And Vox isn’t saying you made a death threat, he’s pointing out that the only way it can be read is one way or the other.”
And let’s be clear here, this is the person for whom ‘SJWs always lie’ has become a chant.
You know I’m really not surprised that people who don’t understand subtext and sarcasm think that Theodore Beale is a great writer.
From the CDC on Rabies: The first symptoms of rabies may be very similar to those of the flu including general weakness or discomfort, fever, or headache. These symptoms may last for days.
There may be also discomfort or a prickling or itching sensation at the site of bite, progressing within days to symptoms of cerebral dysfunction, anxiety, confusion, agitation. As the disease progresses, the person may experience delirium, abnormal behavior, hallucinations, and insomnia.
At least no one can argue about their name.
‘And that is “wrong” because of “truefen” “wrong fan” nonsense. Which of course is preposterous.’
You realise this is a lie because he didn’t say that at all? Because we’re talking about lying. It’s right there, what he said, and it wasn’t that. You may disagree that lockstep slate voting didn’t block out the ballot – in which case I don’t know why SP/RPs are declaring victory – but you should explain why rather than lie about what he said.
In answer to: “I’m sorry, did we prevent you from voting?”
Rcade said: “You prevented my nominations from having a chance of making the ballot, along with 80-85% of the other Hugo voters who were making individual choices in good faith.
I normally see around 2-6 of my choices there. This year, there were 0.”
Yeah, Welcome to my world. The shoe pinches, when it’s on your foot, doesn’t it?
I’d bet that’s what quite a few people who want to Reduce Puppy Related Sadness, have thought, for a very long time.
VD: “He didn’t think. He knew for an absolute fact. We hadn’t sent a single book to that state.”
Unless the reviewer explicitly mentioned that they got it at their home address, well — you are familiar with these concepts called “traveling” and “moving” and perhaps even, *gasp* *choke* “lending of books”?
@StolenNameOfAFarMoreTalentedWriter:
“If you’ve read the works, you should add your own review”
You quoted it.
Now; everyone is supposed to take what the Beales and Wrights say as true — that they say what they mean, etc., even in the face of evidence.
Yet here, when someone *does* give an explicit direction — you ignore the first half of it altogether, to make up your own narrative.
We’re supposed to grant room for interpretation to the various Puppies — but a clear and flat statement by a non-puppy is…a lie because a Puppy-supporter says so, even in blatant contradiction to what’s written.
I notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room….and it’s not coming from Glenn.
I took the invitation to put the puppies down as to go to the Amazon site and downvote THE REVIEWS. And in fact, I have no problem saying that a review that says “FIVE STARS!” or repeated reviews with the same wording to several different books, are, yes, not very useful. I read them, and vote accordingly.
Where was this “fake book review” published?
@Mtroyd “If the quote was mirrored, hordes of SJBullies would be calling police stations and news media, claiming to have received a death threat.”
So, if that’s a death threat, MTroyd, should I report the person who has said that the only reason he wouldn’t kill me is “legal inconvenience”, by your lights? Oh, and not just me, but anyone with a political position similar to the one he thinks I hold?
‘Where was this “fake book review” published?’
Just look for the ones that seem to be about books at first, but on closer inspection turn out to be about kitchen appliances or hotels or adhesive labels. Sneaky bastards. Start out all ‘This volume opens with a bang as Marsha and the egg pirates run afoul of King Wallaby’ but by the end they’re all ‘but by then it’s too late and the milk has gone sour, your 4am wake-up call never came and your valuable notes have slipped off the board and fallen down that grate never to be retrieved,’ and you’re terrified because you don’t know what you’ve bought.
Mtroyd – you have NEVER had one of your nominations get onto the ballot? In how long? My hit rate is rarely better than 1 or 2, but it’s never 0 in novels.
I’ve seen one detailed review, from Alexandra Erin, who remarks that real reviews are such fun, why would anyone fake one?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R1YNRFN9NQ0JK5/&ASIN=1935929828
“Likewise, there is nothing in the Amazon TOS that says you have to read a whole book to review it”
Likewise, I see from your avatar that you are into bestiality.
“Not to quibble but makes a review “fake” and how do you know it is a fake review?”
Basic reading comprehension.
Steven Schwartz: Perhaps we can organise a course to teach the self-designated GK Chesterton how civilised people spell the English language. ;->
(As a Yank, I appreciate my countrymen not contributing to us looking markedly more insular than residents of a certain island. Thank you for your future cooperation, gentlebeings.)
Rick Moen
[email protected]
“We did not mug @rcade. We did not sit by his email dressed in black waving a bat. We voted…and we ‘won the election’. And that is ‘wrong’ because of ‘truefen’ ‘wrong fan’ nonsense. Which of course is preposterous.”
I didn’t say a word about truefen and wrong fans. Your insertion of that imaginary insult into your rebuttal shows a lack of faith in your own argument.
You didn’t just vote. You voted for a bloc like a sheep, setting aside your own preferences in favor of Day’s so you could stick it to your imaginary enemies.
I’m proud to vote as an individual for the works I liked best. I’ll keep doing that even if the sheep keep following their shepherd.
“We hadn’t sent a single book to that state.”
Because, of course, books always remain exactly where they are sent and no-one ever loaned a friend a book!
The biggest danger VD presents to society is his rabid stupidity.
I see the usual sock-puppets have magically reappeared to defend their master’s voice and are babbling away in the same old, verbose, semi-literate, dishonest VD style. Why is it that members of the so-called master race are always pudgy, failed dweebs with no literary talent?
“The shoe pinches, when it’s on your foot, doesn’t it? I’d bet that’s what quite a few people who want to Reduce Puppy Related Sadness, have thought, for a very long time.”
You can’t be including Larry Correia or Brad Torgersen in your pity party, because both got Campbell Award nominations — the highest honor we pay to new writers in the field and a springboard to future success.
The Puppies have no proof that anything unfair happened to keep their favorites off the Hugo ballot. Correia admitted he has no evidence of wrongdoing.
So any grumbling they have about past Hugo votes is the normal grumbling that we all have when something we didn’t like does well and something we like is overlooked.
I don’t care if I see 0 choices on the ballot if the process is fair and voters are acting as individuals instead of sheep.