Hugo Award finalists Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet announced today they are withdrawing their stories from consideration.
At this writing, the Sasquan Hugo administrator has yet to announce that the withdrawals have been accepted (although there is no reason to assume they will not), or whether the vacancies will be filled by the next highest-voted works.
Kloos is the author of the novel Lines of Departure, and Bellet of the short story “Goodnight Stars.”
Marko Kloos posted this statement on his blog:
I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards.
It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.
I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics.
Thank you to everyone who voted for “Lines of Departure” because you read the novel and genuinely thought it worthy of award recognition. Please be assured that I did not reach this decision lightly, and that I don’t want to nullify or minimize your opinion. But keeping the nomination is not a moral option at this point, and I hope you will understand.
This is my choice alone, and I am making it without pressure from any side in the current Hugo debate. Please respect it as such.
Annie Bellet gave this explanation on her blog:
I have withdrawn my story “Goodnight Stars” from consideration in this year’s Hugo Awards.
I want to make it clear I am not doing this lightly. I am not doing it because I am ashamed. I am not doing it because I was pressured by anyone either way or on any “side,” though many friends have made cogent arguments for both keeping my nomination and sticking it out, as well as for retracting it and letting things proceed without me in the middle.
I am withdrawing because this has become about something very different than great science fiction. I find my story, and by extension myself, stuck in a game of political dodge ball, where I’m both a conscripted player and also a ball. (Wrap your head around that analogy, if you can, ha!) All joy that might have come from this nomination has been co-opted, ruined, or sapped away. This is not about celebrating good writing anymore, and I don’t want to be a part of what it has become.
I am not a ball. I do not want to be a player. This is not what my writing is about. This is not why I write. I believe in a compassionate, diverse, and inclusive world. I try to write my own take on human experiences and relationships, and present my fiction as entertainingly and honestly as I can.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
And the close minded anti-puppy bullies claim two more scalps…
Oh boy. Sympathies to both Kloos and Bellet, and especially to the Hugo administrator who has to sort everything out.
@TW: Anti-Puppy bullies seem to be pledging to buy their books and praising their courage on Twitter. Scalps seem to be intact.
I’d never heard of Bellet or Kloos before this year’s Hugo fiasco, but they’re coming across as thoroughly impressive people. I’m really looking forward to reading their work, and I hope I get to vote for them someday under better conditions.
Has Kevin J Anderson or Jim Butcher spoken publicly about this? I believe each of them has sold millions of books. So many that a Hugo Nomination or even a win would have no impact on their sales (since they are so big already). Both of them are keeping radio silent. If they were really chomping at the bit to get nominated their fan base is big enough where they could have appealed them directly for a nomination. Butcher could probably get nominated by going ‘hey never been nominated, i think this is my best book’ on his website. Due to the size of his fan base. He never did that.
Id be curious to see if they withdraw also. They don’t seem to be saying much of anything about the Hugos.
@sfk
They get the carrot, instead of the stick….
I have just written to both Annie and Marko to express my admiration and respect for what I know must have been a very tough decision to make. I believe that they are two writers who have faith in the quality or their own work and who ask simply that the work be judged on it’s own merit and not with any taint of someone else’s political agenda. What Annie and Marko did today shows true character and a respect for the rest of us – the fans and readers of science fiction and fantasy – that the “sad puppies” have shown all too clearly that they lack. Thank you, Annie Bellett and Marko Kloos, for showing us that the integrity of your work comes first.
“Butcher could probably get nominated by going ‘hey never been nominated, i think this is my best book’ on his website. Due to the size of his fan base.”
Yep. Several best-selling SF/F writers could have gamed the Hugos like that over the years, both for themselves and their friends. The awards have long relied on the sense of fair play of the pros who participated in them.
“Anti-puppy bullies”? What a laugh. The “sad puppies” are nothing more than “Hugo-terrorists”, bent on forcing their ideas of what everyone should be reading and giving awards to on the rest of us. They have no legitimacy, no credibility, no character and no class. They are thugs bent on tearing down the SF field rather than working to build anything up. Go and play in the traffic, “sad puppies”…
This is why the Puppies’ slate tactics are wrong. Not for the rightness or wrongness of their cause. Not for the inevitable deviciveness they must have realised woild come of it.
But for the pain you can feel in these announcements, the way – when you set out to rock the status quo – the victims are all to often those caught in the cross fire.
When a work is judged ineligible, I know it’s replaced with the next work down the list. However, it’s not clear to me what happens when an accepted nomination is later declined. Are they also replaced with works further down the nomination list?
Congratulations on all those who poured their hatred of the puppies over the authors and their stories.
And a more sincere congratulation to those anti-puppies who have acted humanely, and to the puppies who voted because they liked the work and wanted to celebrate what they liked, instead of voting because of resentment.
I bought Kloos book last night. I didn’t think it was very good, but he deserved payment for his work. But hey, I’m just a bully, what do I know.
They shouldn’t be unless the rules require that they have to be, simply because if they are replaced with new works, it just creates an incentive for bullies of all stripes to target people to try and drive them off the ballot so that their candidates can be on there instead.
And if you don’t think that will happen, I envy you having missed the last few years of the slander wars.
If nothing else good comes from this whole sorry, sad, twisted mess, I’ve had some newer authors brought to my attention sooner rather than later. I suspect the tall children in the weeds on both sides will try to use these withdrawals as more grist for the mills of their dislike and distaste for each other. For my part, I see two human beings, writers who want it to be about the WORK, not petty squabbling and in-fighting. Both of them deserved better than they’ve gotten.
“rcade” wrote: “Several best-selling SF/F writers could have gamed the Hugos like that over the years, both for themselves and their friends. The awards have long relied on the sense of fair play of the pros who participated in them.”
Yes, and that’s what’s allowed the mess we find ourselves in now to happen. In all the years since science fiction fandom started in 1929, we’ve always assumed that anyone who choose to become active in our field would work to build SF *up* just as most SF fans always have. It never really occurred to anyone that some anti-social thugs would come along and work to tear *down* all that we had built. But that’s what the “sad puppies” have done. Like misbehaving toddlers who grow desperate for attention – *any* attention, the little curs have finally gotten our attention by picking up some matches that we carelessly left lying around and setting fire to our house. Never mind that the flames will consume their doghouses too, they just *love* this attention, don’t they?
“Rcade”, it’s never wise to rely on the sense of “fair play” in such poorly-socialized strangers. Turns out, they didn’t have any…
Deirdre asked: “When a work is judged ineligible, I know it’s replaced with the next work down the list. However, it’s not clear to me what happens when an accepted nomination is later declined. Are they also replaced with works further down the nomination list?”
This isn’t the first time that authors have removed their works from the ballot after the final ballot was announced. In the past a few writers have had more than one story nominated in the same category and have asked that one of them be removed in order to avoid “splitting the vote” between those two stories. In those cases, the Hugo Committee has *not* moved the next highest nominated story up to the ballot, so that’s the precedent. I’m sue that Hugo administrator John Lorentz has noted this for this year..
I feel terrible for the authors involved in this. To be nominated for a Hugo has to feel amazing, then to find out that it was because of slate voting because a group of tin foil hat wearing puppies wanted to use your work to make a statement has to suck. Even if the author agrees with them I’m certain that most authors would want to be nominated based on the strength of their work.
That some of the authors chose to decline what should have been an honor in any other year is heartbreaking. Whether they choose to stay on or not I have a lot of respect for those having to make that tough decision.
For those authors know that your contributions to the genre are important regardless of affiliation, most fans appreciate the work you do, and many people have benefited from the worlds you share. Thank you for putting up with dumb petty bullshit.
It’s almost like TW didn’t read the statements of Kloos or Bellet where they make clear that they made the decision based on their own morals and not due to any outside forces puppy or fen.
I’ve been reading Kloos for years, and now how upset he was with Beales for having him on the slate last year. Bellet, whose 20 Sided Sorceress book I read a few months back, has been vocal since this started that she didn’t know she was going to be slate nominated, and didn’t want that to be her legacy.
This was their decision, after being placed in a very difficult spot by Teddy and Brad.
Wow, what a difficult but gutsy decision by both writers. They have my eternal respect.
And the dancing around the flames continues, as the SJWs revel in the destruction.
Nice. It’s always harder to create, than to destroy. “Are you not entertained?”
File770 had, a couple of days back a (unrelated) story about the new-ish use of ‘tabled’, that asked whether a new word could quickly enter usage in fandom without quite being noticed.
That puts me in mind of an excellent candidate characterisation of the current mess, introduced by Armando Ianucci’s hit satirical BBC series ‘The Thick of It’ (which ran 2005-2012) — omnishambles.
L’affaire Puppygate is an omnishambles if ever I saw one.
Rick Moen
[email protected]
I hope the stories are replaced. One reason for fans to pay $40 is for what we get in the hugo packet. I really don’t want to pay $40 and get less and less stuff to read… Yeah I know its a little selfish. I think it should be replaced. Might as well let someone else get on the ballot.
“One reason for fans to pay $40 is for what we get in the hugo packet.”
True, but that’s completely voluntary on the part of the publishers and only a recent development.
I’ve been wondering whether this controversy happens at all of there’s no expectation of a packet. Asking people to pay $40 to stick it to social justice warriors is a less attractive proposition when there’s no reward of a bunch of free stuff to read.
Deirdre: I have sent an e-mail to John Lorentz inquiring if he will be filling the vacancies. If that’s his plan, I know he will need to get acceptances from the replacement nominees (which is what delayed the announcement about the ineligibles over the weekend).
Since online voting has not begun, nor a ballot form been published, the administrator is still working with a relatively clean slate. I encouraged him to announce whatever ground rules he will apply to allow other withdrawals, and when he will lock the ballot — though I expect he has already thought of that.
Congratulations and condolences to Annie Bellet and Marko Kloos. Since I suppose they will not be in the packet now, I will make an effort to buy and read some of their work.
Perhaps in some more auspicious, slate-free year I can nominate and vote for their work with an undivided heart.
“… then to find out that it was because of slate voting”
As opposed to being a diversity-hire? Is that when pride comes marching in… and quality?
Good for both of them. I do like the SF potential of the sport Annie describes, too.
rcade said
“Asking people to pay $40 to stick it to social justice warriors is a less attractive proposition when there’s no reward of a bunch of free stuff to read.”
Asking people to pay $40 to avoid social justice warriors sticking it to you once again is a very attractive proposition. Hope you enjoy it when they turn on you. (Because they will. It’s in their nature.)
“As opposed to being a diversity-hire? Is that when pride comes marching in… and quality?”
Are you really comparing slate voting for a community award for Sci-fi/Fantasy fiction to Affirmative Action? If you also have nausea, dizziness, vomiting, or aphasia please call your doctor immediately
As Pat Cadigan pointed out on Facebook, these two are the very definition of “integrity”. I am stunned.
And may I also say a good word for Hugo Administrator John Lorentz and his Hugo subcommittee? These folks are all volunteers and had every reason to expect that the working on the Hugo Awards this year would be, well, a lot of hard work, but also a lot of fun. So far it appears to me that it’s largely been nothing but heartache for them. John and his committee never asked for the storm of chaos that’s been dumped on them and it appears to me (and I’ve been watching closely…) that they’ve been bending over backwards to try to be completely fair to everyone involved and to carry out their task without allowing their own personal feelings to sway their decisions. I know some of the committee personally. They’re *good* people and good fans, and they’re doing the best they can with a horrendously difficult situation. I call upon all of Fandom to recognize the integrity of John Lorentz and his Hugo committee and to support them in these trying days. They’re doing the best they can, and they’re doing it for *us*.
Thanks Mike and Curt.
I suspect others are poring over other potential ineligibles, too.
“Asking people to pay $40 to avoid social justice warriors sticking it to you once again is a very attractive proposition.”
I’ve voted in the Hugos since 2008. There are no social justice warriors sticking it to people through these awards. The scenario you describe is so fictional it should be eligible for a short story Hugo next year.
I respect what these two writers have done; they want their work to be judged on its own merits, not as part of the SPs or RPs slates. As for all this horsehockey about SJWs; I’ve been attending the WorldCon, on and off, for more than 30 years. I have never voted for a nominee based upon their political or religious beliefs. It has always been based on a single criteria; how much did I like the story? When you think of some of the giants in the field who have not won a Hugo Awards (Terry Pratchett, Gene Wolfe, Ray Freakin’ Bradbury), you should realize that there is no entitlement to a Hugo Award. It comes down to which stories in a particular year resonated with enough readers to make the ballot, and then how those stories resonate with the WolrdCon members. Over the decades, they’ve done a pretty damn good job of finding great stories, and nobody had to push a slate of nominees to get those stories out there.
What makes people think that these two withdrew because they have been silenced by SJWs? Neither of them mentioned that. Or is just asking a simple question like that enough for me to be part of the Big Conspiracy Only Puppies Can See?
“What makes people think that these two withdrew because they have been silenced by SJWs?”
It’s far more agreeable to imagine that your enemies are bullies than to imagine that people you admire are ashamed to be seen in your company.
I find this all deliciously amusing. Our GenFems find themselves caught in a trap they cannot maneuver their way out of. These withdrawals are yet more of this stretched out moment of checkmate when the opponent is still fruitlessly seeking a way out.
Given the stupid kafkatraps like “ableist slurs” feminists throw at us, it’s as much as they deserve. The difference is this is no kafkatrap. This is a genuine lapse of morals and principles and one we’ve openly warned them away from a thousand times. We gave them a way out, and they’ve never taken it.
IntGenFem is an ideology which stipulates there is dark without light and light without dark. For some reason, they think we won’t notice when they assert misandry is as laughable a concept as it is laughable to imagine there is no such thing as misogyny. Since GenFems assert that is a biological hatred and not their usual “punching up” idiocy, they are making their imaginary argument of Vox Day’s for him: that men and women are hopelessly different. From there it’s just another trap. Once a difference is asserted, it is either better or worse. Therefore this ideology affirms women are inferior or that GenFems are themselves supremacists. Different but equal has that Orwellian clang of stupidity all intersectionalist thought does.
“Andrew” wrote: “What makes people think that these two withdrew because they have been silenced by SJWs? Neither of them mentioned that.”
I think that these two writers withdrew in part because of the puppy-poo because I went to their blog sites and read what they actually wrote in their announcements of their withdrawals. You could have done that too, Andrew, and I’ll suggest that you should have before you wrote this posting.
“Or is just asking a simple question like that enough for me to be part of the Big Conspiracy Only Puppies Can See?”
No, asking questions is a good thing. I like asking questions myself. For example, I’d like to ask you exactly why you felt it necessary to ask your question with all that “in-your-face” attitude? Aggressive attitudes don’t impress us in Fandom; they just get in the way of true communication.
By the way; is it just me or is this “puppy” nonsense getting pretty lame? “Sad puppy” this, and “sad puppy that”. It’s becoming the social media equivalent of “Hello Kitty”. Maybe I’ll go to Sasquan to find that “Vox Day” has licensed a line of “sad puppy” t-shirts, “sad puppy” tote bags, and “sad puppy” under-roos for kids. I think your 15 minutes is about over, Theodore…
James May: Whether or not you are just trolling or you actually believe that bilge you just typed, I feel sorry for you. This nonsense may be a game to you or you may be crowing and counting coup. Whichever is the case here, that your life is so barren that you find this “amusing” speaks volumes about you.
“I think that these two writers withdrew in part because of the puppy-poo because I went to their blog sites and read what they actually wrote in their announcements of their withdrawals. You could have done that too, Andrew, and I’ll suggest that you should have before you wrote this posting.”
I did. Which is why I found posts like TW’s and MTroyd’s so strange. The writers didn’t mention those tactics but those posters seemed sure enough that I wanted to know if there was actual outside information about this or if they were just basing it on their feelings.
” For example, I’d like to ask you exactly why you felt it necessary to ask your question with all that “in-your-face” attitude? Aggressive attitudes don’t impress us in Fandom; they just get in the way of true communication.”
Fair enough. I’m letting my own biases creep in. I’ve dealt with other conspiracy-minded groups coming into communities of mine and the Sad Puppies exhibit that same mindset to me. My experience is that it is nearly impossible to reason someone out of a conspiracy theory. I generally devolve into snark even though the polite road would probably be to not say anything.
Adherents of intersectionalism – which is all SJWs really are – have repeatedly shown themselves so crippled by bias that simple comparisons, analogies and metaphors are unavailable to them. That leaves them pitifully easy to maneuver and predict. Give me the race and gender and I can predict where an intersectionalist will come down virtually 100% of the time. What’s so hard to predict about people who “enjoy” literature using photos and “de-white” their libraries and “de-white” discussions on panels? “De-literaturizing” is more like it. Yet another trap appears, as SJWs are asserting race brings with it something consistently innate, a thing the KKK also believes. If one can assert a panel discussion is more interesting by virtue of race, one can assert it is stupider for the same reason. This is where SJW’s pitiful lack of principle opens them up to their own downfall.
What makes SJWs think they haven’t been maneuvered right down to slating certain people? Slating Requires Hate would’ve been too obvious.
Have fun fems; you wrecked your own joint. We have repeatedly begged you not to. But you insisted on no “white dude parades.” Well, what’s the other side of that? Light or dark?
As to “Vox Day” and merchandising, he’s already sort of begun that. At the bottom of the page with his slate for Rabid Puppies 2015, there’s a link to a store where you can get “Rabid Puppies” shirts. It’s also pretty much made clear in the same paragraph that the intent is to “blow up the Hugos”. I suspect this is more about hurt feelings and an attempt to make $$$ than any “principles” or the idea that some people are under-represented for an award nomination process.
It says something when you feel you must game an award nominating process to try to move work you’ve published while at the same time pointing to Amazon ratings as “objective” proof that said work is of quality.
Mr. Reynolds, what is the basis of all law?
James May: “Not to go on all fours; that is the law.” Do I pass?
Surprising how fast some people can go from hurling abuse to saying how wonderful these writers are and I’m going to buy your book. Tomorrow it will be back to the normal on those who remain.
Mr. May, the basis of all law is equity, morality and ethical behavior in our dealings with each other. Laws are also promulgated to allow for sanctioning those whose actions injure society to the point where sanction is necessary and desirable.
Your post shows precious little interest in anything ethical, moral or equitable. You merely come across as a troll. That’s the least disturbing conclusion. The most disturbing conclusion is that you actually BELIEVE what you typed.
” You merely come across as a troll. That’s the least disturbing conclusion. The most disturbing conclusion is that you actually BELIEVE what you typed.”
Either he really believes it or he is an extremely dedicated troll. He’s been posting this kind of stuff at length at various SFF blogs for years.
Mr. Glyer-Nicely played. Interestingly enough, there’s a saying in the law that, when a lawyer points out a case is “on all fours”, it matches completely with precedent and the case should therefore stand under that precedent.