Today leaders of the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies react to a ruling by the Hugo administrator that one work from each of their slates is ineligible and has been dropped from the Hugo final ballot.
David Gerrold and Connie Willis say it will not be business as usual at the Hugo ceremony. Larry Correia, John C. Wright and George R.R. Martin parry and riposte. Laura Mixon says send a message by voting her a Hugo.
Then, while “you missed the point” is a phrase oft resorted to in these arguments, Michael Stackpole eloquently describes the point he says Sad Puppies have missed.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“John C. Wright work disqualified” – April 14
I think this is a serious mistake by Sasquan. Just as Dune and Ender’s Game served as precedents for a shorter work reworked and published as a longer one, which was the case with both “One Bright Star to Guide Them” and “Big Boys Don’t Cry”, John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War serves as precedent for a work that appeared on the web prior to being professionally published and subsequently declared eligible in the latter year.
Brad R. Torgersen
“Two Hugo final ballot changes, and a question” – April 14
I would like to take this opportunity (as the coordinator of the Sad Puppies 3 effort in 2015) to note that John C. Wright’s piece, “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” was not on the Sad Puppies 3 list. It appears this story was on the copycat Rabid Puppies alter-ego slate, being put forth by Vox Day.
Many people have been conflating the two slates (Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies) for the past ten days, and I think it’s important to make clear the fact that the two slates are different, while still being similar. I congratulate Thomas Olde Heuvelt, whose story “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” (from Lightspeed magazine) now takes a place on the 2015 Hugo final ballot. Good work, Thomas! And good luck!
One person who was on the Sad Puppies 3 ballot — Jon Eno [http://www.joneno.com/] — has been disqualified. I am sorry about that, Jon! I tried as best as I could to do my due diligence in researching the Hugo qualification rules, when I put you forward in that category. I think you’ve been doing a lot of very beautiful spec fic art, and I hope you continue to share your illustrations with all of us who follow you on Facebook.
Taking Jon’s place on the ballot is Kirk DouPonce, from the Rabid Puppies slate. Kirk’s been doing a bang-up excellent job with cover design, many examples of which can be seen at his site. Congratulations, Kirk! Terrific stuff, sir.
My question for the masses is: the year-to-year interpretations of the rules seem to occasionally be inconsistent. For example, John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War was indie published (to Scalzi’s web site) long before it was licensed by TOR for traditional publication, yet Old Man’s War was on the short list for Best Novel in 2006. Did anyone (at that time) ask for clarification? Seems to me if John C. Wright’s story can be bumped for prior web publication, this would have applied in Scalzi’s case too; unless the specific rules have changed since 2006.
And extra double not cute to make a slate without even checking whether the works involved are eligible. Face-eggs for everyone!
— Catherynne M. Valente (@catvalente) April 14, 2015
David Gerrold post on Facebook – April 14
I had asked Connie Willis to present the Campbell award — she declined. Because she cannot pretend that this year’s awards are business as usual.
In fact, none of us can. And as the host of the award ceremony, I can’t either.
So, Brad, Larry, Vox — congratulations. You’ve spoiled the party. Not just mine, but everyone’s.
I waited nearly a half century to get here, and when I do get here, there’s ashes.
It hurts.
Not just me. Everyone.
And I don’t care how you dodge and weasel, how you rend your garments and play the victim game, how you pretend it’s everyone else’s fault — that’s bullshit. You’ve made it impossible to have a Hugo ceremony that is a joyous celebration of the best in our genre.
I haven’t figured out how we’ll manage the Hugo ceremony yet. I’m still soliciting advice from the smartest people I know — people with experience, regardless of their politics. Right now, mostly what I’m hearing back is, “I’m so sorry this has happened to you, you deserve better, but I know you’ll figure it out.” (Plus a few suggestions on what to do if this or that or the other happens.)
I do have some ideas. (One of which is, “You won’t like me when I’m angry.” But you don’t like me already, so why should I give in to anger?)
There is another way to go. It’s something I learned watching Harlan Ellison. Did I mention he’s one of my role models?
So I have a choice. I can pretend it’s business as usual —
It isn’t.
Or, I can recognize that I’ve been trusted with the microphone for a reason — that the committee thinks I know what I’m doing — and use that responsibility in a way that serves the Hugos, the Worldcon, and most of all the generations of fans, thousands and thousands and thousands, from all over the world, who still respect our traditions and our awards.
Connie Willis
“Why I Won’t Be A Presenter at the Hugo Awards This Year” – April 14
And finally, to Vox Day, Brad Torgeson, and their followers, I have this to say:
“You may have been able to cheat your way onto the ballot. (And don’t talk to me about how this isn’t against the rules–doing anything except nominating the works you personally liked best is cheating in my book.) You may even be able to bully and intimidate people into voting for you. But you can’t make me hand you the Hugo and say “Congratulations,” just as if you’d actually won it. And you can’t make me appear onstage and tell jokes and act like this year’s Hugo ceremony is business as usual and what you’ve done is okay. I’m not going to help you get away with this. I love the Hugo Awards too much.”
Larry Correia on Monster Hunter Nation
“George R. R. Martin responds” – April 14
[Larry Correia] Okay. Then don’t accept our version. Go read reporter Damien Walter’s account in the Guardian about my sexist homophobic campaign to steal the Hugos last year. (by the way, how did he know about my nomination before it was announced?) Or go read his account in the Guardian where he libeled Toni Weisskopf. Or go read Entertainment Weekly, the Telegraph, Salon, Slate or the many other places where I’m a racist white guy from earlier this week.
Of course we tweak their words around to mock them, because bullies hate that. You have to have fun with this stuff, or it’ll drive you nuts.
[GRR Martin] Take this “Wrongfan” moniker I now see popping up on Puppy sites. Neither I nor any of the other SMOFs or trufans or worldconners that I know have ever called you or your friends “wrongfans.” You guys made that up and applied it to yourself.
Damn right we did. I’m pretty sure I invented the word Wrongfun to describe how the perpetually outraged crowd on Twitter was perpetually offended that somebody somewhere was having fun wrong.
Let me give you an example of wrongfun. After my last letter to you went public I had three or four people concern trolling me on Twitter because I used the term “Twitter Lynch Mob” to describe a well-known type of behavior. They’re perched like falcons, waiting for somebody to transgress, so that they can swoop in and feel superior. If you use the wrong words, play the wrong games, read the wrong books, wear the wrong shirt, they’ll be there. These people are always looking for an excuse to shake their fingers at you for having fun wrong, hence the term, Wrongfun.
So when Teresa Nielsen Hayden (who somehow knew that SP3 had 3/5 of the best novel nominations before they were announced) started going off about us, and how we were outsiders, my people took Wrongfun and turned it into Wrongfan. I don’t recall who did that, but it was funny, and it made my people laugh, so it stuck.
Words are awesome like that. I do find it ironic that you don’t approve of my people making up words to describe the world as they see it, in the same sentence that you speak of SMOFs, Trufans, and Worldconners.
Kalimac on Kalimac’s Journal
“Hugonian Politics” – April 14
I think there are two courses of action here.
1) You can try to rewrite the rules to ban slates. I don’t think you will succeed. Slate advocates will find a way around the rules. Maginot line. The fathers of the U.S. Constitution thought they had eliminated political parties, and they were pretty smart guys, but in that respect they failed.
2) Or you can form a counter-slate. Many people are doing so, even among those who claim to oppose a counter-slate. They’re launching a campaign to vote for No Award. That doesn’t help them with next year’s nominations, but for the current election, No Award is their counter-slate candidate, whether they think of it as one or not.
Naomi Kritzer on Will Tell Stories For Food
“Vox Day’s involvement in the Sad Puppies Slate” – April 13
So, hey. Obviously, whatever else the ELoE is, it’s an informal organization; it’s partly an in-joke and an amusing self-chosen nickname for a clique of friends. But here’s what I feel pretty confident about:
- This particular Evil League of Evil is Larry Correia, John C. Wright, Sarah Hoyt, and Vox Day. When Larry Correia talks about the ELoE, he doesn’t use the term like it’s a joke; he uses it as a straightforward shorthand for his clique. Vox Day is a member of the clique. In fact, the origination of the name for the clique came out of an indignant rejection of the idea that Wright might consider distancing himself from VD.
- Larry Correia said that the ELoE discussed and “came up with” the names and works on the SP slate.
- Larry Correia said that that VD “isn’t even on the slate” but I did not see anywhere that he said that VD had nothing to do with choosing the slate, and if he made that claim at this point, I guess I’d like him to unpack his previous statements about the ELoE’s involvement.
Michael Stackpole on Stormwolf.com
“Why Puppies Are Sad and Always Will Be” – April 14
To me, the oddest part about the Rabid Puppies and their lamenting that they don’t get awards is that they’re pointing to the wrong reason why they’re left out in the cold. It’s not because they’re an oppressed minority. It’s because they don’t write the kind of work that gets awards. The Hugo, Nebula and World Fantasy awards have traditionally been handed out to new voices addressing new ways of telling stories, addressing new issues and new technology. When geographical bias is factored out of the awards, over and over again they go to works which are imaginative, well-written and, more often than not, of diminished popularity. After the fact they might become classics, but their more-likely fate is to go out of print despite having won an award.
I’ve been working in this field since 1988 (when my first two novels came out). I’ve never been short-listed for an award of any sort in the field. Why? Because I write series fiction. Because I write fantasy. Because I write military SF. Because I write franchise fiction. I’ve been just as solidly frozen out by the literary establishment as any of the puppies, but it doesn’t bother me.
Why not?
1) Awards don’t move the needle on sales.
2) I can’t eat awards.
3) Awards are not a referendum on quality of writing.
4) Awards reflect notoriety during a mote of time, neither conferring immortality nor success upon the recipients.
5) Readers who only read or respect award-winning authors and their work are outside my target demographic: that being people who want to read a rousing good tale that, maybe, will allow them to reflect on an issue or conundrum now and again.
Laura Mixon
“Standing in the Borderlands of Discourse” – April 13
I’ve spoken to an expert in the matter who has studied our case, who tells me that RH’s abuses (like Vox Day’s) are highly unlikely to stop by themselves, if she follows the trajectory of other people who act as she has. Over and over, for more than a decade, she has blown up communities by positioning herself as a victim and finding people to cover for her, who either feel they don’t have a right to criticize her, or are willing to overlook her behavior for the sake of other concerns.
That’s why I accepted the nomination, and why I continue to speak. The community is still at risk. A vote for me sends a clear signal that the community stands firm on this basic principle: that our politics can’t outweigh our humanity. That everyone has a fundamental right to be here, to engage in online and in-person discourse without being threatened with annihilation. We have to find a way—not to deny our own beliefs and experiences—but to talk across the divides.
I don’t have good answers for how we can help the center hold, but I do believe we need to rally as a community around a set of norms. A covenant of sorts. An agreement that, whatever the fractures in our community—whatever our disagreements—whatever personal circumstances brought us to this genre in the first place—at its heart, SFF has room for all of us.
John C. Wright in a comment on George R.R. Martin’s Not A Blog
Sir, you commented “John C. Wright SIX TIMES!!! John C. Wright, a writer famed far and wide for having no opinions on politics, race, religion, or sexual orientation, and would never dream of injecting such messages into his Damned Good Stories.”
I assume here you are being ironic, and stating that I do indeed put messages into my fiction.
However, we have worked together in the past. You edited the anthology SONGS OF THE DYING EARTH in which my short story, ‘Guyal the Curator’ appeared.
Were there or were there not pro-conservative messages in that story? You may not recall it, but I know you read it.
If, since you are an honest man, you will say that story had no overt political message in it, on what grounds do you assume I put overt political messages in my other stories?
In other words, you are accusing me of hypocrisy, I, who have never said a bad word about you in public or private to anyone, and who have always hitherto held you in the highest esteem. What is the factual basis for the accusation please?
If there is no factual basis, why make the accusation?
George R.R. Martin replying to John C. Wright’s comment on Not A Blog – April 14
Actually, I don’t recall “accusing” you of anything. I was pointing out that the Sad Puppy stance against “message fiction” rang kind of false when they nominate someone (six times) who has lots of “message” in his fiction. It would have been more honest for the Pups to say they don’t want liberal/ feminist/ “SJW” / socialist/ atheist/ etc messages in their stories, but they think conservative, libertarian, and Christian messages are just dandy.
Truth be told, I think there are messages in every story, whether the author intended to put them in there or not. The things we write are invariably colored by the ways we see the world.
At this date, I don’t recall the details of your story in SONGS OF THE DYING EARTH. I would need to review it. Yes, of course I read it. I bought it. I liked it. You knew your Vance, and captured the Dying Earth quite well.
Jack Vance himself was quite conservative, as you may or may not know, and grew even more so in the last years of his life. You can see it in some of his stories, though it requires careful reading; he never stopped a story for a lecture. Vance is only one of many conservative SF authors that I hold in high esteem. Actually, Vance is probably my favorite SF writer, and as a fantasist I rank him up there with Howard, Leiber, and Tolkien.
I also like Heinlein, Kipling, Niven & Pournelle, Lovecraft, Blish… I love Poul Anderson. That does not mean I believe there were no messages in their fiction. That also does not mean I agree with those messages. They wrote great stories.
What annoys me is the Sad Puppy stance that liberal writers are producing “message fiction” while guys on their ticket are just writing Ripping Good Yarns untroubled by politics or opinions.
Brad Templeton on Brad Ideas
“Second musings on the Hugo Awards and the fix” – April 13
To deal with the current cheating and the promised cheating in 2016, the following are recommended.
- Downplay the 2015 Hugo Award, perhaps with sufficient fans supporting this that all categories (including untainted ones) have no award given.
- Conduct a parallel award under a new system, and fête it like the Hugos, though they would not use that name.
- Pass new proposed rules including a special rule for 2016
- If 2016’s award is also compromised, do the same. However, at the 2016 business meeting, ratify a short-term amendment proposed in 2015 declaring the alternate awards to be the Hugo awards if run under the new rules, and discarding the uncounted results of the 2016 Hugos conducted under the old system. Another amendment would permit winners of the 2015 alternate award to say they are Hugo winners.
- If the attackers gave up, and 2016’s awards run normally, do not ratify the emergency plan, and instead ratify the new system that is robust against attack for use in 2017.
Noah Ward on Sad Puppies
“Enemies of the Revolution Resort to Underhanded Tactics” – April 14
Some may believe that with the nominations announced, the hardest part of our campaign has already been accomplished and all that remains is to coast to victory, but recent events prove the need for continuing vigilance. The eligibility committee at Sasquan has today disqualified two of our works from the final ballot based upon minor technicalities! They did this even though last year they permitted the entirety of the Wheel of Time, the first volume of which was published when the Soviet Union was still a going concern, to be nominated, with free copies of the entire series distributed to voters. In so doing they severely undermined Larry Correia’s Warbound by admitting an entire series that attracted votes away from the Sad Puppies base of adventure-loving readers.
David Gerrold on Facebook – April 14
Once again, I have to remind people that I have the name “Noah Ward” as a legally registered pseudonym with the WGAW.
People using that name are doing so without my authorization.
I’m not saying this to spoil anyone’s fun, but to protect my legal rights as well as to make sure that no one thinks I am behind the various “Noah Ward” pages and sites.
Heraldic Arms of the Hugo Justice Workers (c) 2015 by Moshe Feder
Heraldic Arms of the Hugo Justice Workers © 2015 Moshe Feder All Rights Reserved
Permission for reuse is granted to anyone fighting to restore and preserve the traditional fair play of the Hugo Awards and to send the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy vandals back to their noisome kennels.
“I will fear no puppies.”
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Huh. I really wouldn’t have pegged Connie Willis for a liar and sore loser.
Or am I that thick and she is being her satirical self? That definition of cheating, particularly cheating that “follows the rules” would be really sharp and funny…coming out of the mouth of one of her bureaucratic, emotional characters.
Interesting times…
By the way, I’ve corrected the range of nominations in the two categories where nominees were disqualified. Novelette went from 165 to 72 and Pro Artist went from 136 to 118.
“You may even be able to bully and intimidate people into voting for you. ”
Stuff you can’t make up.
One imagines Vox arriving with his flaming sword and Correia threatening to sit on unwilling masses of voters. One wonders how they are going to pull off all of this intimidation over the interwebz.
You want to know how they can bully and intimidate people into voting for them? By issuing threats about what will happen to the future Hugos if they don’t.
VD on this very site: “If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities.”
Larry Correia in his reply to GRRM, the one linked to from here, in regard to the possibility that No Award may take the Puppy-dominated categories: “And if they do that, it will send a very, very clear message. My people will proceed accordingly.”
There are categories here in which all the nominees are Puppy-sponsored. The message is clear: Vote for Puppies … or else the Hugos get it.
@ GK –
I think that some people may lose sight of the fact that just because VD lives in their heads all the time, that he doesn’t live in the noggins of *everyone*. Some of us actually don’t even care what he thinks about anything.
(And how many people do they think LC can sit on at any one time?)
More to the point of the roundup – in addition to the various povs excerpted here at File770, I’m finding it valuable (if a major time sink) to follow the various links presented at the original pages. A lot of people talking out there, which is goodness. (She says, despite having actually clicked on the Daily Kos link that Connie Willis presented. Oh, humanity.)
So you gamed a system that people have been too polite to game. Sure it’s not against the rules, but it is against the spirit of them… I’m guessing that means nothing here eh?
Well, now people want to play that game, I think I’m ok to have the goal posts moved… Of course you’re welcome to come and stop us 🙂
@DB,
Oh noes! We react to people threatening us! Note in both of these the _threat_ is from a non-puppy source. Causality is hard.
Look we predicted there would be flack you can either prove us right OR ELSE vote…for something.
Do it or Larry sits on you.
Well, claiming that VD and Larry Correia are non-Puppies is a new one on me.
@Daveon
“So you gamed a system that people have been too polite to game. Sure it’s not against the rules, but it is against the spirit of them… I’m guessing that means nothing here eh?”
We voted for people we liked. We even went through the trouble of reading those we didn’t (something that seems to be sorely missing on the Noah Ward side of things) and learned a bit as we did. I know it shocks you that people _we_ like aren’t people _you_ like, but that’s the way of the world.
And I’m sorry, having, as I’ve mentioned here before, had to usher my kids out of the room over the art in the last packet I find the SP/RP nominees in this one a HUGE improvement. It is an area we need more involvement in next year.
Well, Larry’s not going to show up, is he?
If he was, I wonder what Sasquan program would do. If it was a con I was programming I’d sure put him to work — what a drawing card.
@DB,
“claiming that…[puppies]… are not puppies is a new one on me”
Like I said causality is hard:
” “If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities.””
Notice the “if” here. That means an action happens before the outcome. _If_ “No Award” takes the category. Why would the writer discuss the chances of no award? Well lets look in this VERY thread:
“No Award is their counter-slate candidate, whether they think of it as one or not.”
So, regardless of qualifications, no award is _threatened_. If you expect us to just quietly let that go you are out of your mind. You are saying, we voted for people we liked and read, and now, because they AREN’T the people YOU liked and read you are going to take down everything. Well, that is your right. It is, after all, within the rules. But expecting us to just take an additional kick to the groin and smile is a bit much.
Now there are people who I view as opponents in this who are doing the Good Thing and voting for People They Like. Good for them! That is what an award of this kind is supposed to do! Then there are entitled spoiled brats who threaten to destroy the whole thing if they don’t get what they want. That would be folks on your side.
Notice for example Vox didn’t say, “if X wins there will be blood!” nor did Larry.
@Mike,
“Well, Larry’s not going to show up, is he?”
Which I find regrettable. I hope he changes his mind. Of course I think the same thing of Vox and I’d pay money to watch him walk in. The funny thing is, and this is only a guess, I don’t think he’d be recognized until after he arrived.
Seems to have trouble grasping what a threat is. “If … then” is a threat. IF you don’t do what we want, THEN we will do this (or take ominous unspecified action). That’s a threat. Voting for No Award is not a threat … because what can you do or not do about it at this point? Nobody’s threatening you with it.
Seems also to have trouble grasping the concept of slate voting. Problem isn’t that you voted for what you like. Puppy-like fiction has been on the final ballot in past years. (I think … in all their rhetoric it isn’t clear to me exactly -what- it is that Puppies like. Novels from Baen or Del Rey? Stories from Analog? Military SF? Space opera? All these have been nominated for Hugos in past years.) It’s that you organized slates and voted en masse for what the slates said. If you really had voted for what you like, you would all have chosen slightly differently, as all the rest of us did.
Also:
1) Already been destroyed. Destroyed with a slate. Not honest voting.
2) Doesn’t need to be “blood” to be a threat.
Er…. GK… Old chap… You say you nominated what you read? But on another thread here didn’t you say you intended to read all the nominees and were working through Jim Butchers back catalog?
Given your slate was Butcher, Kloos and Andersen for best novel surely you read them?
FWIW I read the Kloos which contained this line “the cloud of debris still expanding at a quarter gee acceleration”… That was just after a scientist remembered the formula for kinetic energy a feat no scientists in the employ of Earth’s militaries had managed through years of war with implacable aliens…
I’m impressed people read it and still wanted to nominate it… And for a work lacking in ‘messages’ the digs at the Sino Russians were amusing.
But I read it, and I’ll do the Andersen. I don’t like Dresden novels, done a few, don’t need to do more, but don’t ever accuse me of not trying.
But if that is what you like and you think it’s good enough? Wow. Just wow.
Connie Willis thinks that voting for any other reason than what works you like best is cheating. I think she only means that when the wrong kind of people vote. I wonder if she would say that a group of people talking about how they will only vote for writers with a certain skin color, using that as their first and fundamental criteria is cheating. These things are difficult to prove, but in that case there’s a written record.
Thanks a lot, Kevin! Just blogged about the figures, in case anybody is interested.
@Daveon: I’m seeing a number of people people doing that lately (taking sentences by writers to try to prove they are bad writers). However, it does not really prove anything. It’s a mean-spirited game that can be played with any writer. However, as someone in the SF&F forum said, you can always find sentences that sound clumsy when taken out of context, with any writer.
‘Daniel sat back, steepling his long fingers across his waistcoat. He bought them from a little shop in Brixton Market.’ (Paul McAuley, Something Coming Through, 2015)
‘He caught Bril’s eye squarely as it returned from another disgusted and apprehensive trip to the boulder, and laughed outright.’ (Theodore Sturgeon, ‘The Skills of Xanadu’, July 1956 Galaxy)
If Vox goes to Sasquan, I’m going. Watching the other writers react to his appearance would be worth the travel expense.
‘Some of us actually don’t even care what he thinks about anything.’
You’d have to. You’d have to REALLY REALLY not care. Fingers in your ears la-la-la-la-not-listening not care. Standing-here-minding-my-own-business-while-the-baby-wanders-into-traffic not care. It’s a notably impressive feat of not caring.
“Connie Willis thinks that voting for any other reason than what works you like best is cheating.”
Connie Willis is correct.
“Connie Willis is correct”
But in that case, why is it tolerated when it’s done by those with the accepted politics?
@Spacefaringkitten
Thanks for posting the link. I found this interesting, as so many people are conflating the different groups of people.
“So, there are at least 165 Rabid Puppy minded voters in the Hugo race, and at least 100 more of the Sad Puppy flavor (if we take a guess based on the high end of the ranges in novelette, short story related work and editor short form categories) — probably more, because you can’t have everybody bloc-voting in absolute lockstep and there’s bound to be some dispersing.”
Also, thanks for posting links to the works already online.
“And I’m sorry, having, as I’ve mentioned here before, had to usher my kids out of the room over the art in the last packet I find the SP/RP nominees in this one a HUGE improvement. It is an area we need more involvement in next year.”
I’m not sure if you’re talking about the Best Artist Nominees or not, but there was no need to usher any kids out of the room over the 2014 Best Artist nominees, as anyone can see for themselves:
http://www.johnpicacio.com/portfolio/2014/index.html
http://www.juliedillonart.com/
http://www.dandossantos.com/gallery.html
http://fionastaples.tumblr.com/
http://www.galendara.com/
http://www.alisoneldred.com/artistJohnHarris.html
It bears repeating that fiction containing messages =/= message fiction. This isn’t hard.
Unless he’s heavily incognito (in which case why bother) and certain legal restrictions that I’ve read apply to him are incorrect (he wouldn’t be the only person who might want to attend Worldcon who is legally barred from entering the USA; think Peter Watts and Cheryl Morgan, both of whom have actually won Hugo Awards), I wasn’t expecting Vox to appear in Spokane. Heck, the last I checked, he’s not even a member of Sasquan (under either name), although of course you’re allowed to de-list yourself so that’s not definitive. (Nor would I object to him de-listing himself; it’s your right not to appear on such a public list.)
Possibly VD would like to comment on this and clarify his membership status in the current Worldcon?
I’m curious about something. David Gerrold explains that he has the name “Noah Ward” as a legally registered pseudonym with the WGAW. I have no idea what the law about this is like. Does this mean that it is illegal for anybody else use that name, even for non-commercial purposes?
“But in that case, why is it tolerated when it’s done by those with the accepted politics?”
If you have actual evidence to prove that secret bloc voting decided a Hugo in the past 10-15 years, by all means provide it.
So far everyone who makes a claim like yours has nothing but vague insinuations.
“Does this mean that it is illegal for anybody else use that name, even for non-commercial purposes?”
I think the purpose is to prevent two Writer’s Guild of America members from getting a credit under the same name. It would bind their membership and likely other groups that have agreements with the guild.
It would not put limits on people who have nothing to do with the guild. If Gerrold wanted that kind of protection, he’d need to register Noah Ward as a trademark.
‘It bears repeating that fiction containing messages =/= message fiction.’
Any chance of a few examples of Hugo-winning message fiction?
OK, now I fully accept that RH was a godawful bully. Saw some of it. Never on the receiving end. But did she also run over Laura Mixon’s dog? She’s stopped (as far as anyone can tell), she’s apologised. What does it take to accept that appology and move on?
https://file770.com/?p=21863
@AG: “But in that case, why is it tolerated when it’s done by those with the accepted politics?”
Because of the messenger.
That’s blunt, but there you go. I’m not old, but I’ve been around. I grew up on science fiction and fantasy, I love roleplaying games, I fit the description of a literary nerd in the usual ways. I have my opinions, I’m not shy about stating them, either, but I don’t care for ideologies. Everyone needs to be able to hold their beliefs at arm’s length and look at them honestly.
So, I’m sympathetic to the idea that the Hugo Awards are non-representative, but if someone expresses this by saying that social justice warriors are out to steal everyone’s junk and ruin science fiction, too– No. Because, to be blunt again, I don’t see it. James Tiptree Jr.’s “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” was published in 1976. It won a Hugo. The world didn’t end then for “conservative” fiction– Orson Scott Card won a Hugo for Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead. Military SF still exists– Just look at Ancillary Justice.
😀
–And science fiction isn’t a zero-sum game.
AG…. The problem isn’t that it’s a badly written sentence, which Dave Langford has been mocking for decades, the problem is… Er…. You didn’t see the problem there is you? A few sentences later they’re watching the flash from the explosion almost 2 AUs away. The odd bad sentence, run on, over long etc… In this particular book is one thing, the basic science the author could have looked up because it’s high school physics is not something I am going to overlook in a Hugo nominee in 2015…
Context doesn’t fix errors.
But there… I read one.
” fiction containing messages =/= message fiction. This isn’t hard.”
Ok, so you won’t mind giving me a working definition that we can apply then. Let’s be specific too, nothing fluffy about ‘SJW’s or ‘good stories’… Just something so I can tell those apart without any of this personal subjective nonsense eh?
Thanks for the explanation about the registered pseudonym.
>If you have actual evidence to prove that secret bloc voting
>decided a Hugo in the past 10-15 years, by all means provide it.
I do not have evidence of a Hugo being decided that way. I also would not call it a secret voting bloc, because I have no evidence that they actually voted the same exact list. However, I do have evidence of people agreeing to vote for political reasons, so I suppose that would be enough to satisfy Connie Willis’ definition of cheating.
http://nkjemisin.com/2015/04/not-the-affirmative-action-you-meant-not-the-history-youre-making/
Here (see the comments below the article), a visitor to N. K. Jemisin’s blog says that people are “openly talking about Affirmative Action, about deliberately trying to read and nominate books by POC, with the ‘by POC’ coming first before anything else”. N. K. Jemisin acknowledges that it is true, but says that it is justified because there is “favoritism shown to white male authors” and “exclusion of non-white-male authors”.
For the record, I am not saying that this kind of political voting is cheating. I am just pointing out that political voting is something that happens and that, since it causes no rage when it is for the kind of politics more widely accepted by the community, it seems to me that political voting per se is not the source of the rage. I believe that in this case that the rage is due to:
1) The success of the campaign
2) Political opposition to the ideas that the campaign defends, or is perceived as defending
Nigel: Ursula K. LeGuin’s THE DISPOSSESSED reads like “message fiction” to me. It won not just the Hugo Award, but also the Nebula, the Locus, and the Prometheus.
If Vox Day is willing to go to Worldcon, but Larry Correia is so afraid of the mean SJWs at Worldcon and will not go… damn that guy is a wimp. We should offer to buy Larry a body cam that he could wear at the con and if anyone is mean to him he can show the recording to staff and put it on the web?
AG, the “affirmative action” being suggested there does not involve nominating works by POC simply on account of the author’s race, but seeking out works by POC and nominating them *if they’re good enough to deserve awards*. You may consider this a good idea or a bad idea, but it’s not comparable to what the Puppies are doing.
(If Jemisin were engaging in Puppy-like tactics, she would put forth a small list of recommended works by POC and then two hundred of her devoted fans would nominate that list for Hugos. This would not only be unfairly manipulating the Hugo process, but it would also be unfair for the POC who wrote excellent work but didn’t make it to her list.)
By the way, is VD still a member of the SFWA? This Locus post is confusing, but it ends with:
http://www.locusmag.com/News/2013/08/beale-expelled-from-sfwa/
“Update: This post has been revised (2/13/15) due to both of the source postings being changed. Originally both Beale and SFWA’s posts implied that he had been expelled, but Massachusetts by-laws require a membership vote to expel members, which as of February 2015 has still not occurred to our knowledge, and Beale remains a lifetime member of SFWA. SFWA’s official statement is available at SFWA.org.”
SFWA is now incorporated in California, so whatever the rules were in Massachusetts is irrelevant.
“SFWA is now incorporated in California, so whatever the rules were in Massachusetts is irrelevant.”
Good to know. When I saw the article for a moment I thought we would have another session of drama.
because I have no evidence that they actually voted the same exact list. However, I do have evidence of people agreeing to vote for political reasons, so I suppose that would be enough to satisfy Connie Willis’ definition of cheating.
No, then you don’t… You might be able to dig up people saying they’ll vote for a particular work, but I would LOVE to see your evidence that people got together to push a list of candidates for an entire category. Off you go, links please, we’ll be here.
Did you not read my post? I explained there what I have evidence of and what I do not have evidence of.
What to do about the Hugo situation? I think I have an idea that doesn’t involve changing the rules or descending into the quagmire of the business meeting.
1.5.7: Other memberships and fees shall be at the discretion of the Worldcon Committee.
In the previous section, the price of supporting memberships in the 90 days after the site selection vote is specified as a ratio. There doesn’t seem to be anything from stopping Kansas City and future worldcons from pegging their supporting memberships at 50% of an attenting membership. (If I’m wrong, I’m sure I will be corrected.) If Sasquan had implemented such a policy, a supporting membership would now cost $105. I think this would have been high enough to stop rounding up internet crowds to diddle the Hugos.
If Kansas City were to implement this policy immediately, their supporting membership would go from $50 to $75 with more increases to follow. Why would future worlldcons want to do this. If they don’t want their very own puppygate, it would be a very good idea.
@Milt
I suppose it might be an immediate response to the problem while something better gets worked out.
I don’t think that reducing the voting base is any way to make the Hugos seem less cliquey. All my instincts say that the path should be to ensure that there are so many voices that the puppies are just a small voice in a crowd.
Any solution that substantially shrinks the number of Hugo voters is potentially going to hurt the prestige of the awards. The voting pool is pretty small already.
I am a Worldcon participant solely through supporting memberships and Hugo voting. I’ve always voted in good faith and feel an ownership stake in Worldcon and the Hugos. I think it might be a mistake to discourage all supporting members through higher prices in the hopes it will get the minority of anti-Hugos people out.
@DB,
“Seems to have trouble grasping what a threat is. “If … then” is a threat. IF you don’t do what we want, THEN we will do this (or take ominous unspecified action). ”
When someone says, “if you eat your lunch I’m going to punch you in the face,” and you respond, “if you do I’ll punch back,” the second is not a threat. Again casuality is hard.
“Seems also to have trouble grasping the concept of slate voting. Problem isn’t that you voted for what you like. Puppy-like fiction has been on the final ballot in past years. (I think … in all their rhetoric it isn’t clear to me exactly -what- it is that Puppies like. Novels from Baen or Del Rey? Stories from Analog? Military SF? Space opera? All these have been nominated for Hugos in past years.) It’s that you organized slates and voted en masse for what the slates said. If you really had voted for what you like, you would all have chosen slightly differently, as all the rest of us did”
No it really isn’t and your ignorance is astounding. You keep repeating a lie. We’ll take just one non-puppy slate as an example this year:
http://www.jasonsanford.com/blog/2015/2/my-hugo-and-nebula-award-nominations
We will also note that the differences in count for _Puppy Slate Votes_ is wider _BY PERCENTAGE_ than in previous years. Go ask Kevin for his numbers. He’s definitely not an ally to our cause. I know, reality hurts when it conflicts with your worldview. You should try it anyway.
“1) Already been destroyed. Destroyed with a slate. Not honest voting.”
If you consider slate voting “destroying” the Hugo’s they were destroyed a very long time ago. Google say “2011 hugo picks”. It isn’t hard.
This is getting fun now:
“You say you nominated what you read? But on another thread here didn’t you say you intended to read all the nominees and were working through Jim Butchers back catalog?”
Indeed I did. Now find where I said I nominated Butcher. See you keep making this giant assumption, despite the wide variance in votes from the top of the slate to the bottom and amongst individual candidates, that we all nominated the same people. I would say there was strong consenus but not unanimity.
“Given your slate was Butcher, Kloos and Andersen for best novel surely you read them?”
Only if I _read_ all of them. See that’s the part you miss. You all act as if perfect uniform counts were turned in. They weren’t as Kevin has demonstrated. I’ve even demonstrated here (and elsewhere) that I read the stories last year and why I voted the way I did. But do try harder we all would appreciate it.
@AG,
I applaud you for this, “Connie Willis thinks that voting for any other reason than what works you like best is cheating. I think she only means that when the wrong kind of people vote. I wonder if she would say that a group of people talking about how they will only vote for writers with a certain skin color, using that as their first and fundamental criteria is cheating.”
And for getting rcade to walk straight into it. It made me laugh. I’ll hold the punchline though and let him mull over it a bit.
@SpaceKitten,
“probably more, because you can’t have everybody bloc-voting in absolute lockstep and there’s bound to be some dispersing”
IMPOSSIBLE! (please include French accenting)
@David W,
I should have been more specific. I believe it was best fan art. If I dig around on my hard drive I can find the examples.
@rcade,
You aren’t listening to a thing we are saying as your comments indicate. Nor are you grounded in any sort of reality. Slates appeared before us nor is a secret cable required in order to keep people out of something. All you need is a preference for something else. There is a famous computer science experiment with different colored squares which name escapes me right now that discusses this. Even then, the EXISTING cable did seem to vote in much more lock step than the puppies did. But facts; don’t let them get in the way.
You’ve also moved the goal posts, which again isn’t surprising. Last thread I believe it was slates and now it is secret societies. Do make up your mind.
@Chris G.,
No they aren’t because the vote was while incorporated in Mass. It is interesting that SFWA has never publicly contested this. And I think for good reason.
@NickPheas: so you would be in favor or making the supporting membership cheaper? That might make undesired results more likely.
“The world didn’t end then for “conservative” fiction– Orson Scott Card won a Hugo for Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead.”
Orson Scott Card was (is?) a liberal Democrat. Some people assume he’s conservative because of his opposition to gay marriage. Obama was opposed to gay marriage until 2012 — does that make him a conservative?
Anyway, I still find the SP position a bit incoherent. Is it message fiction that they object to, or is Social Justice fiction, or is it “literary” SFF– as opposed to “entertainment” SFF — that is the problem?